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

Skip to comments.

PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE (Did GGWS present inaccurate information?)
Media Lens ^ | 03/13/2007

Posted on 03/25/2007 7:55:15 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007

The Scientists Are The Bad Guys On March 8, Channel 4 screened The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that branded as a lie the scientific consensus that man-made greenhouse gasses are primarily responsible for climate change.

The film was advertised extensively on Channel 4 and repeatedly previewed and reviewed in newspapers. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker declared:

“Only very rarely can a TV documentary be seen as a pivotal moment in a major political debate, but such was Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle last Thursday. Never before has there been such a devastatingly authoritative account of how the hysteria over global warming has parted company with reality.” (Booker, ‘A turning point in climate change,’ Sunday Telegraph, March 11, 2007)

Peter Hitchens commented in the Daily Mail:

“If you were worried about those snaps of polar bears clinging to melting ice-floes, sentenced to a slow death by global warming, you may now relax. They'll be fine. Channel 4 has paid in full for its recent misdemeanours by screening, last Thursday, the brilliant, devastating film The Great Global Warming Swindle.” (Hitchens, ‘Drugs?’, Daily Mail, March 11, 2007)

Doubtless like many who saw the film, the Financial Times’ reviewer was left bewildered:

“Not so long ago, the venerable David Attenborough on the Beeb was telling us that human-driven global warming was real and was coming for us. So that was settled. Now Channel 4, like a dissident schoolboy, is scoffing at the old boy's hobbyhorse and I don't know what to believe.” (’Slaughterhouse three,’ Financial Times, March 10, 2007)

The film opened with scenes of wild weather and environmental disaster accompanied by dramatic captions:

"THE ICE IS MELTING. THE SEA IS RISING. HURRICANES ARE BLOWING. AND IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT.

“SCARED? DON'T BE. IT'S NOT TRUE."

This was immediately followed by a series of equally forthright talking heads:

"We can't say that CO2 will drive climate; it certainly never did in the past."

“We imagine that we live in an age of reason. And the global warming alarm is dressed up as science. But it’s not science; it’s propaganda.”

And:

“We’re just being told lies; that’s what it comes down to.”

The commentary added to the sense of outrage: “You are being told lies.”

This was indeed superficially impressive - when several experts make bold statements on the same theme we naturally assume they must be onto something - but alarm bells should already have been ringing. This, after all, was ostensibly a film about science - about evidence, arguments, research and debate. Why, then, the language of polemic and smear?

The remarkable answer is provided by the film’s writer and director, Martin Durkin:

"I think it [the film] will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys. It is a big story that is going to cause controversy.

“It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.” ('“Global Warming Is Lies” Claims Documentary,’ Life Style Extra, March 4, 2007; www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669 U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_ claims_documentary)

Compare and contrast this with the aim as described in a letter sent by the makers of the film, Wag TV, to Professor Carl Wunsch, a leading expert on ocean circulation and climate who subsequently appeared in the film:

“The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. Given the seemingly inconclusive nature of the evidence, it examines the background to the apparent consensus on this issue, and highlights the dangers involved, especially to developing nations, of policies aimed at limiting industrial growth.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response)

Wunsch comments:

"I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled." (Geoffrey Lean, ‘Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4,’ The Independent, March 11, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/ climate_change/article2347526.ece)

We will hear more from Wunsch in what follows.

Deeply Deceptive The film presented viewers with an apparently devastating refutation of the "theory of global warming". And these were not picky, esoteric criticisms. Durkin insisted that the world’s climate scientists are guilty of the most fundamental error imaginable: increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is not the cause of higher temperature, as the experts claim. Quite the reverse: increasing atmospheric CO2 is itself the result of rising temperature.

As evidence for this contention, Durkin argued that global surface temperature dropped dramatically between 1945-1975, at a time when CO2 emissions were rapidly rising as a result of the postwar economic boom. According to Durkin, if CO2 emissions were responsible for increasing temperature, then temperature should not have fallen between 1945-1975. Clearly, then, some factor other than CO2 emissions must have caused the subsequent global temperature rise.

But Real Climate, an internet site run by climate scientists, such as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt and Dr William Connelley of the British Antarctic Survey, describes Durkin’s discussion of the 1945-75 period as “deeply deceptive”. (Real Climate, March 9, 2007; www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2007/03/swindled)

In this section of the film, Durkin focused heavily on a graph depicting temperature changes. The graph, Real Climate comments, “looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected”. It appears to show a dramatic cooling between the 1940s and 1970s. But try flipping between the film’s version of the global temperature record (shown above left) and the temperature plot that normally appears in the scientific literature (shown above right) The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph.

Without knowing more details of how Durkin may have manipulated the data plotted in his graph, it is difficult to comment on the presentation. What we can say is that Durkin’s "four decades of cooling", implying a relentless temperature drop over 40 years, is not an accurate description of the trend over this period. There was some cooling for +part+ of this time but also some plateauing, with fluctuations up and down.

But why did the temperature not simply rise in line with the post-war increase in greenhouse gas emissions?

In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols, into the atmosphere. These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”. By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2. By the 1980s, however, stronger warming had exceeded this masking effect and global temperature has since continued to rise. As Real Climate notes, by failing to explain the science behind this phenomenon the programme makers were guilty of “lying to us by omission.”

The Ice Cores The film repeatedly gave the impression that mainstream science argues that CO2 is the sole driver of rising temperatures in the Earth's climate system. But this is not the case. Climate scientists are well aware that solar activity plays a role, though a minor one at present, as do long-term periodic changes in the Earth's orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

The point is that there is a vast body of evidence that very strongly supports the hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the most important, are primarily responsible for recent global warming. The 4th and most recent scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes:

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [.i.e. probability greater than 90%] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." ('Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,' Summary for Policymakers, IPCC, February 2007, page 10; www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)

We then come to one of the film's most misleading arguments. Antarctic ice cores show that rises in levels of CO2 have lagged 800 years behind temperature rises at specific times in the geological past. This, argued Durkin, +proves+ that CO2 cannot be responsible for global warming - instead global warming is responsible for increasing levels of CO2. But this was a huge howler.

What Durkin's film failed to explain was that the 800-year lag happened at the end of ice ages which occur about every 100,000 years. (See: www.realclimate.org/index.php/ archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores)

Scientists believe that the end of an ice age is likely triggered when the amount of heat reaching the Earth rises as a result of a periodic change in the Earth's orbit around the sun. Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explains why the rise in CO2 initially lags behind the temperature rise:

"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend." (Real Climate, 'What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?’, December 3, 2005; www.realclimate.org/index.php /archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/)

The best current explanation for the lag of 800 years is that this is how long it takes for CO2, absorbed by the ocean in an earlier warm period, to be "flushed out" at the end of an ice age. Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback. (See Caillon et al., 'Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III,' Science, 14 March 2003: Vol. 299. no. 5613, pp. 1728 - 1731)

Professor Severinghaus summarises:

"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway."

Durkin’s analysis, then, was way off the mark.

The film’s claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility. In September 2006, the Times reported the latest findings from researchers writing in the top journal, Nature:

“Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. ‘The solar contribution to warming... is negligible,’ the researchers wrote in the journal Nature.” (Anjana Ahuja, ‘It's hot, but don't blame the Sun,’ The Times, September 25, 2006)

The film's other scientific claims can be similarly dismissed. Carl Wunsch - who, as discussed, appeared in the film - comments:

“What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)

For further help in understanding the weakness of the film’s claims, see the following resources:

Real Climate, 'Swindled', http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled

Campaign Against Climate Change, including a rebuttal to the film by Sir John Houghton, who chairs the Scientific Assessment Working Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820

Royal Society: Facts and fictions about climate change: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4761

“I Was Duped” - Déjà Vu? Many readers will be aware that Durkin has previous ‘form’. In 1997, Channel 4 broadcast his three-part series, Against Nature, which suggested present-day environmentalists were the true heirs of the Nazis. (See George Monbiot, ‘The Revolution Has Been Televised,’ The Guardian, December 18, 1997; www.monbiot.com/archives/1997/ 12/18/the-revolution-has-been-televised/)

Several interviewees who appeared in the film felt they had been misled about the programme-maker’s agenda. Responding to complaints, the Independent Television Commission (ITC) found that the editing of interviews with four contributors had "distorted or misrepresented their known views". (Geoffrey Lean, ‘Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4,’ The Independent, March 11, 2007; http://news.independent.co.uk/ environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece)

In addition, the ITC found: "The interviewees had also been misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part." (Paul McCann, ‘Channel 4 told to apologise to Greens,’ The Independent, April 2, 1998)

Ten years on, it appears that history may have repeated itself. In his letter of complaint to the film-makers cited above, Carl Wunsch writes:

“I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the ‘Global Warming Swindle’ is deeply embarrassing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

“At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.” (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ papersonline/channel4response)

Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.

Greenpeace provides a fascinating online ’map’ detailing how Exxon funds these climate sceptics. Go to: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ index.php?mapid=831 (click ‘Launch’ then click ‘skip intro’)

In his book, Green Backlash, environmental journalist Andrew Rowell noted that Fred Singer has also attacked scientific and environmental stances on other green issues such as ozone, acid rain, automobile emissions and even whaling. Singer has worked for companies such as Exxon, Shell, Arco, Unocal and Sun.

According to the Environmental Research Foundation, a non-governmental organisation:

“For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change.” (Quoted, Sharon Beder, Global Spin, Green Books, 1997, p.94)

Rowell wrote that a quarter of Patrick Michaels’ research funding was reportedly received from companies such as Edison Electric Institute, the largest utility trade association in America. Michaels’ magazine, World Climate Review, was funded by the Western Fuel Association and a video produced by him was funded by coal companies and distributed by the Denver Coal Club. (Rowell, Green Backlash, Routledge, 1996, p.143)

Both Singer and Michaels represented the fossil fuel lobby’s Global Climate Coalition and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leader in global warming scepticism.

Journalist Ross Gelbspan noted that in May 1995, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Michaels were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities. Gelbspan said of Lindzen:

“I don't know very many supporters of Mr Lindzen who are not in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby. Dr Lindzen himself, his research is publicly funded, but Dr Lindzen makes, as he told me, $2,500 a day consulting with fossil fuel interests, and that includes his consulting with OPEC, his consulting with the Australian coal industry, his consulting with the US coal industry and so forth. That's not to say Dr Lindzen doesn't believe what he says, but it is to say that he stands in very sharp distinction to really just about virtually all of the climate scientists around the world.” (Tony Jones, ‘Journalist puts global warming sceptics under the spotlight,’ Australian Broadcasting Corporation, March 7, 2005; www.abc.net.au/lateline/ content/2005/s1318067.htm)

Journalist George Monbiot wrote of Philip Stott:

“Professor Stott is a retired biogeographer. Like almost all the prominent sceptics he has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change. But he has made himself available to dismiss climatologists' peer-reviewed work as the ‘lies’ of ecofundamentalists.” (Monbiot, ‘Beware the fossil fools,’ The Guardian, April 27, 2004; http://environment.guardian.co.uk/ climatechange/story/0,,1829315,00.html)

Paul Driessen is a fellow at two right-wing think tanks in the US, which are part of the Wise Use movement. One of the think tanks is headed by Ron Arnold, who has spent the last twenty years attacking the environmental movement. His fellow director is a fundraiser for America's gun lobby. The list goes on...

By contrast, Greenpeace spokeswoman Mhairi Dunlop said her organisation had been interviewed by Durkin but none of the material had been included in the film:

"They interviewed us but I guess what we said didn't fit in with the [story] they were peddling." (McCandless, op. cit)

Following the film’s broadcast, Professor Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society - the government-sponsored academy of sciences for the United Kingdom - has said that many factors contribute to global warming but it is clear that emissions of "greenhouse gases," particularly CO2, are to blame for most of the current temperature rise. Rees added:

"Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game. They run the risk of diverting attention from what we can do to ensure the world's population has the best possible future." (Ibid)

On March 11 the Observer published a letter from a group of climate scientists responding to Durkin’s film:

“This programme misrepresented the state of scientific knowledge on global warming, claiming climate scientists are presenting lies. This is an outrageous statement...

“We defend the right of people to be sceptical, but for C4 to imply that the thousands of scientists and published peer-reviewed papers, summarised in the recent international science assessment, are misguided or lying lacks scientific credibility and simply beggars belief.” (Alan Thorpe, Natural Environment Research Council, Brian Hoskins, University of Reading, Jo Haigh, Imperial College London, Myles Allen, University of Oxford, Peter Cox, University of Exeter, Colin Prentice, QUEST Programme, letter to the Observer, Sunday March 11, 2007; http://observer.guardian.co.uk/ letters/story/0,,2031117,00.html)

Viewed from one perspective, Channel 4 has done a huge public disservice in spreading absurd and mendacious arguments guaranteed to generate confusion. This at a time when a fragile momentum is building on the need to take urgent action on the very real threat of catastrophic climate change.

But from another perspective it may well be that this film does for climate scepticism what Tony Blair’s “dodgy dossiers” did for the pro-war movement ahead of the invasion of Iraq. Wildly distorted propaganda often does have a powerful initial impact. But stretched beyond a certain point of unreality, it also has a tendency to turn on, and bite, the propagandists.

Durkin’s grandiose prediction that his film “will go down in history” will surely prove correct, although perhaps not for the reasons he imagined.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; United Kingdom; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: algore; globalscam; globalwarming; globalwarmingswindle; gwswindle; inconvenienttruth; maunderminimum; milankovitch; milankovitchcycles; swindle; uk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last
Hmm. Was the GGWS inaccurate?

Let's debate.

1 posted on 03/25/2007 7:55:20 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Global warming ping.


2 posted on 03/25/2007 8:02:46 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007 (Vote for Duncan Hunter in 2008. Audio, Video, and Quotes in my profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

bump


3 posted on 03/25/2007 8:05:05 PM PDT by God luvs America (When the silent majority speaks the earth trembles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

ping to e-mail to a certain lib at a later time!


4 posted on 03/25/2007 8:06:46 PM PDT by Joann37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Complete)

Recommend watching the video.

5 posted on 03/25/2007 8:06:52 PM PDT by FairOpinion (Victory in Iraq. Stop Hillary. Stop the Dems. Work for Republican Victory in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

Oh dear! Someone's funding must be in jeopardy.


6 posted on 03/25/2007 8:08:07 PM PDT by denydenydeny ("We have always been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France"--Wellington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
Professor Wunsch is Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography,Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a Foreign Member of the Royal Society. This piece was written in March 2006.

People ask "is it clear that human activity is directly responsible for climate change?" The context for answering this question must be another question: to what extent can the climate change all by itself?

The answer to the alternative question is: "a very great deal." Modern human beings appeared some time after about 50,000 years ago, and even then, anthropologists tell us that their numbers were very small until about 4000 years ago. Nonetheless, taking a cautious view, one might only examine climate change prior to 100,000 years ago.

Inferences about climate change before instruments and written records is the province primarily of geologists and geochemists. Their message is a very clear one: Earth has undergone enormous variations in climate state with changes taking place over times ranging from decades to millennia and longer.

Among the most extreme changes are the glacial-interglacial cycles in which, with the continents in their modern configuration dating back several million years, enormous ice caps waxed and waned over the Northern Hemisphere. Thus the UK, as well as all of western Europe, was under several kilometres of ice for thousands of years, interspersed with long intervals of a more benign climate such as that we have today.

These switches have taken place at intervals of between about 80,000 and 120,000 years for the last million years. Prior to that time, they appear to have occurred intermittently at about 40,000 year intervals. Even more dramatic changes took place in the deep past. It has been argued that during the Neogene period (about 24 to 1.8 million years ago), that the entire Earth froze over. Alternatively, over most of Earth's history, there were apparently no glaciers at all.

The glaciations are only the most dramatic of the inferred natural variability of the system.

Another problem concerns the counter-intuitive (for most people) behaviour of the consequences of random fluctuations in systems that have any kind of memory. As an example, consider the situation considered long ago by K. Hasselmann. The ocean is to be regarded as simply a completely passive reservoir of water with an initial temperature, T0. As such, its only physics we care about is its ability to store heat for very long periods (out to thousands of years in some instances).

Now we heat and cool the ocean over some small region using the atmosphere. To determine whether the ocean is to be heated and cooled on any given day, we simply flip a coin: if it's heads, we heat the ocean. If it's tails, we cool it by a like amount. Because we assume we have a true coin, the long-time average temperature of the ocean is the starting temperature, T0. Hasselmann pointed out, however, that the actual time history of temperature in this model ocean is very different from being near T0! Almost all the time, it is rather far from T0; in fact, the probability of its being T0 tends rapidly towards zero.

Most of the time, the ocean is either warm or cold compared to T0 and tends to stay that way for extended periods (we cannot predict whether it will be warm or cold, or the time interval over which it will stay warm or cold, but we can confidently predict the statistics of its departures from T0.

A consequence of this type of behaviour (and which a reader can easily check by having a small computer do the coin-tossing many times) is that systems with a memory of the past history of forcing can have very strange, unintuitive, behaviour that violates "common sense." The behaviour here can be understood by noting that if one tosses a true coin 2 million times, the probability of exactly 1 million heads and 1 million tails is very small. Instead, one expects a finite surplus of one or the other corresponding to excess heating or cooling.

We know that it is capable of remarkable changes without human intervention.

So now we come to the modern climate problem. We know that it is capable of remarkable changes without human intervention. We also know that it has elements with very long memory times (the ocean, the ice caps, and some land processes including the biota). There is the possibility of solar fluctuations about which we know very little. The instrumental record only goes back about 300 years (being very generous) and global coverage is only really available following World War II. In many cases, we have no direct evidence for the spatial structures of natural variations and so find it almost impossible to compare observed changes with those known not influenced by human activities.

Many scientists therefore rely upon numerical models of the climate system to calculate (1) the nature of natural variability with no human interference, and compare it to (2) the variability seen when human effects are included. This approach is a very sensible one, but the ability to test (calibrate) the models, which can be extraordinarily complex, for realism in both categories (1) and (2) is limited by the same observational data base already describe. At bottom, it is very difficult to determine the realism by which the models deal with either (1) or (2)

Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.

7 posted on 03/25/2007 8:12:55 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

The deceptive methods of the left are very sophisticated...and the would rather attack any opposition.


8 posted on 03/25/2007 8:13:04 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1


9 posted on 03/25/2007 8:13:33 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
Arguing facts to liars is like bringing a warm smile to a gun fight.

10 posted on 03/25/2007 8:13:50 PM PDT by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

"The film repeatedly gave the impression that mainstream science argues that CO2 is the sole driver of rising temperatures in the Earth's climate system. But this is not the case.".........

But followed much later in the article by:

"Following the film’s broadcast, Professor Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society - the government-sponsored academy of sciences for the United Kingdom - has said that many factors contribute to global warming but it is clear that emissions of "greenhouse gases," particularly CO2, are to blame for most of the current temperature rise.".....


Sounds to me like the film was right - and least with repsect to the folks pounding the table with the CO2 show.


11 posted on 03/25/2007 8:13:50 PM PDT by geopyg (Don't wish for peace, pray for Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

Still lying ain't they? More bullshitery! Dreaimg dollar $ign$!


12 posted on 03/25/2007 8:13:58 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
Well, let's see. I've seen The Swindle and part of goracles ict. The Swindle was by far the most believable. I've done a fair amount of research and believe that we are far more likely to enter a new ice age than algores predictions.

With un involvement, it's pretty clear what this is, the socialist redistribution of wealth without the bloodletting.

13 posted on 03/25/2007 8:15:06 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

Let's talk about the polar bears.

Everyone knows the climate was much warmer during the Medieval Climate Optimum. Viking colonies in Greenland, grape vines in England, etc.

Polar bears exist, therefore they survived much warmer temperatures than we are experiencing now.

I don't want to hear about pretty white polar bears one more time, regarding this.


14 posted on 03/25/2007 8:16:10 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
The film’s claim that solar activity might account for recent warming is also without credibility. In September 2006, the Times reported the latest findings from researchers writing in the top journal, Nature: “Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. ‘The solar contribution to warming... is negligible,’

So we're once again back to an understanding that the Ice Ages ended because cavemen wouldn't swtich to biodiesel to power their SUVs.

“What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance

As opposed to, um...An Inconvenient Truth?

15 posted on 03/25/2007 8:18:50 PM PDT by denydenydeny ("We have always been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France"--Wellington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
Media Lens -- "From About Us"

MediaLens has grown out of our frustration with the unwillingness, or inability, of the mainstream media to tell the truth about the real causes and extent of many of the problems facing us, such as human rights abuses, poverty, pollution and climate change. Because much modern suffering is rooted in the unlimited greed of corporate profit-maximising...

Yep -- these guys are an objective authority.
16 posted on 03/25/2007 8:19:39 PM PDT by Jackson Brown (Conservatives just killed their racehorse in order to let their fortunes ride on a jackass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

I have. I liked it.

I just want to see if any facts were inaccurate. It does our side no good (no matter how loony Gore is) to present inaccurate information.


17 posted on 03/25/2007 8:20:08 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007 (Vote for Duncan Hunter in 2008. Audio, Video, and Quotes in my profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

Seems his major criticism is:

Graphs and statistics can be distorted.

The sun's flunctuation and orbital variations don't affect the earth's temperature.

Whatever your results, it's human's fault.

If you receive money from a biased source, like Greenpeace, Sierra Club. WWF or the UN, your results can't be trusted.

Science is mostly a shouting match based on politics.


18 posted on 03/25/2007 8:20:36 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Thank you. I really want to see this.

Be well.


19 posted on 03/25/2007 8:21:27 PM PDT by Duke Nukum (Linux: More of a cult then an OS, really.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

This guy even quotes wikipedia. Good grief!!


20 posted on 03/25/2007 8:22:10 PM PDT by DeweyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007; All

"... the scientific consensus ..."

THERE IS NO SUCH THING - SO THIS IS A FALSE PREMISE TO BEGIN WITH.

In science, you can either prove it or you cannot. I don't know how many scientists have signed up with Algore's theory .. but I think it was around 700 or so.

However, there are 17,000 scientists who have signed an ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING document.

So .. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS - AND PLEASE STOP PEOPLE WHEN THEY TELL YOU THAT.


21 posted on 03/25/2007 8:31:22 PM PDT by CyberAnt ("... first time in history the U.S. House has attempted to surrender via C-SPAN TV ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

If you get flak, you're over the target.

That's all this is.

Notice most of it is "attack the messengers", not the science. If you can't refute it, obfuscate.


22 posted on 03/25/2007 8:34:57 PM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou (De Oppresso Liber! (50 million and counting in Afganistan and Iraq))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48
clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.

The same principle, however, does not apply when making decisions about war and peace. Then only absolute and final proof can justify a decision to invade another country.

Of course such proof can never be obtained until after an invasion.

23 posted on 03/25/2007 8:36:45 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

I just changed channels and Falwell is talking about how false global warming is. He does not believe in it.


24 posted on 03/25/2007 8:37:17 PM PDT by MamaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
At the Senate hearing last week Al Gore boycotted what was supposed to be the Republican opening statement on this issue. Then he demanded "bipartisan cooperation." Gore appeared a few years ago at the Hollywood premiere of "The Day after Tomorrow"--an absurd science fiction fantasy about climate change with a Dick Cheney villain. Al Gore has politicized "global warming" and attempted to turn the scientific community against itself. He has become the little boy who cried, "Wolf!" What is sad is you can't even watch the Weather Channel or read Sports Illustrated without running into "global warming" politics.
25 posted on 03/25/2007 8:37:28 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

Polar bears make beautiful posters to gain sympathy for the cause. But whatever happened to baby seals, spotted owls, the adorable dolphins, and those reindeer critters in Alaska?


26 posted on 03/25/2007 8:39:32 PM PDT by Liberty Wins (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten these.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
”CO2 lagging Temperature increase:
" Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback.."

In other words, “CO2 adds to some mysterious warming trend.”

Man these people are loons.

27 posted on 03/25/2007 8:44:14 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* ?I love you guys?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Wins

The "reindeer critters in Alaska" love the warmth of the pipeline, and birth their babies around it. I can only guess they'd thrive in warmer temperatures.

If nothing else, like the polar bears, their very presence proves they survived a much warmer time.


28 posted on 03/25/2007 8:47:30 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Guns themselves are fairly robust; their chief enemies are rust and politicians) (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

Notice most of it is "attack the messengers", not the science. If you can't refute it, obfuscate.

Sort of like a trail lawyer: If the facts aren't on your side argue the law. If the law isn't on your side argue the facts. If neither are on your side, pound on the table.

29 posted on 03/25/2007 8:56:31 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jackson Brown

Oh gosh darn! That's the first thing to look for! Good catch. These guys think the msm is right wing.


30 posted on 03/25/2007 9:03:03 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
”CO2 lagging Temperature increase:
" Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback.."

In other words, “CO2 adds to some mysterious warming trend.”

Man these people are loons.

What they fail to explain is that "positive feedback" (aka "feed forward" loops) have the interesting characteristic that they culminate in some climatic event. An example is orgasm. What, I wonder, does he propose as the culminating event to this feed forward scenario?

31 posted on 03/25/2007 9:05:49 PM PDT by lafroste (gravity is not a force. See my profile to read my novel absolutely free (I know, beyond shameless))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

Follow the (public tax dollars for "grants" and "studies") money.


32 posted on 03/25/2007 9:11:34 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
“Scientists have examined various proxies of solar energy output over the past 1,000 years and have found no evidence that they are correlated with today's rising temperatures. Satellite observations over the past 30 years have also turned up nothing. ‘The solar contribution to warming... is negligible,’ the researchers wrote in the journal Nature.

The don't talk about the graphing of sun spots and how sunspots corresponds with temperature change, as presented in the movie. They want to dismiss it with this nothing comment.
33 posted on 03/25/2007 9:13:54 PM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lafroste

Dude that is funny has hell.


34 posted on 03/25/2007 9:16:44 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* ?I love you guys?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: digger48; Ultra Sonic 007
"Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

No, it doesn't. Science may not be consensus, but at least we would need consensus on the probabilities, and we don't have it.

Why should we cripple and bankrupt ourselves over this hyped-up and misrepresented "calamity" when we almost totally ignore another possible global threat?

I'd like to see us spend a fraction of what Al Gore and his neo-Luddites would have us waste, on a system of detecting and dealing with the threat of large asteroids impacting Earth.

The probabilities involved in such a scenario are a lot easier to calculate, and the amelioration far less expensive for the desired results.

35 posted on 03/25/2007 9:21:03 PM PDT by NicknamedBob (I know where I have gone wrong, and I can cite it, chapter and verse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

Al Gore has politicized "global warming" and attempted to turn the scientific community against itself. He has become the little boy who cried, "Wolf!"

The environmental movement cries wolf. Al Gore joined the chorus.

"Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they're human. So what. Unfortunately, it's not just one prediction. It's a whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. We are running out of all natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on.

"With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts." -- "Environmentalism as Religion" Michael Crichton

36 posted on 03/25/2007 9:21:24 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

What of this......

NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

http://newsblaze.com/story/20070320093052tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html

NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records
Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth's climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future. Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations in the sun's activity influence Earth's long-term climate. However, there were no measured climate records of this type until the relatively recent scientific past.

Scientists have traditionally relied upon indirect data gathering methods to study climate in the Earth's past, such as drilling ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica. Such samples of accumulated snow and ice drilled from deep within ice sheets or glaciers contain trapped air bubbles whose composition can provide a picture of past climate conditions. Now, however, a group of NASA and university scientists has found a convincing link between long-term solar and climate variability in a unique and unexpected source: directly measured ancient water level records of the Nile, Earth's longest river.

Alexander Ruzmaikin and Joan Feynman of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., together with Dr. Yuk Yung of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., have analyzed Egyptian records of annual Nile water levels collected between 622 and 1470 A.D. at Rawdah Island in Cairo. These records were then compared to another well-documented human record from the same time period: observations of the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere. Auroras are bright glows in the night sky that happen when mass is rapidly ejected from the sun's corona, or following solar flares. They are an excellent means of tracking variations in the sun's activity.

Feynman said that while ancient Nile and auroral records are generally "spotty," that was not the case for the particular 850-year period they studied.

"Since the time of the pharaohs, the water levels of the Nile were accurately measured, since they were critically important for agriculture and the preservation of temples in Egypt," she said. "These records are highly accurate and were obtained directly, making them a rare and unique resource for climatologists to peer back in time."

A similarly accurate record exists for auroral activity during the same time period in northern Europe and the Far East. People there routinely and carefully observed and recorded auroral activity, because auroras were believed to portend future disasters, such as droughts and the deaths of kings.

"A great deal of modern scientific effort has gone into collecting these ancient auroral records, inter-comparing them and evaluating their accuracy," Ruzmaikin said. "They have been successfully used by aurora experts around the world to study longer time scale variations."

The researchers found some clear links between the sun's activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common - one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.

The researchers said the findings have climate implications that extend far beyond the Nile River basin.

"Our results characterize not just a small region of the upper Nile, but a much more extended part of Africa," said Ruzmaikin. "The Nile River provides drainage for approximately 10 percent of the African continent. Its two main sources - Lake Tana in Ethiopia and Lake Victoria in Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya - are in equatorial Africa. Since Africa's climate is interrelated to climate variability in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, these findings help us better understand climate change on a global basis."

So what causes these cyclical links between solar variability and the Nile? The authors suggest that variations in the sun's ultraviolet energy cause adjustments in a climate pattern called the Northern Annular Mode, which affects climate in the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere during the winter. At sea level, this mode becomes the North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale seesaw in atmospheric mass that affects how air circulates over the Atlantic Ocean. During periods of high solar activity, the North Atlantic Oscillation's influence extends to the Indian Ocean. These adjustments may affect the distribution of air temperatures, which subsequently influence air circulation and rainfall at the Nile River's sources in eastern equatorial Africa. When solar activity is high, conditions are drier, and when it is low, conditions are wetter.

Study findings were recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Source: JPL

judythpiazza@gmail.com


37 posted on 03/25/2007 9:21:33 PM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
"The graph, Real Climate comments, “looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected”. It appears to show a dramatic cooling between the 1940s and 1970s. But try flipping between the film’s version of the global temperature record (shown above left) and the temperature plot that normally appears in the scientific literature (shown above right) The supposed cooling looks rather less evident in this second graph.

Without knowing more details of how Durkin may have manipulated the data plotted in his graph, it is difficult to comment on the presentation. What we can say is that Durkin’s "four decades of cooling", implying a relentless temperature drop over 40 years, is not an accurate description of the trend over this period.

Now who's being deceptive? (again) If they are now saying this wasn't true, then what did these global warming alarmists base all their "global cooling" cries in the 70's on? Surely they don't think we have forgotten all the cries of imminent doom and gloom, and how we needed to take immediate action to stop "global cooling".

That's the problem with lying. Eventually a liar forgets the lies he's told previously and ends up contradicting himself.

38 posted on 03/25/2007 9:22:10 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

""The Day after Tomorrow"


I LOVE that movie! Of course I love whole earth disaster movies as a whole anyway!


39 posted on 03/25/2007 9:22:21 PM PDT by swmobuffalo (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

There is value in having the ability to make people believe in nonsense.


40 posted on 03/25/2007 9:23:02 PM PDT by Fitzcarraldo (If the Moon didn't exist, people would have traveled to Mars by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

I thought I saw reports that temperatures on other planets are also rising.

Wouldn't this indicate that the warming is a broader phenomenon than the "human-caused" hypothesis?

The fact that this article cavalierly dismisses the idea that the sun may be the driving force in Earth's warming would seem to conflict with this more generally observed extra-planetary warming.


41 posted on 03/25/2007 9:23:06 PM PDT by John Semmens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

btt


42 posted on 03/25/2007 9:24:17 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny

If it was a 'feedback effect', then warming would continue AFTER the CO2 peaked.

It doesn't.

Therefore, his claim that the reason CO2 lags Warming because of a 'feedback effect' is completely false.


43 posted on 03/25/2007 9:24:32 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
Dammit!
We get to choose the time periods that support our doomsday scenarios.
How dare these deniers pick a different time period!

We get to decide; after all the stakes are too high...

Blah blah blah...
Same ol' same ol'.

44 posted on 03/25/2007 9:24:42 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zon

Thanks for Crichton link. I read his book but hadn't seen this.


45 posted on 03/25/2007 9:30:22 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
This looks like the equivalent of the hollywood types; except they're "Brit twits", of course.

The Joke Site

Doesn't matter how many moonbat links they provide, they never address fundamental "scientific" questions, like why for tens of thousands of years does CO2 increases always lag temperature rises, by significant amounts of time?

46 posted on 03/25/2007 9:30:56 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48
It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system...

Actually, most scientists do not.
That sneaky phrase, "would assign a very high probability" is thoroughly false.
So that the rest of your paragraph is non-sensical.
But thank you for sharing your opinion.

This fiction has been challenged since at least 1995, when the following protest By one of the scientists in the then current IPCC report,

"In the early 1990s Lindzen was asked to contribute to the IPCC's 1995 report. At the time, he held (and still does) that untangling human influences from the natural variation of the global climate is next to impossible. When the report's summary came out, he was dismayed to read its conclusion: "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate."
"That struck me as bizarre," he says. "Because without saying how much the effect was, the statement had no meaning. If it was discernible and very small, for instance, it would be no problem."

Environmentalist Bill McKibbon referred to this phrase in an article in The Atlantic in May 1998: "The panel's 2,000 scientists, from every corner of the globe, summed up their findings in this dry but historic bit of understatement."
In an angry letter, Lindzen wrote that the full report "takes great pains to point out that the statement has no implications for the magnitude of the effect, is dependent on the [dubious] assumption that natural variability obtained from [computer] models is the same as that in nature, and, even with these caveats, is largely a subjective matter."

47 posted on 03/25/2007 9:45:17 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

Please provide the link to the anti gore scientist...I wish to put it on my mail list...Gorebots will never care, but we must get the word out...


48 posted on 03/25/2007 9:49:37 PM PDT by Turborules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Brad from Tennessee

They already shut down the expansion of nuclear power, limited oil exploration in the US, and locked up the biggest coal reserves in a national monument.


49 posted on 03/25/2007 9:51:34 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
"By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2" -- so temperatures go down but in effect go up? Temperature was being masked for 40 years? And how do they explain the rise in temperature before the 1940s when there was no great out put of C02?

"Once that CO2 has been released into the atmosphere its heat-trapping properties as a greenhouse gas lead to even stronger warming: an example of positive feedback." -- how can they prove this when the weather balloons and satellites have indicated that there is no greenhouse gas warming in the atmosphere? They don't address this major point.

I still believe that the correlation between sun spots and weather, as shown in the movie by the near perfect fit of the two graphs mapped out over a long period of time, explains a lot. It's a better fit that C02 and weather, which this article doesn't address.
50 posted on 03/25/2007 9:54:35 PM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last

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