Skip to comments."An INconvenient Truth" Is a Pack of Lies
Posted on 06/26/2006 10:48:42 AM PDT by Hillsdale Guy
Before we get too hyped up about this move, understand that it's a piece of political propaganda.
Here is information from an article by someone who is fairly sold on human-induced global warming:
Take sea level rise for example. Gore spends a lot of time talking about how dramatic melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps that could raise sea level by 20 feet by 2100.
Well, the "consensus" of climate scientists as represented in the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea level is likely to rise between 4 inches to 35 inches with a central value of 19 inches. Nineteen inches is not nothing and is 3 times greater than the sea level rise the world experienced during the 20th century, but Manhattan and most of Florida will most likely still be above water in 2100.
Gore shows that many mountain glaciers are melting away all around the worldglaciers in Alaska, Europe and Mount Kilimanjaroare responding to increased warming. (Though the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro seem to be melting away because of changes in rainfall patterns rather than to increased heat. Of course, it is possible that the shift in rainfall is the result of global warming.)
As further evidence of warming, Gore notes that permafrost is melting in parts of Alaska and Siberia. The temperatures in central Siberia are thought to have increased by 3 degrees Celsius over the past 40 years. A Russian study in 2004 found that the average temperatures in Siberia during the Holocene Climatic Optimum around 6000 years ago warmed up by 3 to 9 degrees celcius in the winter, and by 2 to 6 degrees celcius in the summer. Due to changes in the earth's orbit which affect how much sunlight reaches the surface, pretty much the entire Arctic was warmer than now 6000 years ago. Which brings me to the polar bears.
Gore shows an animation of a polar bear (very reminiscent of the Coca Cola bears) swimming pitifully in the sea trying to haul itself up onto the last piece of ice floating in the Arctic Ocean. In 2002, the World Wildlife Fund issued a report warning that global warming was endangering polar bears. Arctic sea ice is thawing sooner and this means that the bears who hunt seals on the ice have fewer opportunities to feed themselves. This week saw an alarming report that hungry polar bears are turning cannibal. Yet, the WWF report itself found that most bear populations are either stable or increasing (see page 9 of the report). And remember, polar bears evidently survived when Arctic temperatures were warmer 6000 years ago. Of course, if predictions that the entire Arctic Ocean will be ice free in 100 year turn out to be right, then the polar bears will have a problem. For example, he pointed the heat wave that hit Europe in 2003 that killed some 35,000 people with temperatures hitting 104 degrees Fahrenheit. But historically such temperatures are not unknown to Europe. In July 1921, a heat wave hit much of Western Europe with the temperature reaching 104 degrees Fahrenheit in Strasbourg, France. Gore also pointed to the monsoon storm in 2005 that dumped 37 inches of rain in 24 hours on Mumbai India. But storms like that have happened beforeeven in the United States. In 1921, Thrall, Texas experienced a 24-hour downpour of 38 inches and Alvin, Texas was soaked with 43 inches over a 24-hour period in 1979.
Gore points to the devastation of the Hurricane Katrina and flatly says that global warming is increasing the intensity of hurricanes. But that claim is hotly contested by climate scientists. For example, a recent study in Geophysical Research Letters finds "based on data over the last twenty years, no significant increasing trend is evident in global ACE [accumulated cyclone energy] or in Category 45 hurricanes."
At a climatic moment (pun intended) in the film, Gore traces a red temperature line inexorably increasing while he declares that 10 of the hottest years on record occurred in the last 14 years. Then he asserts that 2005 was the hottest ever. Pause for effect. Basically, Gore's general point is right but it's just irritating for him not to acknowledge that 2005 is statistically indistinguishable from 1998. But doing that would not have had the quite the same dramatic effect in the film.
Of course, the increase of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is thought to be the chief contemporary driver of global warming. All things being equal higher carbon dioxide levels lead to higher temperatures. Gore illustrates the relation between carbon dioxide and temperatures with a chart showing data taken from ice cores from Antarctica. These ice cores contain tiny bubbles of air from the earth's atmosphere all the way back to 650,000 years ago. Scientists measure them to see the proportion of various gases that were in the atmosphere when the bubbles were trapped. Gore points out that temperatures and carbon dioxide go up in tandem over the last four ice ages. But waitGore fails to mention something interesting. Temperatures go up first and then the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases some 800 or more years later.
In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore makes a big deal about how his Harvard professor, oceanographer Roger Revelle, influenced his views about the dangers of global warming. A genuinely gifted scientist, Revelle was responsible for the creation of the Mauna Loa Observatory that has been measuring the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1958. However, Professor Revelle co-authored an article in the house journal of the Cosmos Club in Washington, DC in 1991 which concluded, The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.
I give An Inconvenient Truth a tepid 2 stars.
That is just one writer. There are plenty of others who find that the movie is a piece of hype and not a great movie at that.
Here is some interesting data:
Antarctica has been cooling and gaining mass. A miniscule section, the Antarctic Peninsula, has been warming and is the focus of most of the studies.
Was it inconvenient to consider that glacial retreat on Kilimanjaro is caused by a reduction in moisture that began in the early 1900s and deforestation, not by warming (2004 articles in International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research)? Or Nature magazine ("African Ice Under Wraps" - 11/24/03): Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit.
The quacks had a different calamity in the 70s. Newsweeks The Cooling World (4/28/75) noted ominous signs Earths weather was changing dramatically and may portend a drastic decline in food production perhaps only 10 years from now. The evidence was so massive that meteorologists, who were almost unanimous were hard-pressed to keep up with it. It seem that that April had the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded and reports by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fanned the flames.
What is not moral is to distort the truth for political ends which is precisely what has been done with the ice-caps story. Heres what you havent read.
The world has two major ice sheets, one covering most of Greenland and the other covering most of Antarctica. While melting sea ice has captured its share of attention, its the land sheets that matter. Sea ice is already in the water, so its melting doesnt raise ocean levels. But if land ice melts, the sea gets higher. Time wants you to be very worried about this: By some estimates, the entire Greenland ice sheet would be enough to raise global sea levels 23 ft., swallowing up large parts of coastal Florida and most of Bangladesh. The Antarctic holds enough ice to raise sea levels more than 215 ft. Farewell, Dhaka, we shall miss thee.
Or not. Those numbers sound impressive, but the chances of the ice caps fully melting are about as high as the chances of Times giving you an honest story on global warming. The truth is that theres no solid evidence supporting the conclusion that weve locked the ice caps in to a melting trend. Lets look at Antarctica and Greenland in turn.
About Antarctica, University of Virginia climate scientist Patrick J. Michaels is direct: What has happened is that Antarctica has been gaining ice. He explains that there has been a cooling trend over most of Antarctica for decades. At the same time, one tiny portion of the continent the Antarctic Peninsula has been warming, and its ice has been melting. The peninsula constitutes only about 2 percent of Antarcticas total area, but almost every study of melting Antarctic ice youve heard of focuses on it.
So what about the rest of the continent? In 2002, Nature published a study by Peter Doran that looked at Antarctic temperature trends from 1966 to 2000. What it found was that about two-thirds of Antarctica got colder over that period. At the same time, Antarctica has gotten snowier, and as the snow has accumulated the ice sheet has grown. Snowfall is probably rising because water temperatures around Antarctica have gotten slightly repeat, slightly warmer. As a result, there is more surface evaporation, making for higher humidity and more precipitation. Higher humidity also means more clouds, which might explain the cooler weather.
How much ice has Antarctica gained? In a 2005 study published in Science, Curt Davis used satellite measurements to calculate changes in the ice sheets elevation, and found that it gained 45 billion tons of ice per year between 1992 and 2003. Far from flooding the coasts, thats enough to lower sea levels by roughly 0.12 millimeters annually.
This doesnt mean the trend of increasing Antarctic ice will continue forever. Science captured headlines in March when it published a study by Isabella Velicogna arguing that, between 2002 and 2005, Antarctica has been losing ice mass. Velicogna used a pair of satellites to measure the gravitational pull exerted by the Antarctic ice sheet, which in turn allowed her to calculate its mass. Her data suggest that, over the past three years, the sheet has lost about 152 cubic kilometers of ice per year. That would be the equivalent of about 0.4 millimeters of annual sea-level rise.
But three years do not a trend make. To begin with, such a short sampling period is a blip in the slow rhythms of climate change. Moreover, 2002 the year in which the study began was a high-water mark for Antarctic ice, so its not too surprising to see some decline since then. Alarmism over Velicognas study is on the order of going to the beach at high tide, drawing a line at the waters edge, and fretting a few hours later that the oceans are drying up.
And Greenland? Various studies show that warmer temperatures are causing the ice sheet there to lose mass at the margins. But, as in Antarctica, higher sea temperatures are also causing greater snowfall and building up ice in the interior. As Richard Lindzen of MIT observes, If youre just going to look at whats falling off the sides and ignore whats collecting on top, thats not exactly kosher. The question is whether the net change is positive or negative.
Earlier this year, Eric Rignot and Pannir Kanagaratnam published a study in Science that used satellite measurements to calculate ice loss around Greenlands coasts. They also used models to determine how much ice was vanishing from surface melt, and how much was accumulating from greater snowfall. Adding it all up, they got a decade of deficits: 91 cubic kilometers of ice lost in 1996, rising to 224 cubic kilometers in 2005. That translates to a sea-level rise of 0.23 millimeters in 1996 and 0.57 millimeters in 2005.
But, as the web publication CO2 Science has pointed out, their model-based estimate of the ice gain in Greenlands interior was implausibly small. In fact, Science had earlier published a study by Ola Johannessen that used satellite measurements to determine how much the ice sheet was growing. Johannessen found that, between 1992 and 2003, it was gaining on average 5.4 centimeters of elevation per year.
That may not sound like a lot, but it adds up. Michaels, the University of Virginia professor, calculates that it amounts to about 74 cubic kilometers of ice per year. Rignot and Kanagaratnam could have subtracted that number from their estimate of coastal ice loss, which would have given them a negative total only for the past five years: 17 cubic kilometers lost in 2000, rising to 92 cubic kilometers in 2005. That would be equivalent to only 0.04 millimeters of sea-level rise in 2000 and 0.23 millimeters in 2005.
Add all the numbers from Greenland and Antarctica up, and you get a rather piddling total. In 2005, Jay Zwally of NASA published a study in the Journal of Glaciology that looked at the ice-mass changes for both Greenland and Antarctica from 1992 to 2002. He concluded that the total ice loss was equivalent to a sea-level rise of just 0.05 millimeters per year. At that rate, it would take the oceans a millennium to gain 5 centimeters, and a full 20,000 years to rise by a meter. To the hills, anyone? A LONGSTANDING PATTERN Granted, the Zwally study doesnt include the last three years years in which, according to some measurements, Antarctica has switched from gaining ice to losing it, and Greenlands rate of loss has accelerated. But you dont need to invoke man-made global warming to explain whats going on.
Consider Greenland again. Yes, temperatures there are warmer than they were a decade ago. But many climate scientists think this is the result of a phenomenon called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) a pattern of slow, repeating changes in the oceans surface temperatures. The AMO affects both the Atlantic tropics and the regions farther north. When the AMO is in its positive phase, temperatures rise in both places which should cause more Caribbean hurricanes, and increase the speed at which Greenlands glaciers discharge into the sea. This appears to be just what is happening. The AMO changed from negative to positive in 1995, Michaels wrote on Tech Central Station. Since then hurricanes have become very active and glacier output has been accelerating. Is this mans fault? Models suggest that the AMO has been going on for at least 1,400 years. Maybe things would have turned out differently had Charlemagne signed the Kyoto Protocol, but the odds are against it.
In fact, we have temperature records indicating that Greenland was as warm as it is today during the first half of the 20th century. From 1920 to 1930, Greenland saw significant warming, and temperatures stayed high through the 40s. A team of scientists led by Petr Chylek looked at Greenlands temperature record in a study forthcoming from Geophysical Research Letters. They write that the increase in Greenlands temperature between 1920 and 1930 was of a similar magnitude to the increase between 1995 and 2005. But the earlier warming happened faster: The rate of warming in 19201930 was about 50% higher. 2003 was a hot year, but the years 2004 and 2005 were closer to normal[,] being well below temperatures reached in [the] 1930s and 1940s. Moreover, although . . . 19952005 was relatively warm, almost all decades within 1915 to 1965 were even warmer.
As with Greenland, so with the world. There is no consensus that human activity is the main cause of climate change. Reluctant though one is to question Times authority in matters scientific, its simply wrong when it declares: In the past five years or so, the serious debate has quietly ended. Global warming, even most skeptics have concluded, is the real deal, and human activity has been causing it.
What we know is that the global average temperature has risen by about 1 degree Celsius or less since the late 1800s. We also know that industrial activity has raised atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations, and that this increase should make things warmer. But there is wide disagreement about the extent to which carbon-dioxide emissions are responsible for the warming weve seen so far, and how much warming they will cause in the future. Fred Singer of George Mason University points out that we have historic [temperature] records in Europe going back a thousand years. It was much warmer then than today. The Arctic was much warmer a thousand years ago than it is today. Polar bears survived. The ice caps survived. And data from ice cores suggest that previous interglacial periods were warmer than the one were going through now.
Moreover, the models scientists use to predict the effects of carbon-dioxide emissions are biased to overpredict global warming. They assume that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will increase by about 1 percent a year. In fact, this is more than twice the observed rate. In the last ten years, the average increase was 0.49 percent; in the decade before that, it was 0.42 percent; and in the decade before that, it was 0.43 percent. But scientists keep feeding the models 1 percent. Thats more than a 100 percent margin of error. Three cheers for precision.
Its not surprising, then, that actual warming in recent years has been lower than the models say it should have been. By creating a false sense of alarm, the models make the ice-cap debate much shriller than it should be. For example, the authors of the Science study that Time refers to were able to predict a sea-level rise of several meters only because they took as Gospel the 1 percentperyear CO2 increase. That gave them a tripling of atmospheric CO2 by 2100 and a quadrupling by 2130. But as Michaels points out, observed data suggest this quadrupling wont happen till 2269. By then, he writes, energy-production technology will probably have turned over two or three times and this will never have become an issue.
THE WORSE THE BETTER Why are scientists using the wrong numbers? Richard Lindzen of MIT thinks that, while most scientists were originally agnostic on the question whether human activity was causing global warming, environmentalists and the media would exaggerate. That eventually built up a public concern, and politicians responded by throwing research dollars at scientists. If global warming turned out not to be a problem, those dollars would go away. Better to keep us worried: Youve developed a scientific community that will do whatever it needs to do to make sure the answer isnt obtained. Why should taxpayers pay for people not to find an answer?
Lindzen doesnt mean that there is a conspiracy among scientists, but rather that the funding process gives an incentive toward pessimism. If you have doubts about this, consider how frequently climate scientists tell us that things are worse than we thought. If a scientific study isnt biased in such a way as to look for an alarming outcome, the odds that its findings will be better than expected are equal to the odds that they will be worse than expected. In other words, its a coin toss; an unbiased research process should produce better-than-expected results and worse-than-expected results in roughly equal proportion. Michaels got interested in this notion. He looked at a single day last December when 15 findings on global warming were released to the press. Fourteen fell into the worse-than-expected category. But if none of the studies that produced the findings was biased, the odds of getting a 14-to-1 ratio are less than 1 in 2,000.
Of course, even if man-made global warming is the primary cause of the mild temperature and sea-level rises being observed, this doesnt settle the question of what to do about it. The environmental lobbys answer is: Ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Time isnt even subtle about it, calling George W. Bushs environmental record dismal and specifically citing his abandonment of Kyoto. But he abandoned it for good reason. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that the treaty would cost the American economy $300 billion to $400 billion a year. Any decision about whether to pay such a price should be based on cost-benefit analysis. What, then, is the benefit?
In a word, nothing. Kyoto wouldnt stop whatever warming is caused by greenhouse-gas emissions; it would just slow it. And it would barely do that. Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research calculated that the full global implementation of Kyoto would prevent 0.07 degrees Celsius of global warming by 2050, an outcome that is all but undetectable. To put a dent in CO2 levels, youd need much greater emissions reductions than Kyoto calls for. Jerry Mahlman of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, for example, has called Kyoto a first step and said that 30 Kyotos might do the job.
Thirty Kyotos would also come at the price of economic collapse. When its not even clear that the warming weve seen is hurting us many argue that its a boon, citing its benefits to agriculture and its potential to make severe climates more hospitable such draconian solutions should be unthinkable. And if it turns out that carbon dioxide is hurting the planet, its probably doing so at such a gradual pace that the best solution is to wait for markets to produce new innovations in energy technology. (And are we finally far enough away from Three Mile Island to utter the word nuclear?)
In the meantime, lets stick with what we know about melting ice, and about global warming generally. Were not sure that we have a problem. If we do, we dont know that were the ones causing it.
There is much less of a "consensus" on the matter than Gore claims.
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
"While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies." Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjrn KarlÈn, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But KarlÈn clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
KarlÈn explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says KarlÈn
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Again, this is a piece of political propaganda promoting an agenda that many people think would most likely be economically harmful to the United States, based on science that is questionable. Yet everybody is getting alarmed about it as if it were indisputable truth.
Green Environmentalism turned Yellow Journalism..........
I'd read in another story linked here in Freep about how almost all the scientists claiming there is global warming are not climatologists per se, but instead scientists who study the impact of climate changes on the forests or deserts or whatever "ecosystem" is their specialty.
True or false? If true, that is devastating enough to shut up even the most virulent strain of Greeny...
It doesn't have to be actually the truth in the scientific sense...
Ronald Bailey :
I have long been a critic of former Vice-President Al Gore, but as a recent convert to the view that humanity is contributing significantly to the current increase in average global temperatures,
I am a recent convert as well, however I don't believe in the doom and gloom that most GW proponents give. The exaggerating they do, does little for their cause anymore. It just turns of the skeptics even more.
I am not convinced at all. We've always had warming and cooling cycles. The Medieval warming period was warmer than today.
I know, I have been a sceptic for a long time. I am still skeptical about much of what the GW proponents claim, but I do believe that 1- there IS some GW ocurring, and that 2- human's are responsible for some of it. Thats why I am a Nuclear Power proponent, and I think the conservatives should jump on this bandwagon and get this ball rolling. Its a win-win if we do.
Boy, do I agree with you on nuclear power. It's the only effective alternative to our dependence on foreign oil.
No they won't. If they are the predators they are all cracked up to be, they'll migrate to solid ground, adapt and start eating the next furry little critter they come across. Of course, with the polar region getting warmer, there will be more furry little critters on the menu.
Right, and we can use the GW hysteria to get it going, use their own issues "against" them, so to speak.
And has anybody figured out what the mean temp at the poles is going to have to be in order for the Arctic to be ice free?
Thanks - well worth the long read.
Long read, but good info.
True, but does he actually believe it?
Either, (a)he believes it,, in which case he's so stupid that nobody should pay attention to anything he says; or (b)he knows better, in which case he's too dishonest to be believed.
BTW, just attached a click-on to your creation.
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.