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

Skip to comments.

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
Wall Street Journal ^ | May 26, 2014 | JOSEPH BAST And ROY SPENCER

Posted on 05/26/2014 6:04:18 PM PDT by nickcarraway

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: climategate; globalwarming; hoax

1 posted on 05/26/2014 6:04:18 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

.. so how did it go from 75% to 97%? Evolution?


2 posted on 05/26/2014 6:07:22 PM PDT by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/


3 posted on 05/26/2014 6:09:23 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
If you repeat the Big Lie often enough, it becomes the Revealed Truth...

It's how Progressivism works.

4 posted on 05/26/2014 6:10:29 PM PDT by jonascord (Laeti vescimur nos subacturis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Almost all German physicists declared that Einstein’s theory of relativity was bogus. Soviet scientist fell in line behind Lysenko. Scientists have always been affected by the prevailing political winds. They like their funding and status.


5 posted on 05/26/2014 6:10:45 PM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Let's hear it from Al Gore:

Grand Klimatologist of the Klimate Klux Klan

6 posted on 05/26/2014 6:11:18 PM PDT by QT3.14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I think Kerry means 57...for obvious reasons

and Obama 57 also...because he needs to visit all 57 states...

7 posted on 05/26/2014 6:17:01 PM PDT by spokeshave (OMG.......Schadenfreude overload is not covered under Obamacare :-()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

In the literal sense I contribute to global warming whenever I strike a match, but I also contribute to global cooling by selling 100 tubes of ice each day. My ice is outdoing my warming. Albert Goreon can go suck an egg :P


8 posted on 05/26/2014 6:17:51 PM PDT by AlexW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave

Kerry....Heinz 57...who....what?

Never mind.


9 posted on 05/26/2014 6:21:23 PM PDT by SgtBob (Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

“67% of all facts posted on the internet are bogus” -Ben Franklin


10 posted on 05/26/2014 6:22:12 PM PDT by ArtDodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Liberals are congenital liars.

Environmentalists are continual liars.


11 posted on 05/26/2014 6:31:00 PM PDT by stinkerpot65 (Global warming is a Marxist lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway


12 posted on 05/26/2014 6:41:38 PM PDT by Iron Munro (The “fourth estate”has morphed into a 5th column)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

“She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.” she creates a statistic which is based on the number of articles in a stupid journal and a stupid person publishes the stupid statistic and another stupid journal reports it as news. you however a quoting a real statistic. how silly/sarcasm


13 posted on 05/26/2014 6:51:57 PM PDT by kvanbrunt2 (civil law: commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong Blackstone Commentaries I p44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

You beat me to it. You said it in a nutshell.


14 posted on 05/26/2014 6:56:07 PM PDT by rlmorel ("A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral." A. Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I just recently got into a discussion with a liberal true believer over this. Yeah, let's call it that, even though he went away mad and spanked by facts - but not before hurling a couple of personal insults at me. Ah, gotta love a cornered lib on the internet...

He didn't like that I pointed him to literally dozens of links disproving this stupid 97% number. If I remember correctly (this was last week, and there was a long weekend in between) it goes something like this:

The original um "study" that generated the 97% number came from "research" done for a graduate student's masters thesis. He sent out surveys to over 10,000 scientists. This is where you'll see libs embellish the lie with "10K climate scientists surveyed agree..." BS.

You see, only about 3100 and change bothered to return the survey. (actually pretty good response if you ask me) However, of those only 157 self-identified as climate scientists. Our intrepid grad student somewhat arbitrarily decided that only 79 of these were fit to call themselves climate scientists, so those were the only ones he counted.

Now for the really fun part. You think there was some deep, insightful probing and discussion of the issue of climate change? Some exploration of the subtleties and nuances of climate science? Ha! There were exactly two questions he used to determine if these climate scientists agreed with him.

First, he asked if they thought the Earth was warmer now (at the time of the survey) than it had been in 1980. Now, I haven't bothered to check, but I'll bet you a dozen donuts that if we look at the temperature data 1980 will have been one of the cooler years in recent times. Thereby just about ensuring any climate scientists familiar with the temperature record would respond "yes" to this question.

The second question was do you think mankind has had a significant impact on this warming. Hmm, guess you pretty much have to have answered yes to the other one, or tacitly approve of a yes there to even answer this question. The weasel word in it is "significant." Well, what is "significant"??? Of course mankind's activities are warming the Earth some - we burn fuel, cities are know to generate heat islands around them etc.

From this very poorly worded, extremely shallow, and hysterically badly analyzed survey comes the BS of 97% of over 10,000 climate scientists agree... It would be knee slapping, drink coming out your nose funny if so many fools weren't repeating it and trying to make policy based on it.

15 posted on 05/26/2014 6:59:53 PM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken522

7 minus 5 is 2. Take two 2s. Add of of them to the 7 and you get a 9. Add the other 2 to the 5 and you get 7. Put them together and, et voila, QED, you have 97. It’s the Democrat scientific method at work.


16 posted on 05/26/2014 7:06:02 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

“The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.”


17 posted on 05/26/2014 7:09:27 PM PDT by Freeping Since 2001 (Since 2001. Seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

It burns me to know that countries around the world have been forced to spend billions upon billions of dollars to combat what’s turning out to be one of the great scientific hoaxes in our lifetime. Hey Mr. Gore, how’s that prediction of the North Pole icecaps melting by 2013 working out for you? Silence......


18 posted on 05/26/2014 7:15:33 PM PDT by dowcaet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure?

Probably the same place they got the 6.3% unemployment number.

19 posted on 05/26/2014 7:20:46 PM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Hitlery: Incarnation of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
A famous dictator from the past is supposed to have said,

"If your going to lie, lie big",

and "If you tell a lie often enough, it will be believed".

20 posted on 05/26/2014 7:28:34 PM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

53% of all cited percentages use made up numbers

4 out of five dentists recommend Trident. The fifth dentist makes piles of money filling cavities.


21 posted on 05/26/2014 7:29:51 PM PDT by themidnightskulker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArtDodger

dang- you beat me.


22 posted on 05/26/2014 7:29:51 PM PDT by themidnightskulker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnICFjDn97o

I think Abbott and Costello were climate scientists!


23 posted on 05/26/2014 7:30:03 PM PDT by 21twelve (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts 2013 is 1933 REBORN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

The left hand rule.


24 posted on 05/26/2014 7:30:46 PM PDT by 21twelve (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts 2013 is 1933 REBORN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ArtDodger

I thought Abe Lincoln posted that.


25 posted on 05/26/2014 7:35:28 PM PDT by wastedyears (I'm a pessimist, I say plenty of negative things. Consider it a warning of sorts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Can someone post a link so this article can be READ? Thanks!


26 posted on 05/26/2014 7:47:02 PM PDT by golux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I’m 97% positive that Kerry is a lying sack of sh**.

Actually, more than 97% positive.


27 posted on 05/26/2014 8:01:53 PM PDT by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Somebody been hittin’ da happy smoke. 97%? ROTFL! Morons! I stayed up late the other night waiting for the spectacular meteor light show the “scientists” told us was going to happen. And these jerks want us to believe their “global warming” bull****. I don’t think so.


28 posted on 05/26/2014 8:03:05 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Obama's smidgens are coming home to roost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken522
.. so how did it go from 75% to 97%? Evolution?

They silenced 22% of the scientists.

29 posted on 05/26/2014 8:14:18 PM PDT by gitmo (If your theology doesn't become your biography, what good is it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

from your link:

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”


30 posted on 05/26/2014 8:43:50 PM PDT by GOPJ (Someone explain why {the MSM} uses the term 'liberal' to describe totalitarian sociopaths. BruceinOz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I can do without the irritating WSJ "Subscribe now" BS, without the ability actually to read the article.
Why do people post those links?

Try this one...

Read Article

31 posted on 05/26/2014 8:49:42 PM PDT by publius911 ( Politicians come and go... but the (union) bureaucracy lives and grows forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonascord

Josef Goebbels knew and realized this long time ago.


32 posted on 05/26/2014 8:49:45 PM PDT by saintgermaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jonascord
If you repeat the Big Lie often enough, it becomes the Revealed Truth... It's how Progressivism works.


(thanks Chip Bok)

33 posted on 05/26/2014 9:52:59 PM PDT by skeptoid (the thought plickens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps
OK. 10,000+ questionnaires went out.

You see, only about 3100 and change bothered to return the survey. (actually pretty good response if you ask me) However, of those only 157 self-identified as climate scientists. Our intrepid grad student somewhat arbitrarily decided that only 79 of these were fit to call themselves climate scientists, so those were the only ones he counted.

This is rather vague, as to where the 97% came from.
There were 81 respondents of the first question which were chosen to represent the original 10,000+ inquiries.
Of those, all 81 gave the desired response to the first question, but 2 failed to do so to the second question. The second question asked if the anthropogenic contribution contributed significantly to the "global warming."
Thus, 79 out of 81 climate "scientists" comes to 97%.

And the grand fraud was born.

Yes, we are expected to infer that the 97% refers to the original 10,000+ questionnaires, rather than the arbitrary 81 chosen to generate the answer the fraudulent graduate student desired..

34 posted on 05/26/2014 10:16:13 PM PDT by publius911 ( Politicians come and go... but the (union) bureaucracy lives and grows forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: publius911

And the claim even thus derived is mild. Is some “significant” element of this “anthropogenic.” That’s not “most.”


35 posted on 05/27/2014 1:03:52 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Freeping Since 2001
“The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.”

The other question is how many of the 79 respondents have a vested interest in man made global warming? They should excuse themselves because they are biased because they do not want to lose their funding.

36 posted on 05/27/2014 3:06:50 AM PDT by olezip (Time obliterates the fictions of opinion and confirms the decisions of nature. ~ Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
7 minus 5 is 2. Take two 2s. Add of of them to the 7 and you get a 9. Add the other 2 to the 5 and you get 7. Put them together and, et voila, QED, you have 97. It’s the Democrat scientific method at work.

Except they don't call it that. They call it "common core" now.

37 posted on 05/27/2014 3:22:40 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps
The second question was do you think mankind has had a significant impact on this warming. Hmm, guess you pretty much have to have answered yes to the other one, or tacitly approve of a yes there to even answer this question. The weasel word in it is "significant." Well, what is "significant"???

In scientific language, the word "significant" has a very specific meaning. It means that the probability of an observation being random rather than being a result of the specific experimental conditions is less than 5%--or, as we scientists express it, the P value is less than 0.05. (P<0.05). Scientists use many weasel words (it reflects our acknowledgement that we can be wrong), but "significant" is not one of them.

38 posted on 05/27/2014 4:37:52 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Yet it is being expanded beyond the capability of science in the situation. We cannot conduct two worlds, a control world without anthropogenic input and an observation world with it, and make observations for both at the depth possible with modern meteorology.


39 posted on 05/27/2014 7:39:30 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Except that is not the context. Significant was not used to describe the likihood, but it was used as a magnitude, so its meaning is unclear.


40 posted on 05/27/2014 9:20:45 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

This “peer reviewed survey” was not a peer reviewed survey of climatologists. It was a survey of employees of petroleum and energy companies, specific to Alberta, Canada, and it was intended to show the bias inherent in those employees. Many of those employees had no expertise in environmental science (”engineer” could mean electrical engineer, for example), so it would be like asking a train operator what his/ her opinion was on spaceships. Interesting, and sociologically relevant... but not scientifically relevant. Here is the debunking of this “peer reviewed survey” for reference:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/


41 posted on 05/27/2014 11:02:52 AM PDT by snowman191 (James Taylor was intentionally lying in that article)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ken522

It was not a survey, the WSJ is ignoring reality. Here is the source of the 97% number:

http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

12,000 peer reviewed articles were studied. The volunteer, cross-discipline team that studied these article included skeptics. They classified those articles as either taking a position supporting anthropogenic global warming, rejecting it, or being about global warming, but not taking a position either way. They found 4,000 took a position, 97% of which supported anthropogenic global warming. They ALSO sent surveys to the 8,500 authors of those 12,000 papers, and got 1,200 responses from authors, representing 2,500 papers. Those authors self-identified 1,400 papers as taking a position on global warming. Of those, again, 97% supported anthropogenic global warming.

So yes, the actual facts are the foundation for the often quoted number that 97% of scientists support global warming. But perhaps it should say 97% of RELEVANT scientists, so that people can’t just throw in employees of Exxon, petroleum engineers, etc. to skew the numbers.

Source:

http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html


42 posted on 05/27/2014 11:02:52 AM PDT by snowman191 (75% was never the number)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The 97% number is valid. 97% of relevant (i.e. pertaining to global warming, and taking a position one way or the other) peer-reviewed scientific articles support anthropogenic global warming. Similarly, upon survey, 97% of the authors of those articles who responded to request for survey, also support anthropogenic global warming.

The James Taylor article from Forbes, and the WSJ article, are both written by mouthpieces for big oil. Effectively, shills.

For background - I am a chemical engineer, who was a complete global warming skeptic based on courses I took and work I did in this specific field. I was not as convinced by the initial data (a decade or so ago) as others. Specifically, I was concerned (as were other skeptics) by “urban bias” - urban areas reflect more heat back into the air than rural areas. So air based thermometers in a city will potentially be biased data sources. I was also doubtful of the accuracy of temperature stations, and their consistency over 200+ years. However, other scientists with more experience and a better background had these same concerns, and undertook a study to determine how much bias there really was. They were complete skeptics, and yet, came away believers, because they actually let the data matter more than their own personal bias. You can read their study here:

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/skeptics-guide-to-climate-change.pdf

Here is the source of the 97% number:

Source: http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

Net net - the debate gets very polarized and politicized. Don’t let that fool you into believing either that a) the sky is falling or that b) Al Gore is making all of this up.

Climate change is happening, and we are causing it. That is a certainty. The impact is somewhat less clear, but at the very least there is a proven link between climate changing and coastal floods as well as heat waves. There may also be a link with hurricanes (studies are ongoing). And at the very least, it would be better to find alternatives. If we are lucky, they will come sooner rather than later:

http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml


43 posted on 05/27/2014 11:02:52 AM PDT by snowman191 (WSJ is perpetuating lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowman191; Jim Robinson
[Jim, I think we have a leftist troll here....]

Climate change is happening, and we are causing it.

Your last three post are nothing but garbage, quoting far-left funded sights. Nice try you leftist troll.

Your say you are a chemical engineer?? Where did you get your degree -- from your imagination? LOL

I have multiple engineering degrees (EE and CS) and a minor in math.

Did you ever hear of non-linear mathematics? You should be aware of the sensitivity of "initial conditions" on non-linear systems. I did a lot of engineering modelling in my career. What we modeled was orders of magnitude less complex than that of trying to model the Earth's climate.

With that said, I can only imagine the hubris of these fraud Climate scientists speaking with confidence that their models reflect "reality." The Earth's climate system is immensely complex. I know that most, if not all, of the models ignore clouds. These Climate models are mostly GIGO. I read enough to know that they fudge the data in order to get the "output" they desire so they can continue to receive funding.

AGW is the biggest scam ever pushed by the evil left.

15 years ago your buddies on the left were certain that the Earth was warming; their models stated such. Go back 15 years and NONE of the models could predict the "surprise" end of rising temperatures. They ranted on and on about warming, warming, warming....

When their lies wouldn't stick, they changed the mantra to Climate Change and to now, Climate disruption.

It would all be laughable if not for the fact your pals will destroy our way of life to fight an imaginary problem.

Over geologic time, we are actually on the low side of CO2. During the Jurassic period CO2 levels were 3000ppm, during the Cambrian period at about 550M years ago, the CO2 levels were 7000ppm.

Serious research has shown that CO2 follow temperature changes. Another thing your leftist pals ignore is water vapor, which is the most dominate greenhouse gas.

These "fraud" scientist push this scam for only two reasons: continued funding of their careers and/or to push the increased control over our lives by governments.

If you are a Chemical Engineer then you should know the very fundamental precept that there is no such thing as consensus science.

Have a nice day and please go back to the DUmp.

44 posted on 05/27/2014 11:39:38 PM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sand88; admin

Yup....he’s a troll...


45 posted on 05/27/2014 11:59:31 PM PDT by rottndog ('Live Free Or Die' Ain't just words on a bumber sticker...or a tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sand88

I Love the smell of ZOT in the morning!


46 posted on 05/28/2014 7:28:15 AM PDT by rottndog ('Live Free Or Die' Ain't just words on a bumber sticker...or a tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

BTTT!


47 posted on 05/30/2014 4:57:18 PM PDT by neverdem (Register pressure cookers! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

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

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