Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kyoto debunked
National Post ^ | October 29, 2003 | Tim Patterson

Posted on 10/30/2003 8:51:18 PM PST by Dan Evans

This has been a nightmare of a year for aficionados of the Kyoto Accord. After Canada's ratification of the treaty in late 2002, environmentalists had every reason to believe that few climate experts would dare continue to publicly oppose Kyoto's science, Russia would quickly ratify the accord and it soon would become international law.

Instead, as illustrated at this month's World Climate Change Conference in Moscow, exactly the opposite has happened. The growing number of scientists who dispute the treaty's scientific foundation have become increasingly vocal, regularly pushing their case in the media as groundbreaking studies continue to be published that pull the rug out from under Kyoto's shaky edifice.

Of these, none may have the long-term impact of the paper published yesterday in the prestigious British journal Energy and Environment, which explains how one of the fundamental scientific pillars of the Kyoto Accord is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data and a biased selection of climate records.

The paper's authors, Toronto-based analyst Steve McIntyre and University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, obtained the original data used by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia to support the notion that the 20th-century temperature rise was unprecedented in the past millennium. A detailed audit revealed numerous errors in the data. After correcting these and updating the source records they showed that based on Mann's own methodologies, his original conclusion was flawed. Mann's original version resulted in the famous "hockey stick" graph that purported to show 900 years of relative temperature stability (the shaft of the hockey stick) followed by a sharp increase (the blade) in the 20th century (see graph). The corrected version of the last thousand years actually contradicts the view promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and removes the foundation for claims of 20th-century uniqueness.

To understand the significance of the McIntyre/McKitrick announcement, it is important to consider how our understanding of long-term climate history has evolved over the past decade. In its 1990 and 1995 "Assessment Reports", the IPCC clearly identified two major global climatic events in the past millennium, as confirmed by thousands of papers written by quaternary geologists during the past century -- a "Medieval Warm Period" (MWP) from about 800 to 1300 A.D. that was as much as two degrees Celsius warmer than today, and a far colder "Little Ice Age" (LIA) from about 1300 to 1900 A.D. The effects of these events were felt worldwide with convincing evidence of both the MWP and LIA found in Europe, North America, Africa, the Caribbean, Peru and even in China, Japan and Australia. As part of our emergence from the LIA, scientists agreed there had been a gradual warming throughout the 20th century, although the reasons for this were hotly contested with increasing greenhouse gases (GHG) and changes in the output of the sun being leading contenders.

In recent years, however, the case for solar variations being the 20th century's major climate driver has become much stronger, much to the consternation of Kyoto supporters. After all, if long before human-induced GHG emission became significant, temperatures were considerably higher than today, there would be little reason to think today's temperatures were anything unnatural. This was especially true since long-term solar records indicated that both the MWP and LIA were closely correlated with changes in solar activity, and the output of the sun has indeed been increasing during the past century's 0.6C warming. Supporters of the GHG-induced warming hypothesis desperately needed a "smoking gun" to prop up the need for Kyoto.

This was conveniently supplied by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in their 1998 paper (referred to as "MBH98") in which they reduced the MWP and LIA to non-events outside Europe and unveiled their "hockey stick." The paper concluded, "Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence."

Of course, Kyoto fans were delighted. Despite being at odds with most of the scientific literature, and the fact that the MBH98 study was only one of thousands of possible millennial temperature constructions, advocates of the GHG hypothesis of climate change started to promote Mann's results as the definitive global temperature history. Within a year, with little real debate, the hockey stick became entrenched as the new orthodoxy, showing up in official documents everywhere.

However, the scientific review process that all studies must undergo before publication had failed in the case of the MBH98 paper. The temperature data before 1900 were not directly measured, as they were after 1900 when land-based thermometer readings were used. Instead, pre-1900 temperatures were calculated based on the measurement of "proxies," natural phenomena such as the growth of tree rings or coral that indicate what temperature was at certain times in the past. Consequently, grafting the two very different types of data sets together without significant overlap to come to dramatic conclusions was unwarranted and should have been seriously contested by the paper's reviewers. Chris de Freitas of the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, sums up, "The Mann 'hockey stick' is nothing more than a mathematical construct vigorously promoted in the IPCC's 2001 report to affirm the notion that temperature changes of the 20th century were unprecedented."

Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard Institute of Astrophysics added to the critique of Mann's hockey stick in March of this year when they showed that a careful analysis of 240 proxy studies reaffirmed that the MWP and the LIA were indeed worldwide phenomena, not limited to the European and North American continents. Baliunas and Soon's results coupled with this week's McIntyre/McKitrick paper may now end the debate for good. By looking carefully at the MBH98 data and their computational methods, McIntyre and McKitrick uncovered such serious flaws that the temperature indexes computed from it are, to quote McIntyre and McKitrick, "unreliable and cannot be used for comparisons between the current climate and that of previous centuries." Mann's claims that "temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century were unprecedented," and the IPCC's and Environment Canada's confident assertions that the 1990s was "likely the warmest decade" and 1998 the "warmest year" of the millennium, are wholly unsubstantiated.

Among the many mistakes in Mann's paper, some appear blatant, some simply careless apparently due to clerical errors (for example, allocating measurements to the wrong years, "filling" tables with identical numbers for different proxies in different years, etc.). In many cases, obsolete source data was used that have since been revised by the originating researchers. As an example of their numerous "truncation errors," Mann's Central England Temperature series stops without explanation at 1730, even though data are available back to 1659, thus hiding a major 17th century cold period. Similarly, Central Europe data are truncated at 1550, rather than 25 years earlier, for which the data are available, the effect being to remove the warmest data in the series. Of course, no one with an understanding of climate history really believes there was a dramatic temperature spike in the middle of the Little Ice Age. Yet Mann's data and methodology actually supports such a notion, completely contradicting his contention that there was merely a gradually cooling between 1000 AD and 1900.

Correcting and updating the proxy database used by Mann and his co-authors and then repeating Mann's methodology, McIntyre and McKitrick showed that the MBH98 study in fact reveals that the late 20th century Northern Hemisphere temperature trend is unexceptional compared to the preceding centuries. In doing so, they demonstrate the sort of in-depth analysis the IPCC should have conducted on its own. Instead, its so called "rigorous review process" failed miserably, giving highly flawed work central prominence in the 2001 IPCC Report. As a consequence, governments worldwide are now making some of their most expensive policy decisions ever based on uncritical acceptance of an IPCC Report that we now know to be decidedly unsound in itself.

Dr. Tim Patterson is a professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climate; climatechange; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; kyoto; science
Meanwhile, McCain & Loserman are gleefully introducing their own little Kyoto. They'll be gentle. After all, this is our first time.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102903A.html

1 posted on 10/30/2003 8:51:18 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans; AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ApesForEvolution; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

For real time political chat - Radio Free Republic chat room

2 posted on 10/30/2003 8:53:32 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans; cogitator
index ping
3 posted on 10/30/2003 8:54:00 PM PST by boris (The deadliest Weapon of Mass Destruction in History is a Leftist With a Word Processor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Cool!

(Oh wait. I wasn't supposed to say that...)

It IS interesting to note that the Andean sacrifices and the Swiss glacier-bound man have BOTH recently been found UNDER retreating moutain-top glaciers.

True, this indicates that the moutians are warming, but, more importantly, it shows that PREVIOUSLY (over the past few thousand years) the mountains WERE ALSO warmer.

Else the bodies could not have been buried under the glacier ice undisturbed as they were.
4 posted on 10/30/2003 9:00:39 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Global Warming Hoax
Indexing
5 posted on 10/30/2003 9:01:34 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Someone needs to send this to the Weather Channel. I hear them repeating the greenhouse gas global warming BS...
6 posted on 10/30/2003 9:04:33 PM PST by tubebender (FReeRepublic...How bad have you got it...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Nice catch. I saw a related post yesterday saying the Mann et al. original paper lacked his raw data for peer review, IIRC. It's nice to see the eco-nuts undermined. With patience more of the social engineering and related BS will become undone.
7 posted on 10/30/2003 9:10:46 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Here's the link.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1010124/posts
8 posted on 10/30/2003 9:18:59 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Reminds one of the academic fraud that Bellesiles tried to foist with his gun grabbing volume, Arming America.

This should be getting front page/opening story news...but I'm guessing Democrat Dan Rather and his cohorts are too busy pushing Baathist propaganda to notice.
9 posted on 10/30/2003 9:28:26 PM PST by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
It's also true that data from satellites show the Earth's surface is slightly warming, but not the atmosphere to any appreciable degree. The whole "greenhouse gas" theory is based upon the atmosphere warming the Earth - a total contradition to the observed facts!
10 posted on 10/30/2003 9:28:31 PM PST by Socratic (Yes, there is method in the madness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Good find! I'll use to deflate several sources of hot air that I know that routinely pump the global warming hysteria.
11 posted on 10/30/2003 9:30:02 PM PST by WorkingClassFilth (DEFUND NPR & PBS - THE AMERICAN PRAVDA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Nice catch. I saw a related post yesterday saying the Mann et al. original paper lacked his raw data for peer review

It wouldn't be the first time the eviro-hucksters tried to withhold data. Was it an EPA study blaming midwest power plant particulates on asthma in the Eastern states that didn't reveal data? I think EPA said it was proprietary data of the contractor. What a load.

12 posted on 10/30/2003 9:31:20 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: boris
index ping
13 posted on 10/30/2003 9:42:02 PM PST by jokar (Beware of the White European Male Christian theological complex !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Bump for reference.
14 posted on 10/30/2003 9:45:01 PM PST by WillRain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
It wouldn't be the first time the eviro-hucksters tried to withhold data. Was it an EPA study blaming midwest power plant particulates on asthma in the Eastern states that didn't reveal data? I think EPA said it was proprietary data of the contractor. What a load.

I'm not familiar with that study. However, I am very familiar with asthma, and I'm inclined to think that recent increases in the prevalence of asthma is due to more folks with a genetic predisposition for asthma. More minorities have asthma, and I believe the increase in the prevalence is due to changing demographics.

In support of my hypothesis, I maintain that folks who originally migrated to this country were more self selected to tolerate air pollution. Those folks had to endure miserable indoor air in the cold winters of the northern hemishere during the winter or freeze to death.

Recent immigration of people whose ancestors came from more tropical climates have respiratory systems whose genes were not selected for dealing with such pollution. It's indirect support for Darwin's theory of natural selection, but now invoking the theory of natural selection, which is the current explanation for evolution, is now politically incorrect.

Anyone doubting the demographic distribution of asthma is invited to go to PubMed, the website of the National Institute of Health, and use the following search strategy: asthma AND prevalence .

15 posted on 10/30/2003 10:17:59 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I don't think I've ever seen a malady that had so many things blamed for it. Cockroach droppings, dust mites, mercury in vacinations, etc.

Steve Milloy has a huge collection of stories on this. I think the most plausible explanation for this "epidemic" is the self-reporting. Instead of tallying the number of people who go to a clinic and get diagnosed with asthma, they take surveys now, "Your kid ever have asthma?". Problem is -- fifty years ago no one ever heard of it and so they assumed it was just chronic colds.

I can't say you're wrong, but some things we'll probably never know, especially when an hoard of greedy lawyers can profit from it.

http://www.junkscience.com/
16 posted on 10/30/2003 10:48:32 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Good article, this one's a keeper.

My answer to Kyoto is always "Greenland". At one time it was temperate enough to support agriculture. Then it wasn't.

I also remember that before the Global Warming panic, we had a "New Ice Age" panic.
17 posted on 10/30/2003 11:32:05 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
"I don't think I've ever seen a malady that had so many things blamed for it. Cockroach droppings, dust mites, mercury in vacinations, etc.

Steve Milloy has a huge collection of stories on this. I think the most plausible explanation for this "epidemic" is the self-reporting. Instead of tallying the number of people who go to a clinic and get diagnosed with asthma, they take surveys now, "Your kid ever have asthma?". Problem is -- fifty years ago no one ever heard of it and so they assumed it was just chronic colds."

I only heard about the mercury compounds used in vaccines vaguely associated with autism, not asthma. Correct me if I'm wrong. I can't read everything and FR too.

I've treated many folks with exacerbations of asthma. Regardless of cause, if they are bad enough to stay in the ER and be admitted, the only differnce in treatment may vary by pulmonary consultant.

A "cold" or even cold temperatures can precipitate an asthma attack. Earlier this year I bought the latest edition of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine. When I was in training, they made a distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic causes of asthma as to what was the proximal cause of the attack. There was no such distinction in the latest edition of Harrison's, which is a standard reference medical text.

In extremis, these folks almost always have expiratory wheezing, especially before they turn blue. At that point, it's almost too late.

It could be a nocturnal cough to both internal and external wheezing but asthma has to be considered in what's called the differential diagnosis. I hope this is making sense as it's become very technical and clinical.
18 posted on 10/30/2003 11:58:17 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
OK AG BUMP. Happy Halloween, Farmfriend.
19 posted on 10/31/2003 3:10:18 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I only heard about the mercury compounds used in vaccines vaguely associated with autism, not asthma. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's one:

http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/asthma2.html

The general rule is:

1) Find any malady.

2) Find any popular bugaboo.

You will find some lawyer who blames 1 on 2.

"Blame" is the big issue here because of the huge legal penalties. Having allergies myself, I've thought a lot about this gray area between internal and external cause. But how does a jury translate that into liability. If someone is allergic to everything, should we ban every substance -- sue every manufacturer ?

No doubt that asthma is real and people die from it, but do you believe the epidemic is real?

20 posted on 10/31/2003 7:21:17 AM PST by Dan Evans (And that's on the Internet, ladies and gentleman of the jury, so it must be true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Perfect ~ Bump!
21 posted on 10/31/2003 8:13:51 AM PST by blackie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Dan Evans; farmfriend; *Global Warming Hoax; boris; Robert A. Cook, PE; tubebender; ...
Farmfriend: I'd appreciate if you notified your ping list of this post. neverdem, thanks for posting the link; I'll repeat it with the title:

Researchers question key global-warming study

See the latest (bottom) posts on that thread for more on this issue.

The global warming-skeptical community has followed the publication of this article with a rush of editorials. The problem is, according to an exchange of information found at this Web site over the past couple of days:

Quark Soup

apparently McIntyre and McKitrick did their analysis on an improperly-formatted data set, and not on the actual data used for the published Mann et al. research papers. I would say that the blame for them not getting the proper data falls squarely on Dr. Mann, and the reasons for his cavalier behavior are not clear; it's certainly not only because he's at the University of Virginia. It's obvious that Mann's research and results have been the target of a number of criticisms from the skeptical community, and he may think that to reply to skeptics in the same manner that he treats fellow scientists is somehow beneath him. If he thinks that the bad press he's getting for this study will be balanced by "good press" in scientific journals, then he's living an ivory-tower existence that's out of touch with reality. He would have been far smarter to make sure that McIntyre and McKitrick got the right data and didn't find any mistakes with it, in which case I doubt these editorials praising McIntyre and McKitrick and undermining Mann would have happened; if they didn't find apparent mistakes, McIntyre and McKitrick wouldn't have had anything to publish.

Isn't there something about the best way to frustrate an enemy is to act like their friend? Maybe Mann should learn that.

22 posted on 10/31/2003 11:02:16 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Kyoto ping! Wasn't your daughter working on a school project regarding the alleged global warming?
23 posted on 10/31/2003 11:08:51 AM PST by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
BTTT!!!!!
24 posted on 10/31/2003 11:32:21 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
Yes. Thanks for the ping!
25 posted on 10/31/2003 11:42:55 AM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Thanks for the interesting link. It will take more than that to change the public health establishment. Even if the link to atopy is true, they have to argue against overall mortality and morbidity statistics before and after a particular vaccination program started.
26 posted on 10/31/2003 12:39:04 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Thanks for the ping. It seems the plot thickens.
27 posted on 10/31/2003 12:43:36 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Thanks for the ping. It seems the plot thickens.

In this particular case, it's dilatent!

28 posted on 10/31/2003 1:14:31 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
An interesing thought came to me after happening across a cable news/talk show that was discussing the medication of pediatric psychiatric diagnoses. Could this vaccination hypothesis also explain the epidemic of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pediatric depression, etc.?
29 posted on 10/31/2003 7:44:50 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Could this vaccination hypothesis also explain the epidemic of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pediatric depression, etc.?

I don't know if it explains it in real life but it's certainly true on the Internet:

http://groups.msn.com/ParentsofVaccineDamagedChildren/addampadhd.msnw

I'll bet lawyers are sniffing around this group like pedophiles trolling for 13 year olds at the Brittany Spears Fan Club.

30 posted on 10/31/2003 10:14:40 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Thank you for another interesting link. The lawyers might already be salivating.

Private physicians have patients sign informed consent forms that will usually cover them.

Malpractice liability needs reform badly. Otherwise medicine will become socialized. I used to think the proper oversight was with the individual states. Maybe the feds should do it under the cloak of the 14th Amendment.
31 posted on 10/31/2003 10:51:00 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
It would be nice like to think that Mann and colleagues published sincere results that just happened to be picked up by crusaders. However, anyone who's spent any time in the halls of academe will tell you that there are as many political crusaders as there are people sincerely fascinated with observing and trying to understand the world. Many are more interested in changing the world than understanding it.

The temperature data were never very convincing except to those who didn't need convincing. It was too noisy and required statistical means to deliver minor results. Then came along the solar data, and wow!

32 posted on 11/01/2003 5:25:32 AM PST by beavus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Private physicians have patients sign informed consent forms that will usually cover them.

I wonder if pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines can do that.

33 posted on 11/01/2003 9:31:22 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
"I wonder if pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines can do that."

Thar's why they spend the big bucks to get FDA approval.


34 posted on 11/01/2003 10:01:03 AM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Does FDA approval limit their liability?
35 posted on 11/01/2003 12:58:33 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
"Does FDA approval limit their liability?"

I believe it does, although I'm doc not a lawyer. If it didn't, then I doubt the drug companies would make them. There are almost constant shortages of one or another vaccine. Making vaccines is not a very profitable enterprise. There are not too many drug companies that want to be bothered.
36 posted on 11/01/2003 1:21:09 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
bump for later
37 posted on 11/01/2003 1:23:21 PM PST by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Whatever limits they get from FDA approval, it isn't enough. That may be why it isn't worth it to make vaccines. I think I read that at one time in the recent past there was only one U.S. company still in the vaccine business.

http://overlawyered.com/archives/01/nov1.html#1107a
38 posted on 11/01/2003 3:46:08 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
It won't matter if every scientist on the face of the Earth comes out against it. The enviroNazis are far beyond any sense of rational thought and reason.
39 posted on 11/01/2003 3:50:14 PM PST by Viking2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Interesting link, Adios
40 posted on 11/01/2003 4:19:34 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Viking2002
The next thing they'll do is sue us to death:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012954/posts
41 posted on 11/01/2003 6:15:32 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans; Chairman_December_19th_Society
Bttt.

5.56mm

42 posted on 11/01/2003 6:20:50 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson