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

Skip to comments.

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data
TGDaily ^ | Thursday, October 30, 2008 09:55 | By Rick C. Hodgin

Posted on 10/31/2008 3:37:15 AM PDT by xcamel

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-125 next last
To: Travis T. OJustice
AGW is a huge political hoax, perpetrated by algore. The science does not support it.

I don't want to get into it. I'm not even posting the most recent study results regarding Antarctica. Someone else can. But I will say one thing, clearly: it is not a "political hoax". It is indeed a scientific issue. The image below illustrates why. Investigating how the changing concentrations of CO2, CH4 and other radiation-absorbing gases in the atmosphere will affect the climate of the Earth is properly the province of science. The factors which affect Earth's climate are changing, and the Earth's climate is changing, and science needs to determine what is affecting what and by how much.

There are indeed political and societal implications. But it's not a political hoax. 'Nuff said.


51 posted on 10/31/2008 7:57:07 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

AGW is a huge political hoax, perpetrated by algore. The science does not support it.


52 posted on 10/31/2008 8:01:00 AM PDT by Travis T. OJustice (Change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

That graph looks scary, till you realize it only covers a range of 100 parts per million.


53 posted on 10/31/2008 8:02:26 AM PDT by ZX12R (L.A. Times = We suppress, you decide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

MIT welcome to the party. Too bad it took you so long to figure it out.


54 posted on 10/31/2008 8:04:19 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Nemo me impune lacessit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

LOL - Mona Loa - the 9th largest natural CO2 vent on the planet...

Great science there buckwheat...


55 posted on 10/31/2008 8:13:32 AM PDT by xcamel (Conservatives start smart, and get rich, liberals start rich, and get stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Travis T. OJustice
AGW is a huge political hoax, perpetrated by algore. The science does not support it.


56 posted on 10/31/2008 8:14:40 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Good news. Now I can pass my righteous wind again.


57 posted on 10/31/2008 8:16:38 AM PDT by mlocher (USA is a sovereign nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R
That graph looks scary, till you realize it only covers a range of 100 parts per million.

And now ~80 ppm higher than anything nature achieved over the past 650,000 years. That's why science is examining the issue.

58 posted on 10/31/2008 8:17:36 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Where do you get this crap? Back of a Koolaid packet?


59 posted on 10/31/2008 8:23:16 AM PDT by xcamel (Conservatives start smart, and get rich, liberals start rich, and get stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
LOL - Mona Loa - the 9th largest natural CO2 vent on the planet...

It's spelled "Mauna", Lisa, and if you think scientists don't know how to detect volcanic gas emissions when doing their atmospheric sampling, think again:

Mauna Loa Volcanic Emissions 1958-Present

"At night a temperature inversion forms near the ground, trapping volcanic emissions coming from Mauna Loa summit fumaroles in a layer tens of meters thick. Down slope winds sometimes transport these emissions to the observatory, where they are detected as a "noisy" increase above smooth baseline levels for some gases. A volcanic component can be estimated by taking the difference in concentration between periods when the plume is present and periods immediately before and after that exhibit baseline conditions. The most significant volcanic gas is CO2, which has been monitored since 1958 through three eruption cycles. Volcanic CO2 is greatest shortly after an eruption and then decreases exponentially over the subsequent years. Right after the 1984 eruption, Mauna Loa emitted as much CO2 as an American city of 40,000 people. By 2005, these emissions had fallen by a factor of about 100. This suggests that a reservoir deep beneath the summit is recharged with fresh, CO2 rich magma during and immediately following an eruption which is then quiescently outgassed at an inverse-exponential rate. There were substantial emissions of SO2 and aerosols following the 1975 eruption and much lower levels were seen after the 1984 eruption. By 2000, SO2 and aerosol emissions from Mauna Loa had fallen below detection limits. The CO2 and SO2 data is examined weekly for any significant events which may signal renewed activity in the volcano. The long-term records are updated yearly."

And is this CO2 curve located near any volcanic vents?


60 posted on 10/31/2008 8:26:09 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
And now ~80 ppm higher than anything nature achieved over the past 650,000 years. That's why science is examining the issue.

Your fact picking is obvious. The overwhelming majority of earth history has co2 levels WAY above today's levels. Then of course, there's the so what? factor. The co2 level doubles in my office, when someone comes in to talk to me. Then amazingly, when they leave, it drops again.
61 posted on 10/31/2008 8:26:19 AM PDT by ZX12R (L.A. Times = We suppress, you decide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
Where do you get this crap? Back of a Koolaid packet?

It's called Google. Try it.

62 posted on 10/31/2008 8:27:22 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
That's like saying one would purposly walk in to a whorehouse just to talk to the piano player.

32,600 real scientists say AGW is a hoax. Deal with it.

63 posted on 10/31/2008 8:32:06 AM PDT by xcamel (Conservatives start smart, and get rich, liberals start rich, and get stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

We must stop all Democrats from exhaling. To save the Earth. It’s the only way to be sure.


64 posted on 10/31/2008 8:34:16 AM PDT by Infidel Puppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZX12R
The overwhelming majority of earth history has co2 levels WAY above today's levels. Then of course, there's the so what? factor.

The overwhelming majority of Earth's geological history didn't have a climate system like now. Ever hear of plate tectonics? Quick quiz: what happened to global climate when the Panamanian isthmus closed? Answer in 200 words or less. This link should get you started:

Panama: Isthmus that Changed the World

Other questions on upcoming quizzes will concern the impact of Himalayan uplift on global temperatures and the puzzle of glaciation during the Ordovician. Keep asking questions: it's healthy.

65 posted on 10/31/2008 8:34:20 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
32,600 real scientists say AGW is a hoax. Deal with it.

I have no idea how well any of those 32,600 signatories have actually analyzed the issue, so the number is meaningless. I've dealt with it. Let's discuss science.

66 posted on 10/31/2008 8:37:08 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Infidel Puppy
If life on this planet were **really** fair - democrats would be snack food for intelligent reptiles.
67 posted on 10/31/2008 8:37:08 AM PDT by xcamel (Conservatives start smart, and get rich, liberals start rich, and get stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

What’s the proximity to McMurdo Sound and Mt. Erebus?


68 posted on 10/31/2008 8:50:49 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

sound of crickets...

First they can’t sell AGW, then they can’t sell GW, now they resort to “alinsky-ish” scientific arguments to try to sell “climate change” - HINT - at no time in the last billion-and-a-half years has the climate not been changing...


69 posted on 10/31/2008 8:59:55 AM PDT by xcamel (Conservatives start smart, and get rich, liberals start rich, and get stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Shifting ocean currents, especially near polar ones may be implicated; BTW, the Arctic cap is filling in at a rate almost a full month ahead of 2007.

After hibernation we’ll take another peek.

Our local Woolyworm Lady left us a couple years ago, her daughter is trying to carry on but she admits she doesn’t have the touch.


70 posted on 10/31/2008 9:03:28 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
From NOAA:

Methane is a trace gas that has more than doubled in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times, due mainly to human activities. After water vapor and carbon dioxide, it is the most important greenhouse gas and accounts for approximately 20 percent of the human-influenced greenhouse gas warming potential.

While methane is emitted to the atmosphere by some natural sources, such as wetlands, more than 70 percent of total emissions are due to human activities including fossil fuel production and use, intestinal gas from livestock and farm animals, and cultivation of rice paddies. Since many methane sources are the result of human activities, increased industrialization in developing countries and stepped up global food demand could result in increased emissions in the future.

71 posted on 10/31/2008 9:11:54 AM PDT by BushMeister ("We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around." --Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Trying to mix science and Global Warming is like trying to mix

political correctness and financial instruments

YES!

They both result in financial and political disaster.

72 posted on 10/31/2008 9:13:50 AM PDT by SteamShovel (Global Warming, the New Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
Also this:

With twenty five times more heat-trapping potential than carbon dioxide, methane's overall climate impact is nearly half that of carbon dioxide despite atmospheric concentrations of around 1,800 parts-per-billion..

Still think that methane's contribution to warming potential is negligible?

Link

73 posted on 10/31/2008 9:16:29 AM PDT by BushMeister ("We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around." --Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

1400 km


74 posted on 10/31/2008 9:23:36 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
at no time in the last billion-and-a-half years has the climate not been changing...

The rates of climate change during the Holocene are the most relevant to effective consideration of the current climate state. Factors affecting climate change on 10-100,000 year timescales would barely be detected (if in fact they could be detected) over a century or two.

75 posted on 10/31/2008 9:29:42 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Maybe the recent cooling of the rhetoric surrounding the issue of warming will be one blessing of this world-wide recession currently trumping the Act-Now crowd.


76 posted on 10/31/2008 9:34:42 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister

NOAA/NASA/Hansen - nope, no political agenda there...


77 posted on 10/31/2008 9:45:40 AM PDT by xcamel (Conservatives start smart, and get rich, liberals start rich, and get stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Maybe the recent cooling of the rhetoric surrounding the issue of warming will be one blessing of this world-wide recession currently trumping the Act-Now crowd.

I guess you haven't heard the recent news about Antarctica. Try Google News. Use the logical keywords.

78 posted on 10/31/2008 10:03:29 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister

mogno-green-freeks - great link there caruso...


79 posted on 10/31/2008 10:09:25 AM PDT by xcamel (Conservatives start smart, and get rich, liberals start rich, and get stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

This one?

“Antarctic volcanoes identified as a possible culprit in glacier melting”

By Kenneth Chang Published: January 20, 2008

Another factor might be contributing to the thinning of some of the Antarctica’s glaciers: volcanoes.

In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.

“This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet” in Antarctica, Vaughan said.


80 posted on 10/31/2008 10:53:42 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

If you increased the salt on your fries from 280ppm to 360ppm, would you have a heart attack? Without lab instruments could the change be detected? We shouldn’t go crazy with more CO2 output but man-made output will be decreasing substantially as fossil fuels become more expensive within 50 years or so. The CO2 problem goes away on its own. With man-made clouds in the future we can regulate the climate to be whatever we want, assuming the scientists actually figure out how the climate works. How many of the 70 computer models computed ahead of time the cooling of the last 10 years? They need lots of work.


81 posted on 10/31/2008 11:25:01 AM PDT by Reeses (Leftism is powered by the evil force of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: xcamel

Yes, Freon had caused a hole in the atmosphere that would take fifty years to repair. They outlawed Freon and three years later the hole was back to normal.

That’s the power these folks have. That’s the logic they use. That’s how valid that logic is. That’s how easy it is for them to job our leaders in Washington, D.C., or the state capitals.

Political Correctness is a VERY insidious dynamic, and the public should be made aware of it. PC is more dangerous than any of the things these nuts are afraid of.

I am not saying that there is never a reason to be concerned with these issues, but I do want level heads to prevail, and wise objective reactions by the public in response.

I hadn’t heard of BPA. I’ll have to check it out.

Thanks for your comments.

D1


82 posted on 10/31/2008 11:28:33 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Our nation is uncomfortably close to having B.O. We need to use a Republican roll on by 11/04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nailbiter

Couldn’t agree more! End the public funding NOW!


83 posted on 10/31/2008 11:29:05 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Our nation is uncomfortably close to having B.O. We need to use a Republican roll on by 11/04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
No, that would be something from last January. I was thinking of something that came out today. (You post it and you lead the discussion. Feel free to disparage the data, results, methodology, conclusions, and guiding alarmist philosophy of the researchers. I don't want to get involved. I told TSR that I thought somebody would post this, I'm surprised nobody has yet. I guess they're waiting for me to paint a target on my *ss. Not gonna do it.)

It's Official: People are Warming the Poles

84 posted on 10/31/2008 11:29:57 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I agree. It’s been used as a lever on a number of fronts. Vehicles, housing, energy, urban sprawl... it’s effect on children’s braces. It does get comical at some point, but we can’t take it as a joke. This is serious. And you point out one of the serious aspects quite correctly.


85 posted on 10/31/2008 11:31:20 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Our nation is uncomfortably close to having B.O. We need to use a Republican roll on by 11/04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: repubpub

LOL, better hurry.


86 posted on 10/31/2008 11:32:10 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Our nation is uncomfortably close to having B.O. We need to use a Republican roll on by 11/04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
Now it's methane, then ethane, then propane (hide yor gas grill) then butane (hide your lighters)....

Wanna make a GW bot’s head explode? Remind them that the only scientifically identifiable reason for the dark ages was the last “little ice age”...And man was growing grapes in Greenland during the warm period before that - which also fostered the greatest expansion of human intelligence up until that time... so GW is a “bad thing”???

87 posted on 10/31/2008 11:35:15 AM PDT by xcamel (Conservatives start smart, and get rich, liberals start rich, and get stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
If you increased the salt on your fries from 280ppm to 360ppm, would you have a heart attack?

Really bad question. How about this: if you have a glass of water and you add a drop of food coloring, do you notice a change in the appearance of the water? (Key concept: adding just a small amount of a radiation-absorbing substance changes the radiation-absorbing properties of the medium in which the substance is suspended, dissolved, mixed, etc.)

We shouldn’t go crazy with more CO2 output but man-made output will be decreasing substantially as fossil fuels become more expensive within 50 years or so. The CO2 problem goes away on its own.

I think it will. The question is how fast and how much.

How many of the 70 computer models computed ahead of time the cooling of the last 10 years?

It hasn't cooled appreciably over the past 10 years. That's a skeptical myth. This is a cool year. The decade we're in is still substantially warmer than the 1990s.

88 posted on 10/31/2008 11:35:58 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: cogitator; All

From the company that is now bringing you the “all global warming channel”

Same data, massaged by the same alarmists, all fighting for the same government science grants, towing the same old line, finding a pretty new package and bow for the same bucket of sh*t every week.


89 posted on 10/31/2008 11:39:45 AM PDT by xcamel (Conservatives start smart, and get rich, liberals start rich, and get stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

LOL, I think you’re on to something there.

Here in Los Angeles we had what I consider a rather mild summer. That was pretty much ignored. Then they announced this was the hottest October in decades.

You know, how many tens of thousands of professional baseball games has there been? As many as there has been, it really quite amazing that not all that infrequently you’ll see someone set a record, or do something that hasn’t been done before. Some person could use those special instances to make the case that something was changing, and we needed to be aware of it.

That’s something like what is taking place with regard to the environment. There’s always going to be an anomaly somewhere. That’s life. It isn’t proof positive that something is amiss.

Climate change, one of a number of constants in life.


90 posted on 10/31/2008 11:40:57 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Our nation is uncomfortably close to having B.O. We need to use a Republican roll on by 11/04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

See, you should have been a scientist. You have an affinity for this type of thing! ;-)


91 posted on 10/31/2008 11:41:57 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Our nation is uncomfortably close to having B.O. We need to use a Republican roll on by 11/04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory,
contradicts scientific data


I can nearly guarantee that when there are comments on blogs
by professors around the world about this observation, that the
common sentiment will be:
"Who can trust what that "tech school" up the road from Harvard says?
92 posted on 10/31/2008 11:41:58 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3

I share your outlook. I like that mention of the records. Isn’t it strange that you could notice that, but none of the enviro whack-jobs could.


93 posted on 10/31/2008 11:43:21 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Our nation is uncomfortably close to having B.O. We need to use a Republican roll on by 11/04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

This seems to be like the story the author(s) Stott had published in January concerning old vs new ice in the Arctic; you do know that he and his colleagues are fulltime contributors to the IPCC, don’t you.

In this latest case he has taken some sparse data from the southern polar area and more available northern polar area and run them through several of his models designed to show human influence more than to rule it out.

With no referenced study here I would reserve judgment as a juror before the evidence was corroborated by less-biased peer review.

He is still guessing that calving is increased by general warming events rather than as yet discovered natural forces.

Simple correlation is encouraging but not conclusive, IMO.

Selling a climate tax globally is going to be mighty tough for a while.


94 posted on 10/31/2008 12:04:05 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Same bunch who refused out of hand to admit that the vast majority of north polar ice melt has been being caused by a substantial increase in polar undersea volcanic activity... until they brought back thermocline and photographic evidence from several submersible missions...
95 posted on 10/31/2008 12:15:07 PM PDT by xcamel (Conservatives start smart, and get rich, liberals start rich, and get stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
From the company that is now bringing you the “all global warming channel”

Oh, c'mon. Attacking the messenger is just ridiculous. Do a Google News search with "Antarctica" and "warming" and you'll get (by last count) 143 news articles with this topic. Is the "Ottawa Citizen" the "all global warming" Canadian newspaper? What about Reuters, the BBC, station KARK in Arkansas, the UNIAN news agency of the Ukraine, the Khaleej Times in the United Arab Emirates -- all global warming mouthpieces, I guess. (I mean, seriously...)

Same data, massaged by the same alarmists, all fighting for the same government science grants, towing the same old line, finding a pretty new package and bow for the same bucket of sh*t every week.

According to reports, its not the same data. This is from AFP:

"Using new data on land surface temperatures and state-of-the-art computer models to simulate different climate scenarios, a team of scientists led by East Anglia's Nathan Gillet were able to tease apart the internal and external drivers of observed changes at both poles.

Rather than covering the entire Arctic and Antarctic regions, as previous studies have done, they focused only on the grid points where precise measurements have been taken.

This made their climate models more accurate, and showed that observed changes in temperatures over the 20th century could only have occurred if the impact of industrial greenhouse gas emissions, and upper atmosphere ozone depletion, are taken into account."

Somebody has to read the paper to find out what "new data" is used.

96 posted on 10/31/2008 12:32:19 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
you do know that he and his colleagues are fulltime contributors to the IPCC, don’t you.

Hadn't known that but it certainly doesn't surprise me.

and run them through several of his models designed to show human influence more than to rule it out.

I detect a hint of bias in that statement. The models either include human factors or don't. The results either show similarity to the observational data, or don't. That's how human influence is assessed.

With no referenced study here I would reserve judgment as a juror before the evidence was corroborated by less-biased peer review.

That's how science is supposed to work, at least.

Selling a climate tax globally is going to be mighty tough for a while.

Just checked: I still possess a nasal organ on my visage.

97 posted on 10/31/2008 12:40:49 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: SECURE AMERICA

Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is extremely robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it at the 100% percent confidence level.


98 posted on 10/31/2008 12:49:03 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The Democratic Party strongly supports full civil rights for necro-Americans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3
I like that mention of the records. Isn’t it strange that you could notice that, but none of the enviro whack-jobs could.

There have been numerous studies of the effects of changing technology and measurement methods -- even such simple things as when the daily temperature readings were taken. Just last May a previously-unexplained short term drop in temperatures in the 1940s was explained by a switch in sea surface temperature measurement techniques occurring after WWII.

Such things generate a lot of traffic.

Of buckets and blogs

99 posted on 10/31/2008 12:53:47 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Yeah, same old same old... all the data that fits the answer that gets the grants. Go figure.


100 posted on 10/31/2008 12:56:38 PM PDT by xcamel (Conservatives start smart, and get rich, liberals start rich, and get stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-125 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