The Current Crisis
It’s Cold Out There
So much so, that global warming’s computer has frozen.
WASHINGTON — If you are going out anytime over the next few months, may I suggest that you wear a hat? You might even buy earmuffs. We are experiencing yet another cold winter. Al Gore may believe in global warming, but I suggest that he have a word with his fellow environmental catastrophists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Predictions. Since the end of 1998 global warming has ceased. In fact, it is getting colder out there. Two thousand eight was possibly the coldest year of this young century. Over the last two years temperatures have dropped by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius — brrrr.
The reason I mention Al’s co-religionists at the Hadley Centre is that they have come to realize that computer projections of global warming have been wrong. Carbon dioxide levels have indeed increased but not temperatures. So bundle up, Al. Last year, in many parts of the world, snowfalls reached levels not seen in decades. The Associated Press recently shrieked that global warming “is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can’t avoid,” but the facts are otherwise. The computer models that have predicted global warming have failed just as the computer models that predicted very few financial losses for the insurance industry from credit default swaps (CDSs) failed.
Christopher Booker, writing in London’s Daily Telegraph, observes that “2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved.” I am not sure I would go that far, but I do believe that the so-called consensus that the catastrophists claim exists among scientists has frayed, and it may be years before we know if global warming is long-range or what causes it. It may be caused by humans, but it may also be caused by natural activity on the sun.
From the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization has come a very interesting book of essays that displays the diverse views of some very serious scientific minds. One contributor, Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, raises the question: “Is the Global Warming Alarm Founded on Fact?” He acknowledges that over the decades there has been some global warming but argues that the predictions of catastrophe are greatly exaggerated. “Actual observations suggest that the sensitivity of the real climate is much less than that found in computer models whose sensitivity depends on processes that are clearly misrepresented.”
Then there is Freeman Dyson, who in the June 12, 2008 issue of the New York Review of Books writes very calmly about global warming. He assures us that “genetically engineered carbon-eating trees” are just around the corner, likely to be developed in twenty years, certain to be developed in fifty years. What is so promising about genetically engineered carbon-eating trees? Writes Dyson: “Carbon-eating trees could convert most of the carbon that they absorb from the atmosphere into some chemically stable form and bury it underground. Or they could convert the carbon into liquid fuels and other useful chemicals.”
So relax. Our future is in the trees — genetically engineered carbon eating trees. Frigid winters are on the return. Al Gore’s next new thing will be the common cold. It is rather amazing to think of how he and the catastrophists whipped up hysteria worldwide. One wonders what their next fear will be, carnivorous trees?
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (174) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/08/its-cold-out-there
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- Nuts to Nutter
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
bronxrob| 1.8.09 @ 7:56AM
climate change? only another socialist hoax aimed at the simpleminded.
saleboter| 1.8.09 @ 8:13AM
It isn't about saving the planet. It's about controling the use of energy and who can get and use it.
frost| 1.8.09 @ 8:27AM
It's so damned simple - - Computer Models will say whatever the programmer WANTS 'em to say.
And people believe that crap?
Ammo Guy| 1.8.09 @ 9:24AM
Another fine article from the worthy successor to WFB...though since he was largely WFB's contemporary, I'm not he sure can be both, but I digress. Meanwhile, I anxiously await Interloper's interloping on this thread so that I can learn the real truth about man-made global climate change since I am not a member of the exalted 5%.
owyheewine| 1.8.09 @ 10:01AM
Large computer models all share one flaw. They overreach in their scope and must rely on simplifying assumptions. These assumptions may appear reasonable, but in many cases they just reflect the bias of the model builder. A reserarcher actually found that the basic equations underlying these climate models were incorrectly derived. It's real calculus, so beyond the capacity of politicians and journalists (sorry RET), but the point is as in all computer endeavors , garbage in equals garbage out.
Sid Puder| 1.8.09 @ 10:34AM
Global warming has been with us since the glaciers melted in Kansas and Missouri.
White boys didn't get here 'till 1492!
JJ JR| 1.8.09 @ 10:35AM
Y'all, a few things about these climate models--not one has been successfully validated!
They are all driven my independent variables i.e., model inputs. By validated, I mean taking ACTUAL values from a historical period and inputing these values for the independent variable inputs into the models to see if they can even come close to predicting the ACTUAL weather observed for that particular period. All fail miserably. So by the simplest measure of empirical science--measurment of the validity of a predictive measure (in this case, the models)--they fail.
Leaving statistical modeling and moving to political science, the socialists have glommed onto global warming--I mean the more convenient moniker "climate change"--is simply because it allows them to pursue their Stalinist, statist policy prescriptions under trumped up environmental do-goodism.
Thunderbottom| 1.8.09 @ 10:45AM
This follows on a letter, drafted by the execrable Dr. James Hanson of NASA, to Barack and Michelle Obama, encouraging the imposition of a massive "progressive carbon tax". Some one came up with the term, "watermelon", for present-day environmentalists - green outside, red inside. In the end, it's all about control - of nearly every aspect of our lives with these people. One can only hope that they meet the same end as various petty tyrants - Robespierre, Mussolini, Nikolai Yezhov, Ernesto "Che" Guevara, and Lavrenti Beria (note that one-time Soviet Premier, Mikhail Gorbachev, now heads some international busybody environmental NGO)
Marc Jeric| 1.8.09 @ 11:38AM
President-elect Obama's appointment of John Holdren as his top science adviser is in no uncertain terms - a disaster. Holdren is a firm believer in a catastrophic climate change due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide production; he also believes that the deniers of such predictions are anti-science ignoramuses in the pay of oil companies.However, Holdren ignores "Global Warming Petition Project" and "Manhattan Declaration" (see Internet) where a total of 31,794 scientists, including about 9,300 with PhD degrees, agree that human activities have no influence on global climate. And none of us is in the pay of oil companies.It is also of interest to note how the global cooling scam of the 1970's (see Newsweek of April 1975) had been followed by the global warming hoax of the 1990's; and now, after 10 years of substantial cooling trend, that hoax was transformed into the present climate change flim-flam. Well, whatever works, as long as it promotes socialism - and Mr. Holdren will do his utmost to help.Finally, I resent Mr. Holdren, a far-left political agitator, calling me "a denier" and "an anti-science ignoramus" - that's a scoundrel's language in a losing cause.
Marc Jeric (MS, PhD, Engineering, UCLA 1968)
David Adams| 1.8.09 @ 11:49AM
Instead of those 'carbon-eating trees' turning Carbon Dioxide into some 'chemical', why not have trees turn Carbon Dioxide into oxygen! That would be new - or would it?
Dave McD| 1.8.09 @ 11:52AM
Carbon eating trees? Isn't that what trees and most plants do - eat carbon dioxide for photosynthesis? Isn't this a carbon-based planet? And what will stop the carbon from returning to the atmosphere? It's called a cycle, folks.
How much CO2 is used in a global-warming computer projection?
Bob| 1.8.09 @ 12:02PM
I find it interesting that trying to validate the information Tyrrell indicated about the Hadley Center (which I always to on any ideological article, left and right), I see that there is a significant question about the accuracy of their predictions. Furthermore, only a few months ago, they indicated global warming was significant. Yet, Tyrrell uses selected data from them to make an argument for global cooling? The use of selected data to make a political point is one of the weaknesses of an ideological blog like this. We should be after the truth first, and then analyze later. Not use partial information to make an untrue point.
Here are my references:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/04/the-hadley-center-tries-again/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/01/climatechange.carbonemissions
My problem, and the problem for many of us who are not ideologues, is that we want unbiased facts, not references to numbers of scientists (of variable quality). I am certainly not a global climate expert, but as a mathematician and expert in data analysis, I understand the variability of long term data used in short term extrapolation misuse. I see it all of the time on this board, whether we are talking about global warming, the debt, GDP, the negative Palin effect, etc. I also see it on lefty boards.
If Republicans would only look at the truth and nominate intelligent and knowledgeable candidates, we could make a real difference.
Tom Bruner| 1.8.09 @ 12:16PM
The real world does not conform to the model, so which is wrong? The standard defense is that other factors are masking the actual trend. If we accept that then we must accept that there are other variables that are not accurately addressed in the models, which means that the model needs to be refined.
I agree with the earlier post that AGW has not actually been proved wrong at this point, but it has not been proved correct either. The models are primitive and should not be used as a basis for policy until they perform reliably when compared to the real world.
bill glass| 1.8.09 @ 12:22PM
facts and logic have no place in the global warming ( climatic instability / climate change ) debate. the "experts" in dc already have the momentum for new and more government taxation (extortion) which will make the world a better place ( lower the ocean levels, etc.)
Ed| 1.8.09 @ 12:41PM
Bob,
Tyrrell made no predictions about global cooling, he merely noted that it's been getting colder the last few years.
vitadMD| 1.8.09 @ 12:47PM
Thank you, Dr. Jeric. As a medical doctor and someone who has intensely researched this issue - from the political theater of the IPCC to the basic science, I also have grown tired of being lectured to and vilified by people who have never taken a science class. The scientific illiteracy in this country is ... stunning.
Bob| 1.8.09 @ 1:54PM
Ed, that's the problem I have with Tyrrell's discourse. He CLEARLY implies that global warming is bunk by making fun of Al Gore (easy to do), and by saying that Hadley indicated computer projections are wrong. This flies in the face of what Hadley was saying in October when it staunchly supported global warming theory, but Tyrrell fails to mention that.
Ed, Tyrell was clearly saying there was global cooling, and the unsophisticated people that frequent this board and listen to Fox News, Rush and Hannity will take it that way. We should listen more to the objective science and then come to valid conclusions rather than listening to journalists who know little about science.
Ammo Guy| 1.8.09 @ 2:56PM
Bob, do you even have a clue who Bob Tyrrell is? Or what his writing style and sardonic sense of humour represents? You wander onto this website like you fell off the turnip truck yesterday and presume to lecture us (as unsophisticated as we may be to you) on true conservatism? RET was tweaking the noses of poseurs like you when LBJ was president and many of us have been reading his fine periodical since the 1970s. Go away, you're beginning to bother me...go play in the street, as WCF used to say to children like you.
RayBee| 1.8.09 @ 3:20PM
Why do we need genetically altered trees? Trees already turn CO2 into oxygen! And trees also make another very useful product: lumber.
elhombrelibre| 1.8.09 @ 3:27PM
Bob, thank you for deigning to spend some time bring Mr. Tyrrell up to speed on what conservatives should be. I'm sure that you can stop by William F. Buckley's gravesite too and lecture him, maybe Russell Kirks' also, and why not Edmund Burke's as well while you're at it. I suspect your conservative credentials are either very new or very unclear.
Deborah | 1.8.09 @ 4:05PM
Yea, Ammo Guy! Thanks for your retort.
RET is fun to read, and of course, editorial writing shouldn't be that way (according to some). It should be against the law to ridicule the ridiculous. We dumb conservatives are having entirely too much funand have entirely too many opinions! How dare we!
John| 1.8.09 @ 4:10PM
Only on planet Algore do we see that plants absorb CO2 only if they are approved by the Algorites... Some tax or fee must be involved before said plant life is certified to absorb CO2 and give off O2.
The entire Green thing boils down to a simple minded closed system silliness. In the Green world... if you dry up a methane producing fetid mosquito swamp, enrich its water depleated soil, and plant thousands of acres of sugar cane, corn, or other (I guess we will have to call it Huamthing since they can't possibly be plants) there is no net benefit to the local area. Not a one... Of course they don't call it a fetid disease ridden methane producing swamp... they call it a rain forest... and it is worshiped like an idol in a temple complex.
I certainly hope that the astute Mr. Tyrrell is shouting from the rooftops, as loudly as he can...
"Human Induced Global Warming is a FRAUD... it is a HOAX... it is a pseudo-scientific bugga-bear created to generate income for otherwise unemployable lackies who never got a job after college... The hard science doesn't hold up because there is no instrumentation, qualitative or quantitative data collection with enough significance to assert more than it was something somewhere yesterday... and might be something else tomorrow.
Gee... I could have predicted that with a wet finger.
"Deep Thought" for all of its expense spit out the answer for everthing... And no one knew what the question was.
Hansen and company have made an essentially gratuitous assertion based on an unprovable hypothesis.
The equally and correctly gratuitous response should be "BUNK!!! Climate changes... ALWAYS... so live with it and get over yourself. Now, go away."
r/John
James| 1.8.09 @ 4:23PM
Being bamboozled by Gore has to be ranked as a catastrophic fraud comparable with the Madoff “Ponzi” scheme. Reflecting on Gore’s academic background: Entering Harvard as an Economics major and flunking out before taking his first semester examinations – oh yeah, and never taking a course in Econ; then entering Vanderbilt as a Theology major and splitting before the end of the first semester – eventually to return to Harvard and to be graduated with a degree in “Politics”, a non-standard exercise that required no core basic education courses in math, sciences, American/European History, American/English literature, psychology, and other basic 101’s. Did I miss something? Oh yeah, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, not vetted by the Academy, but by politicians and media types. Well certainly…He’s Brainiac, sent to earth to go mano y mano with Clark Kent.
Michele San Pietro| 1.8.09 @ 5:32PM
I think all things you hear about global warming are just a load of nonsense. According to the demented media, when the U.S. President is a Republican it's a serious problem, whereas, when it is a Democrat, everything is okay. Shame on them!
Michael L. Hauschild| 1.8.09 @ 6:10PM
The probability of the occurrence of Bob speaking in a derogatory manner about Sarah Palin, no matter what the topic, is 99%.
DaveS| 1.8.09 @ 7:48PM
Yesterday, my sophomore daughter was 'subjected' to the 'A Very Inconvenient Truth' showing in her global studies class. Everyone (but Molly) in the class seemed moved towards the Gore position - in spite of the cartoon polar bears. We have much more to be alarmed at with cooling - so STOP GLOBAL COOLING! (if you can).
David C.| 1.8.09 @ 8:46PM
Global cooling is with us for a long time. It parallels the cooling of our ardor for the overheated flapdoodle of Gore et al. Chill Al. Move on. Put it behind you. Sit on it!
stmichrick| 1.8.09 @ 8:47PM
Watching the Messiah today proclaim that we need to do something (grow government) dramatically to save us from an economic disaster, I was struck how similar this was to global warming hysteria.
This is the M.O. of the next administration: Catastrophe looms...bend over.
Colder than a welldiggers butt| 1.8.09 @ 9:23PM
Two engineers, one French and one America, were arguing the feasibility of a project. Unable to convince the American, the French engineer finally sniffed in exasperation, "your approach may work in practice, but it will never work in theory."
The weather will be what the weather will be, despite our theories.
Richard S Courtney| 1.9.09 @ 5:28AM
Friends:
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr is correct when he says the mean global temperature (MGT) has stopped. There has been no statistically significant rise in MGT since 1995 and MGT has fallen since 1998: see
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html
It cannot be known if this halt to global warming will be followed by further warming or cooling, but the historical record shows a pattern that suggests the halt to global warming is likely to last for about another 20 years. There has been warming as the Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age for the last 300 years or so. And overlaid on that warming is a cycle of alternate warmings and coolings each of ~30 years duration. So, it cooled to ~1910, warmed to ~1940, cooled to ~1970, warmed to 1998, and has cooled since.
James Hansen of NASA promotes the man-made global warming scare and Hansen advised Mr Al Gore on his award-winning science fiction horror movie titled ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.
Hansen recently sent a letter on global warming to President Elect Obama. He published his draft of the letter he intended to send to President Elect Obama and asked for comments on that draft. I did a rebuttal of Hansen's draft letter and copies of my rebuttal were presented to him by at least two people. And my rebuttal was put on the web at
http://co2sceptics.com/attachments/ftp/Heansen-Obama_letter_comments.pdf
The lady who put my rebuttal of Hansen’s draft on the web changed the word "radiative" to "radioactive" (or perhaps her spell-checker changed it) but other than that the version at the URL is as I wrote it.
My rebuttal is a strong rejection of everything James Hansen asserts to promote the global warming scare. And it should be noted that my rejection is based on science and not politics. As Republican Senator Inhofe said of me in his speech to the US Senate yesterday:
“Another left-of-center atmospheric scientist who has dissented on man-made climate fears is the UK’s Richard Courtney. Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, is a self-described socialist who also happens to reject man-made climate fears.”
I have not critiqued the letter that Hansen did eventually send to President Elect Obama, but that eventual letter ignores all my criticisms of Hansen's draft letter.
Perhaps my most severe criticism in the URL is the undeclared self-interest in Hansen's draft letter. That undeclared self-interest is also in the letter Hansen eventually sent to President Elect Obama.
I suspect that Hansen's publication of his draft letter for "comment" was a test to see if his superiors in the US civil service would instruct that he should not send the letter. If so, then the fact that Hansen did send the letter demonstrates that Hansen is a 'loose cannon' firing off rounds in the regions of US domestic and foreign policy. Such a 'loose cannon' poses great risks for the US and other countries.
In my opinion, a letter of the kind James Hansen has sent to President Elect Obama is disgraceful and undisciplined misuse of an appointed position. A civil servant (James Hansen) has attempted to distort government policy by providing untrue, partisan and misleading information to a senior government official (President Elect Obama). He has bypassed the normal channels for communication of a civil servant to government. And it is beyond question that Hansen knows the information in his letter to President Elect Obama is untrue, partisan and misleading.
In my country (the UK) such behavior by a civil servant would obtain severe disciplinary response (he would probably be sacked with loss of pension) unless he could demonstrate that he was "whistle blowing" by sending the letter. But there can be no consideration of "whistle blowing" in this case because it is beyond question that Hansen knows the information in his letter to President Elect Obama is untrue, partisan and misleading.
In summary, the article by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr is correct but there are significant influences on President Elect Obama that could induce mistaken US government policies on climate change.
Richard
Don L| 1.9.09 @ 5:49AM
It is most unfortunate that it is the scientific community that has aided and abetted the mistrust -hence corruption of science as truth - leaving the lay person to assume whatever they say -has a political or monetary motive. It is they who need to assail and demand conformity to proper scientific methodology by their peers and expose those who don't as the charlatans they are.
A few words exposing the politics at the Nobel award center would also be useful to orient the general populace back toward a true understanding and respect for science as an indisputable form of truth. Consensus be damned!
Deborah | 1.9.09 @ 6:42AM
Thank you, Mr. Courtney. Your post here is welcome. It's good to see that sanity is coming back slowly to the scientific community. I agree with Don L that only scientists can (and must) police their own, not only to save the world from going off the deep end, but to save the reputation of science itself. Good luck to you, Mr. Courtney, and God help us and save us from global government interference in what will be a fiscal disaster for our country and the world at large.
Bob| 1.9.09 @ 9:14AM
Ammo, in no way am I saying that Tyrrell isn't one of the best conservative writers out there. What I do dislike, is conservatives treatment of science and the economy in general. These things must be treated objectively so we can make informed decisions. Isn't it important that the same source he used to support a position of global cooling actually posited just a couple of months ago that global warming is a fact?
As I see it, the only way for conservatism to grow is to show that conservatives can be objective and intelligent. For example, Courney's post was much more objective and far closer to what I've seen in the science to fact.
And yes, Micheal, there is a 100% chance that I will mention Palin as unqualified 100% of the time for the reasons I've just stated. She continues to lack both the intelligence and knowledge to be President. ....and that has not changed with her most recent interview which is now being plastered all over cable news.
Ammo Guy| 1.9.09 @ 9:38AM
Bob, perhaps if you would leave out such blanket condescension from your posts, I could read them without blowing a gasket, as unsophisticated as I am. Meanwhile, the Current Crisis, like the Continuing Crisis before it, is meant to poke fun at buffoons (of which the climate change crowd is mostly composed IMHO) and is not meant to be a treatise on all things scientific or otherwise. When RET starts taking himself seriously, then I might begin to take you seriously...but that is not going to happen anytime soon.
mike m| 1.9.09 @ 10:07AM
Said by Bob: "What I do dislike, is conservatives treatment of science and the economy in general"
Conservatives treatment of science? Liberals have done more to damage the concept of science in the public minds than anyone else I've ever seen.
I've talked to dozens of people who are absolutely convinced that man-made global warming is going to kill us all, and asked them "so, what are the mechanics behind climate change?". All they can come up with is CO2 heats up the earth. The liberals in the news media, public schools, universities, entertainment industy, have dumbed down a subject as complicated as climate science into the level of a Looney Tunes cartoon. Even worse, anyone who disagrees with the prevailing "consensus" is publically berated, called "flat-earthers", even compared to Holocaust deniers. Holocaust deniers? Get that for a moment- that is how liberals think science works. "If you disagree with me, you are just as evil as those who killed six million Jews".
These global warming zealots realize the public is largely unscientifically minded so (just like convincing children that Santa Claus won't bring them toys if they misbehave) they find the collective public mind easy game for manipulation by bastardizing climate science into a fear-driven political tool. A tool to use in an attempt to get the public to voluntarily surrender their freedoms way of life. It's been pathetic sight for the last couple of decades.
And you think conservatives treat science poorly? For the last decade, conservatives have simply been attempting to get an alternatvie viewpoint into the public discussion by overcoming an intellectual barricade set up by the liberal elite who see CO2 as their means to reign in capitalism.
If you ask me, it's the damage to science done by liberals that needs to be undone. And thank God that the sun has gone quiet. It just may give enough time to begin the process of reinstating the true scientific method of understanding what drives the climate.
Bob| 1.9.09 @ 10:17AM
Mike, I agree with you about the global warming zealots on the left and much of their treatment of science. But I expect more of true conservatives. I think conservatives should be the more pragmatic and objective group in order to become a political majority. I couldn't care less about what the left does, but in a world that cries out for solid, pragmatic judgment and fiscal discipline, conservatives should drop the hyperbole used in such things as global warming and supply side economics, and deal with intelligent and knowledgeable solutions.
So while I accept your criticism, I think conservatives need to be the grown-up here and include some level of objectivity instead of just doing the same as the left, but only on the right.
mike m| 1.9.09 @ 10:37AM
And speaking of Palin, the vice presidential debate was very telling as to the state of conventional wisdom on this subject.
I recall that the ever-objective and impartial Gwen Ifill asking Gov. Palin if she thought global warming was real. While I applauded the fact that she attempted to state she didn't believe it was totall caused by man, there was a serious level of trepidation (almost down right scared) on her part to say it
Two things stood out to me that explained this exchange:
1.) Conventional wisdom, established by the near complete lack opposition to the gobal warming juggernaut (through fear, ridicule, and political intimidation) that all climate change is 100% human-driven. This wisdom has managed to convince the public that our current climate is somehow "nominal" and any deviation from it can only be caused by human activity. Even the language of the debate has been commandeered such that the terms "global warming" and "man-made global warming" have become interchangeable. This explained why Palin answer was so shaky.
2.) The liberals' dogmatic stance on man-made global warming, claiming that a "consensus" has been established and that only the kooks believe otherwise, has allowed them to position themselves on the side of "science". Which automatically puts anyone who disagrees with them in a position of being an unscientific backwards idiot. This explains the intent of Gwen Ifill's question. She wasn't interested at all in global warming. Rather, Gwen knew what the conventional wisdom was (established by her ilk in the media) and now she was going to capitalize on it by asking a loaded question designed to make Palin look like a unscientific, dumb hick from the backwoods in Alaska.
elhombrelibre| 1.9.09 @ 12:13PM
Bob,
It’s nice of you to approve of Tyrrell and to note that you’re not saying he isn’t one of the best conservative writers out there. You may even think Smokin’ Joe was a decent boxer. Since you’re so unhappy with Bob Tyrrell’s treatment of science and economics, which is your specialty? Do you have a science degree in a hard science or a squishy soft one in the “dismal science” of economics?
Please realize I feel lucky to have your frequent comments here. Indeed, readers at TAS are beyond lucky.
Elijah| 1.9.09 @ 12:35PM
Hello all. Have you seen the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle?" Very good. Here's the link:
http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx
James Ryan | 1.9.09 @ 12:47PM
Check out the facts about the SUN. We know are beyound a solar minimums, the suns inactivity is making solar watchers thinking a large ice age could be coming! They claim that there has not seen the sun this inactive since 1900 were they had a mini Ice age! Almost 4 months of no sun activitivy that would create sun spots or mass coronial ejections to create radiation to heat the earth! Bizzar, the suns seems to shrinking or camaralizing which is a sign of massive cooling inside the sun! Usualy the SUN has massive gas explosions that sends radition to the earth, it seems to none existing at the moment! We can't change or create Global warming the Al Bore dease, ,Hoax for proffit and Socialim and we can't stop the cooling of or sun. We are definetly powerless over the SUN or Earth ! Just remember how big Krakatoa was and the long term efects of it! Mans EGO is far bigger than our ability control anything like the SUN!!
Bob| 1.9.09 @ 1:40PM
elhombrelibre -- I have undergraduate degrees in mathematics and chemistry and graduate degrees in business and economics. Therefore, according to you I cover the gambit from hard to "squishy" science. Perhaps more importantly, I've had over 30 years in running businesses within Fortune 100 corporations. I am now retired.
I could never be an expert in politics like Quin or a very good writer like Tyrrell, but I am an expert in analysis, modeling, and consumer behavior as it relates to business and the economy. When I say that Palin did not help McCain, it is based on hard analysis of the data, not on emotion. I do have a hang up with social conservatives however, and that is pure opinion on my part.
brent| 1.9.09 @ 3:13PM
Actually as an ice cube melts it creates more energy and actually goes colder temporarily so this cold weather could be a result of the ice caps melting
elhombrelibre| 1.9.09 @ 4:12PM
Bob,
Try to be more tolerant and accept the diversity of humanity. All the best,
Ammo Guy| 1.9.09 @ 6:38PM
Bob, all well and good...and congratulations on making it to retirement so that you have more time to drive us crazy. The problem is that I fail to see any difference between the GOP you wish to create and the Democratic party that currently exists - enlighten me when you have a moment.
Bob| 1.9.09 @ 7:36PM
Ammo, have you even read what I said?
I want to grow the military specifically to fight terrorism -- Democrats don't
I want to reduce social security and medicare by raising the eligibility age and means testing and Dems don't.
I want to reduce or eliminate departments like education -- Dem's don't.
I want to simplify the tax code for a flat tax and get rid of any progressive bias -- Dem's don't
I want to build nuclear plants and get rid of ethanol subsidies -- Dem's don't.
These are some pretty big items, Ammo. However, I agree with the Dems on a number of social issues like choice and civil unions. Basically, I want government out of our lives and that's what connects my policy issues with social issues -- they all reduce the government's control over me.
Michael L. Hauschild| 1.9.09 @ 8:48PM
Bob,
Nobody could live long enough to hear what you wrote?????
Ammo Guy| 1.9.09 @ 8:58PM
Bob, I've read more of your stuff than I care to admit, but it's mainly been in response to social issues....and, I'll give you five for five at the top of your list. But, once more, I don't see how you can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative because the needs of both camps are bound to collide. As I mentioned to you on a previous thread, the amount of money we spend on AIDS research is ridiculous considering how few people die of it compared to heart disease and cancer...and its spread was largely a result of the behavior and choices some people choose to make, but it became a political football and none dares stand against it. If we had clamped down on bathhouses and quarantined Patient Zero some 28 years ago, we wouldn't be in this situation now...but there I go talking about social issues again. Drug use is another - on a certain level, I don't care because anyone heavily into it cannot provide any competition for me in life or the workplace, but it is a tragedy to see so much potential going to waste. Accordingly, I believe there should be some standards in this world, but I guess I'm just too unsophisticated to be a true libertarian.
Greg| 1.10.09 @ 10:34AM
Bob sounds more Libertarian than Republican...that's why Ammo Guy thinks both "his camps are about to collide". Socially liberal means keep govt out of my life and out of my bedroom. Religious Republicans want economic freedom, but not social freedom when it comes to lifestyle choices. Liberals want govt control over economics, but not when it comes to lifesytle choices. Libertarians want freedom period. That also explains why so many Libertarians voting as Republicans accuse the Right of distorting science...becasue they do with their religious beleifs.
Bob| 1.10.09 @ 11:00AM
Ammo, I don't understand how you can be fiscally conservative and yet also be socially conservative. In the fist case you want government to stay out of your business and not restrict you and in the second case you want government to restrict people's behavior. To me, limited government means exactly that -- that government stays out of my personal business. There are laws that restrict me, but those are meant to stop me from causing DIRECT PHYSICAL or MONETARY harm to another individual. That's why the term "social conservative" is very misleading.
It is not that I believe you are wrong in your beliefs. I would like to reduce abortions as well. But it is not my right to tell YOU what to do. I'll leave that up to you, your doctor, and your minister. As for AID's research, I agree that there should be a more rational approach to our healthcare research dollars. Again, that is part of my "reason over belief" issue. If disease "X" affects more people than disease "Y", then we should spend more money on disease "X". I go even further. If a person decides to do harm to himself through sex, drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, etc., he should pay more for his health care. Personal responsibility, in my book, goes hand in hand with limited government.
That's why I don't understand the logical consistency of your position. Again, I believe in facts and reason as a binding agent between all of us.
Ammo Guy| 1.10.09 @ 7:14PM
Alas, Bob, it is not me you need to persuade. I'd be much more likely to "be logically consistent" if people were truly held responsible for their actions, choices and decisions, but it never turns out that way. If you want to smoke...fine, but don't expect me to pay for your lung transplant and don't sue the tobacco manufacturer either. If you don't want to wear a seatbelt...fine, but when you go head first into the windshield, don't expect me to pick up your hospital bills. If you want to make a risky investment...fine, but if it goes south, you're on your own - no bail-out from me. If you don't want to evacuate in front of a hurricane...fine, drown for all I care, but don't expect me to rescue you. If you want to have frequent, promiscuous, and anonymous sex in unsanitary bath houses, be my guest...but don't try to make me feel guilty about the horrible diseases you contract (or pay for the research to cure you). I could go on and on, but you get the picture. You are talking about how you would like it to be and I'm looking at the reality of sob story world we live in. The abortion debate is of another piece...bottom line - if you think abortion is tantamount to murder, it is difficult to ignore it...but I guess I got a bit of the John Brown in me. I'd be more sanguine if the question had been decided by 50 state legislatures rather than 7 judges mumbling about "emanations" and "penumbras", but that's just me I guess.
Gunsoffrankeaton| 1.11.09 @ 12:42AM
Algore could tell the masses of mindless left-wing kook balls that Canadian geese are dropping gold balls from the sky and these drones would go out and try to catch 'em.
Michael L. Hauschild| 1.11.09 @ 8:52AM
I watch with amusement the exchange between some of those posting over the “interpretation” of graphic displays (simple squiggly lines) depicting “trends,” be they economic indicators, polling results, “popularity” attributed to political ticket selection, or “global temperatures.” Included in these arguments (actually opinions) are equally odious schoolyard (“oh, ya; well I…….) exchanges.
I think some clarification is needed as to the validity of the visual concept of a graph as it is presented to the public.
1) Graphs are quit simple; they display “data” or their creator’s idea of “information.”
2) Graphs, like the statistical analysis they sometimes portray, can be manipulated. The data they are based upon can be “selected,” “truncated,” and nearly always manipulated to prove a point, influence behavior, or represent an opinion of their creator.
3) Graphs, as are all visual devices, created to simply allow the viewer “results” without going to the trouble of reading a “table” or using an algorithm (formula) to crunch data. You “see” into them what you wish without having to do the math.
4) Graphs are of two varieties, the ones invariably discussed in these forums are statistical constructs and while they are based in on sound and proven mathematical principles they lack the hard science “equal sign.” To put this in a perspective that all can relate to, they can not and do not reliably “predict.”
I have, in my convoluted (being a Geographer, never boring) past been on both the sides of the creation of these very powerful visual tools. I have compiled polling data to find spatial “peaks” on lines to make maps to show my candidates the most efficient way to call on houses while walking through neighborhoods, or analyzed traffic patterns to effectively purchase billboard space for the SLF’s (smiling lying faces).
Me also were a scientist (heh, heh), but those graphs had the aforementioned “equal sign” that would very reliably “predict,” within one tenth of a percent. We could plot historical “occurrence” against “predicted performance” and obtain a nearly perfect forty-five degree line. To give you some perspective those temporal points on a line you see in a political poll often have as a footnote, “Survey taken using 879 potential voters (many who, like myself, just for the fun of it lied).” The little squiggly line representing the prediction graphs we calculated in “hard science” contained eight gigabits (a lot) of “points,” and represented a temporal span of only seven minutes. That data was recorded by an instrument (one of three in the world), which sat on my desk when it wasn’t in our plane, loaned to NASA or spirited off by “suits” from the State Department every so often (I did not ask by the way).
Bottom line, unless someone can effectively “extend” those little squiggly lines and “predict” they are quite likely made by an agenda driven proponent holding open a trench coat trying to sell you a knockoff watch. Beware of Economists, Investment Advisers, and Global Warming Scientists.
Bob| 1.11.09 @ 10:19AM
Michael, you need to take a few more math courses to understand graphs. There is a difference between interpolation and extrapolation, but that is the difference between analysis and projection. If you use graphs to present BASE data, there is no analysis or judgment involved. For example, the graph of GDP or RCP collaborative polling data is not modified data, but straight graphing. So if during Reagan's term as president, there was no greater GDP growth than any other President (which is absolutely true), you cannot intelligently argue against that. If you go one more step and say that since Reagan was an example of a supply side administration and thus supply side thinking doesn't lead to economic growth, you are making a logical construct, which is different. In order for this logical construct to be meaningful, you need more than this one data point. The only other data point we have in supply side administrations is Bush2 and that did not result in economic growth for this country either. You can disagree that these administrations were examples of supply side administrations, of course, but then any conclusion that we should move to supply side is no longer based on any data points.
The same is true of the RCP polling trends. This is real data, not normalized or selective. Certain trends are real, and since this is a total of all available data, it should be accurate. When you plot event points along this graph, you can say that certain events are associated with certain polling trends. There may be other events, and those can be mapped as well. The fact is that in the end, Sarah Palin was a drain to McCain with voters and there is no factual information based upon the total population that makes any other conclusion possible. If you only take the jump when she was announce, then you are using selected data. You must put down every major event.
If you think that polling trends are not accurate, then you should visit the 538 site which shows the incredible accuracy of these polls to final results. The fact that you lie to pollsters is obviously no indicative of most people given the final results compared to actual voting.
So please, Michael, learn something about math if you are going to publish a treatise on mathematical and statistical methodology. The lack of analytical ability I see in the general public is disgraceful. This board is an example of that.
Michael L. Hauschild| 1.11.09 @ 11:42AM
Dear Bob,
It is interesting to note that we are ideologically and physiologically joined at the hip. I share nearly a “line item” view of the “social” shortcomings of the Republicans/Conservative/Libertarians and we both grow hair in our ears at about the same rate. However, when I trim my ears I can assure you that the clippings are not deposited on a Brook’s Brother suit. Our real differences, it appears to me, are the diverse way we approach addressing these issues in the various forum topics.
You lecture from the sixty-first floor of your “intellectual,” Ivory Tower. I find that demeaning, as do (I suspect) most of the people who subscribe to this readership. I try (and I distinguish between effort and success) to respond to the subjects as I “taught” in the various institutes of “higher earning.” (He humorous scoffed self-derogatorily).
To wit, I try to write with the goal of “explanation”, and address to every level subscriber present why I feel as I do and “submit” proposed solutions. My feelings are here due to the “depth” of my experience, and not the “loftiness” of intellectual dismissal, which you often attribute to some nebulous “knowledge”, knowledge the rest of us fail to understand or do not seem to possess.
There is a very fine line between preaching and teaching. Those of us seeking the latter, are rewarded by the look on the faces of the people we address, a scowl due to the resentment created by imposed superiority is bad, the smile created by the cartoon caption bubble of a “clicked on light bulb” is good.
Ammo Guy| 1.11.09 @ 12:03PM
Michael L. Hauschild, well said and better than I could. Just when I think Bob is coming down off his high horse to engage in discussion amongst relative intellectual equals (and I would put my 35 years of service in DoD up against any endeavor he may have undertook in a life probably no longer than mine...except I'm still working and he may have begun to stagnate :o), he once more posts a comment full of condescension and pedantry. In his free time, he should wander over to the offices of TAS and meet some of the scribes who toil there - might take him down a notch or two...but I doubt it.
Bob| 1.11.09 @ 12:54PM
Michael, I don't have the patience to teach, that's why I spend my life in the real world doing things. I have little tolerance for stupidity. Many of the statements you made concerning graphical data were just wrong and shows a lack of understanding of statistical polling, sampling techniques, and analytical factors. If I am condescending, so be it.
You see, I grew up poor in South Central L.A., did well enough to go to college at 15, joined the Army and fought in Vietnam, and went to one of the best graduate schools in the U.S. I competed for scholarships, worked full time at night and went to school full time during the day. I went into business, worked in senior level positions in Fortune 100 companies, and started two of my own.
The difference between you and I is that I refuse to talk down to people. I will challenge them and EXPECT the highest achievements from them. Most of my children have graduate degrees and they earned them and also supported themselves through college. They, and my grandchildren, are the greatest joys in my life.
So no, I don't want to teach and do not have the capacity to be a good teacher. It is interesting to note that I mentored dozens of people over my lifetime and they have all come back to me over the years and talked about how much they learned and how it has helped them, but that I was an SOB and expected more from them than they could possibly deliver. Again, I'm OK with that and proud of what they have accomplished.
I have never been involved with politics because I've never had the time to do so, but now that I'm retired, I'm beginning. I just can't believe the lack of rigor on both sides of the political spectrum. Emotions run rampant and ideology trumps reason. Both things make my hair stand on end. If I ran my businesses like that, they would fail in an instant.
So, Ammo, I won't get down off of my high horse. I will continue the pedantry when someone misstates fact and I will be a thorn in the side of sloppy thinking. If you want to put up your 35 years against my 45 years, I'd be happy to do so.
Have a nice weekend....
Ammo Guy| 1.11.09 @ 1:49PM
OK, Bob, you've worn me down with your persistence and your Horatio Alger tale. I guess you skipped the honey vs vinegar argument during life because the empirical data was lacking. I've always found that sarcasm and arrogance have been the keys to my success in persuading others to "do it my way" (hat tip to Edward G. Robinson). But seriously folks, I salute your military service to our country and regret that aspect of your career was not met with more approbation from your countrymen upon your return - having spent my entire career working with soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, I have nothing but the utmost respect for their sacrifice to this great nation. And, when necessary, I will "talk down" to them if their level of education demands such because so many missions over the years have failed for a lack of understanding on the part of all involved. Perhaps you look at the readers of TAS differently (and Lord knows that RET has sent me scurrying to the dictionary on many occasions) and we shall strive to raise ourselves up to your standard...but I'm glad you didn't raise me - my old man is 90 and a veteran WWII glider infantry captain who successfully managed to raise 6 kids without being an SOB. OTOH, to say that your kids and grandkids are the greatest joys in your life shows that you do have your priorities in the correct order...ditto here...have a nice weekend yourself.
Michael L. Hauschild| 1.11.09 @ 10:24PM
Ammo Guy,
This is getting scary; I too am a Viet Nam vet. (Camp Radcliff ring a bell?)
You seem to be able to relate to some of the more discordant voices, so if you could be so kind, try to dissuade Bob from entering politics. I really do not think he has the mettle to handle the constant stream of idiots he would be forced to endure (you know how uninformed and critical those unwashed voters can be). Besides, if I remember correctly he is some sort of “Economist” catering to Fortune Five Hundred clientele. I wouldn’t hang around with him too much; it appears that those credentials aren’t working out too well. I am guessing within the next year there are going to be bunches of people with pitchforks, torches, and a short ropes looking for his ilk, them of course and a tall tree.
So, since I have been relegated back to Palin’s conceptual level I will have to forgo any rational analysis and simply rely on my clairvoyance, that still keeps me a couple steps ahead, in fact (and I am sure you suspected this) I wrote my response to Bob before his tirade.
Ammo Guy| 1.11.09 @ 11:06PM
Well, Michael L. Hauschild, you and I (and perhaps Bob) are likely the only ones still working this thread, which probably says something about us...I just can't put my finger on it. And, I also salute your service to our country during the turbulent years we were involved in Vietnam. I just missed that conflict due to my youth at that time, but I vividly remember the disgraceful treatment our returning veterans were subjected to and resolved to never let an opportunity to thank a veteran go by. Meanwhile, it sounds like Bob has earned the right to be a curmudgeon and I find myself moving in that direction as I too grow older. I just hope I can be crotchety and lovable at the same time. Take care of yourself and I'm sure I'll see you (and Bob, of course) on another thread.
S. A. Carnot| 1.12.09 @ 8:49AM
Will All Of The Above kindly tell us which atmospheric science textbooks they last read ?
Ammo Guy| 1.12.09 @ 10:09AM
S. A. Carnot, sadly most (if not all) posters have fled this thread for more contemporary postings elsewhere so I don't expect you'll get much here from now on. I'm a diehard so I keep returning to the scene of the crime until the original article is filed for future generations to ponder and wonder "what were they thinking?" As to what atmospheric science textbooks I last read...that would be nada which is why I don't claim to know what's happening, but it bugs me to no end to see so many people who claim they do. So, like RET, I enjoy tweaking the noses of those who treat global climate change as some sort of religion. It is certainly a subject worth further intensive study, but to use the limited amount of data available to us since the onset of the Industrial Revolution to make projections that are so dire as to require solutions that would significantly alter our way of life, I would say "no thanks." In spite of all our problems, this is still the best time to be alive and I wouldn't trade my middle class life in 2009 for Queen Victoria's in 1890. Good luck with what you seek, but you'll probably be better off waiting for the subject to rear its ugly head in some future TAS article before you weigh in with your opinion. My advice is to post early and watch the fireworks.
S.A. Carnot| 1.12.09 @ 7:55PM
try McElroy's text- Princeton U press. you can't fail to gain more from it than Al Gore .
http://astore.amazon.com/theamericansp-20/detail/0691006911
S.A. Carnot| 1.12.09 @ 7:56PM
try McElroy's text- Princeton U press. you can't fail to gain more from it than Al Gore .
http://astore.amazon.com/theamericansp-20/detail/0691006911
Bob R Geologist| 1.14.09 @ 8:01PM
Thanks James for exposing Gore's abysmal academic record. His activities have demonstrated a giant ego inside an otherwise vacuous cavity where a brain should be located. It explains his gigantic residence too, he couldn't possibly find his way to a normal sized home. I can't find much to admire in my relatively few scientific compatriots either who prostituted themselves for large research grants to find or manufacture evidence that a vitally necessary, but miniscule component in our atmosphere (carbon dioxide), will be the cause of our extinction by runaway heating of our planet. Our
environmentalists should bear the ultimate blame because of their claim that man is destroying the Earth in his need for energy. All this "Much Ado About Nothing" when the science is very clear that CO2 has had no influence on past climates.
Pingback| 2.3.09 @ 5:16PM
Cooler Heads Digest | Global Warming links to this page.
fdgfd| 12.29.09 @ 3:59AM
iPod to Mac Transfer,
iPod to Mac Transfer
gfdgdf| 12.29.09 @ 4:00AM
iPod to Mac Transfer,
iPod Transfer for Mac
fg| 2.25.10 @ 1:48AM
DVD PAL to NTSC,
PAL DVD to NTSC
ink free shipping | 3.23.10 @ 2:43AM
Greating article,Thanks James for exposing Gore's abysmal academic record.
wangsir| 4.3.10 @ 5:18AM
Free to try Blu ray Ripper for Mac
tod mac | 4.9.10 @ 5:01AM
TOD Converter Mac is an excellent Mac Mod converter software which can convert video formats from one to
another with perfect output quality and high conversion speed for Mac OS X users.Such as
TOD Video editor Mac
poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 11:23PM
I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You Poptropica
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale poptropica
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. poptropica
When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!poptropica
Getting Hercules to Help You
Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. poptropica
Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you.poptropica
. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale
You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out.Poptropica When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
Brian | 4.28.10 @ 2:42AM
OK
Johnny hand | 4.28.10 @ 2:43AM
http://www.rootcctv.com
jjo | 4.28.10 @ 7:51AM
http://www.phonesexhandjobs.org
http://www.smartphonesex.org
gg | 8.26.10 @ 10:50PM
thank
Global warming has been with us since the glaciers melted in Kansas and Missouri.
sait | 10.25.10 @ 3:49PM
thank you
sang| 11.14.10 @ 11:33AM
good ...
www.zune.net/setup To use it you must first download and www.zune.net The instructions to download it and install it are below.
huua| 11.14.10 @ 11:34AM
It is very suitable for the elderly.
psp consoles
psp unlock
hosting | 12.29.10 @ 11:13AM
web top sites camalia raptirs
web hosting | 12.29.10 @ 11:14AM
thank you
porno | 12.29.10 @ 11:16AM
web players go to
porno | 12.29.10 @ 11:45AM
thanks davut iyi izle
web tasarımı | 5.11.11 @ 5:33AM
ders to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Sp reseller your sze ledder
alan sorgulama | 5.11.11 @ 5:33AM
age readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if pro thank you admin slander
domain sorgulama | 5.11.11 @ 5:34AM
ge readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant more your size ledder nice to the renmpoetr
web tasarımı | 5.11.11 @ 5:35AM
e and discuss their thoughtful and relevant more your sharted meder your
Jen Cuatro | 9.6.11 @ 5:17AM
Thanks for the thoughtful article. Time here is well spent. Of curious sociological interest, there is also a text about a community of phone sex operators here.
lajian| 11.28.11 @ 3:03AM
Thanks so much for your great page, this is the stuff that keeps me awake through out these day. I've been searching around for your site after being referred to them from a buddy and was thrilled when I was able to find it after searching for some time. Being a demanding blogger, I'm glad to see others taking initivative and contributing to the community. I would like to comment to show my appreciation for your post as it is very challenging to do, and many bloggers do not get appreciation they deserve. I am sure I'll drop by again and will send some of my friends.
ipad apps To use it you must first download and
kazaa.com The instructions to download it and install it are below.
napster.com.
polaoken| 11.28.11 @ 9:25PM
Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I certainly enjoyed reading it, you can be a great author.I will be sure to bookmark your blog and may come back someday. I want to encourage you to ultimately continue your great writing, have a nice evening! www.apple.com/ipod/start. To use it you must first download and ipod.com. The instructions to download it and install it are below.
Mobile Phone Mobile Phones | 3.22.12 @ 8:11AM
Thank YoU
Mobile Phone Mobile Phones
Green car | 4.6.12 @ 12:53PM
Green Cars
burningfaloss | 4.21.12 @ 3:04AM
some interesting points,look forward to seeing what other info you have on your site. also I have a blog about fat loss and burning fat, hope that we can exchange.