Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sky-high hole blown in AGW theory?
Hot Air ^ | July 28, 2011 | Ed Morrissey

Posted on 07/28/2011 12:04:22 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Two stories have dropped that may blow big holes in the anthropogenic global warming argument — one of which is literally sky-high.  Forbes reports on a peer-reviewed study that uses NASA data to show that the effects of carbon-based warming have been significantly exaggerated.  In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an outcome that started long before AGW alarmists predicted:

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxidetrap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

It should be noted that Dr. Spencer is a longtime AGW skeptic, but that doesn’t negate the NASA readings on which this study’s conclusions are based.  If heat is escaping into the atmosphere at much higher rates than AGW computer models predict, then the outcome of AGW models will be highly biased towards the catastrophic outcomes.  The problem, as Spencer notes in the press release, is that AGW theory makes too many assumptions based on incomplete data:

A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

That could explain why global temperatures have failed to soar over the last 20 years as predicted, too.

Spencer’s study rebuts some poor but probably sincere assumptions from AGW theorists.  Not every researcher falls into that category, however.  The AP reports today that one researcher whose work “galvanized” AGW hysteria over the fate of polar bears has suddenly been suspended as his work on that claim has come under scrutiny for potential scientific misconduct:

A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. …

Documents provided by Ruch’s group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology; presentations also were given at scientific gatherings.

In the peer-reviewed article, the researchers said they were reporting, to the best of their knowledge, the first observations of polar bears floating dead offshore and presumed drowned while apparently swimming long distances in open water. Polar bears are considered strong swimmers, they wrote, but long-distance swims may exact a greater metabolic toll than standing or walking on ice in better weather.

The IG hasn’t published any conclusions about the investigation, and indeed hadn’t published that there is an investigation.  It came to light when PEER announced that it would sue to reinstate Monnett, claiming that he was being persecuted for political reasons.  That would be a rather interesting charge to make in an administration that wants to impose AGW-based policy in part on Monnett’s work.  Had the probe started during the Bush administration, it might be a little easier to believe that it was politically motivated.

AGW advocates insist that people respect the scientific consensus that we’re all going to kill Mother Earth if we don’t take radical action now to stop emissions of a natural substance into the atmosphere.  However, we don’t have consensus, and what little we do have seems less and less scientific as data emerges.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: agw; climatechange; envirofascism; fraud; globalwarming; globalwarmingfraud; globalwarminghoax; junkscience; nasa; nasaagw; plantetgore; scientificmisconduct

1 posted on 07/28/2011 12:04:25 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The collapse of physical science. I almost expect to hear that rocks adhere through crazy glue.


2 posted on 07/28/2011 12:10:14 PM PDT by onedoug (If)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Looking for more detail...from Watts Up With that this may help:

Pielke Sr. on new Spencer and Braswell paper

********************************EXCERPT*****************************************

Posted on by Anthony Watts

http://nola2010.hamptonu.edu/EarthBalanceGSFC.gif

Earth Balance - Source: Allison, Mead A., Arthur T. DeGaetano, Jay M. Pasachoff. /Earth Science/. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2006.

Reposted from Dr. Roger Pielke Sr’s blog

New Paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011

There is a new paper published which raises further questions on the robustness of multi-decadal global climate predictions. It is

Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

The University of Alabama has issues a news release on it which reads [h/t to Phillip Gentry]
Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra satellite.

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.

==============================================================

Dr. Spencer has a pdf available.  He discussed the findings here.

3 posted on 07/28/2011 12:11:55 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an outcome that started long before AGW alarmists predicted:

This is obvious for anyone who does not wear a hat in the winter,

4 posted on 07/28/2011 12:11:55 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

AGW fraud bump for later...........


5 posted on 07/28/2011 12:13:56 PM PDT by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigerLikesRooster; landsbaum; Signalman; NormsRevenge; steelyourfaith; Lancey Howard; ...

fyi


6 posted on 07/28/2011 12:14:27 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

bookmark for later.


7 posted on 07/28/2011 12:16:49 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Kind of a bummer about the drowning bears being fake.

I was thinking if they’re gonna die anyway why not start a charter boat hunting service where you could blast em from the deck.


8 posted on 07/28/2011 12:17:01 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
The collapse of physical science.

Physical science hasn't collapsed just the credibility of some of those who claim to practice it.

9 posted on 07/28/2011 12:17:19 PM PDT by Tribune7 (We're flat broke, but he thinks these solar shingles and really fast trains will magically save us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Great post - thanks.


10 posted on 07/28/2011 12:23:37 PM PDT by GOPJ (Honk if I'm paying for your car, your mortgage, and your big, fat Greek bailout - mewzilla)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an outcome that started long before AGW alarmists predicted:

That must be why no Hot Spot can be found. A factor that Greenhouse Theory itself says must exist to confirm "Greenhouse warming."

No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)

The missing hotspot (JoNova)

Those two articles take Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect. CO2 levels are only pertinent to Greenhouse warming not any other potential causes of warming.

11 posted on 07/28/2011 12:28:13 PM PDT by TigersEye (No dark sarcasm in the press room ... Hey!, Barry!, leave them bills alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The “scientist” who claimed “Polar bears are drowning!!!” in some deep doo-doo

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2755224/posts


12 posted on 07/28/2011 12:37:10 PM PDT by Roccus (Obama & Holder LLP, Procurers of fine arms to the most discerning drug lords (202) 456-1414)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
On the polar Bears....from Watts Up With That?:

Al Gore’s “drowned polar bear” AIT source under investigation

******************************EXCERPT********************************************

Posted on by Anthony Watts

"ursus bogus"

"ursus bogus" fake image used in a Science magazine article - click for story

According to AP/Anchorage Daily News, he’s on leave pending results of investigation. It seems everywhere you look, there’s some sort of fakery going on with the polar bear issue. For example, the image at left, where Science magazine used this fake image to hype the issue. And of course, everyone remembers the scene from the 2005 Al Gore science fiction movie An Inconvenient Truth, where Gore had an animated clip of the polar bear in danger of drowning, trying to get onto a tiny ice flow made smaller, presumably by global warming. Gore cited this study about drowned polar bears.

(AP)  JUNEAU, Alaska — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Full story:

http://www.adn.com/2011/07/28/1989382/arctic-scientist-under-investigation.html

This 2008 World Climate Report essay shows why an investigation is needed:

Where Are All The Drowning Polar Bears?

The Interior Department just announced its decision to list the polar bear as “threatened” under the U.S Endangered Species Act (ESA). The justification behind the decision is that polar bears are highly dependent on sea ice in the Arctic for their livelihood—hunting, mating, birthing, family rearing, etc.—and thus if sea ice declines, so will the overall health of the species.

While this may, in fact, be true in some sense, it also gives short-shrift to the bears adaptive abilities, which must be large, given that they survived the previous interglacial warm period as well as an extended period of warmer-than-present conditions in the Arctic (which undoubtedly were associated with reduced sea ice levels) about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago (give or take a thousand years) (see here fore example). If the bears fare worse this time around, it will mostly likely be because their natural adaptive response may run up against a human roadblock in the form of habitat disruption or other types of difficulties that an increased human presence may pose to the adapting bears. It seems that this is what the intent of the ESA is aimed at tempering, not trying to alter the climate—precisely how the Act should have be applied, despite all the criticism surrounding the decision.

All this renewed attention to polar bears has piqued our interest in just how the bears have been faring recently. Al Gore made movie stars out of drowning bears in his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth with an animation sequence depicting a small patch of floating ice disintegrating under a struggling polar bear until it was left swimming alone in a vast expanse of open ocean. One couldn’t help to get a little teary-eyed at the notion.

............................................

more at the WUWT website

.................................................

13 posted on 07/28/2011 12:37:16 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

Shooting animals and getting your jollies off doing it, for nothing other than your sheer amusement, tells others a lot about someone’s personal character.


14 posted on 07/28/2011 12:45:18 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
This is confirmed by long recognized archeological findings.

During the Ordovician period (488.3–443.7 million years ago) the average CO2 level was 4200 ppm (15 times pre-industrial level) but the average temperature was only 2deg C higher. During the Ordovician period, the Earth had polar ice caps and experienced the Hirnantian glaciation. The Earth did not burn up like the alarmist have said. It was much like today.

15 posted on 07/28/2011 12:46:45 PM PDT by CharlyFord (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roccus

Thanks for the link!


16 posted on 07/28/2011 12:47:21 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Have a few brewskis and chill man.
This is supposed to be comedy.....


17 posted on 07/28/2011 12:48:55 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; goodnesswins; ELVISNIXON.com; SunkenCiv; E. Pluribus Unum; CharlyFord; ...

I expect to see links start developing between the different environmental groups, or their leaders, and Agenda 21 activism such as Washington’s Puget Sound Partnership that has been funded with out tax money to the tune of $50 million dollars by Congressman Norm Dicks, who’s son David was executive director until the scandals began to circulate.


18 posted on 07/28/2011 12:52:35 PM PDT by Baynative (If the government was in charge of the desert , we'd soon have a shortage of sand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CharlyFord
I think the Democrats are pivoting from CO2 causing Global Warming too CO2 causing ocean Acidification....

Watching CSPAN and a debate on the House floor with talk on Climate Change along with Land use policies I think...Rep Dicks of Washington State offered up an ocean Acidification argument...just short of dropped in into the narrative.

19 posted on 07/28/2011 12:52:45 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
Damn:

funded with out OUR tax money

20 posted on 07/28/2011 12:54:34 PM PDT by Baynative (If the government was in charge of the desert , we'd soon have a shortage of sand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere

We have to come up with new climate models before it's too late!

21 posted on 07/28/2011 12:54:36 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The term ‘climate change’ is slowly being replaced with ‘climate disruption.’ Just watch.


22 posted on 07/28/2011 12:56:50 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man; nascarnation

But they make such great rugs!


23 posted on 07/28/2011 12:58:01 PM PDT by Roccus (Obama & Holder LLP, Procurers of fine arms to the most discerning drug lords (202) 456-1414)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I think the Democrats are pivoting from CO2 causing Global Warming too CO2 causing ocean Acidification....

Lubchenco, head of NOAA, did a big show-and-tell in front of a House hearing a year or so ago on Ocean Acidification. I told all you folks here at FR that it would b the replacement for, global warming, climate change, climate disruption.

Here are videos of that hearing http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0014

24 posted on 07/28/2011 1:09:44 PM PDT by Roccus (Obama & Holder LLP, Procurers of fine arms to the most discerning drug lords (202) 456-1414)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Roccus

Sorry

http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0014


25 posted on 07/28/2011 1:10:35 PM PDT by Roccus (Obama & Holder LLP, Procurers of fine arms to the most discerning drug lords (202) 456-1414)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

BMFL


26 posted on 07/28/2011 1:24:29 PM PDT by Scutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Return. Thanks for posting.
27 posted on 07/28/2011 1:27:33 PM PDT by jnsun (The Left: the need to manipulate others because of nothing productive to offer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
“A false conclusion once arrived at and widely accepted is not easily dislodged, and the less it is understood the more tenaciously it is held.” Jeff Cooper

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

28 posted on 07/28/2011 1:34:11 PM PDT by Varmint Al
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; wendy1946
To: wendy1946

I say again, these ****-birds should not be allowed to get away with changing their shtick from “global warming” to “Climate Change(TM)”.

You are behind the curve...Ocean Acidification due to man made increase in CO2 is the new mantra.

27 posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:50:36 AM by Roccus (POLITICIAN.....................a four letter word spelled with ten letters.)

29 posted on 07/28/2011 1:35:29 PM PDT by Roccus (Obama & Holder LLP, Procurers of fine arms to the most discerning drug lords (202) 456-1414)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

30 posted on 07/28/2011 2:09:43 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Won’t disagree that the nut cakes might try to introduce any loony argument but for most of Earth’s history, CO2 has been higher, typically much higher. The higher CO2 levels didn’t cause any catastrophes. Nature sees CO2 as a scarce resource needed to build things like trees and coral reefs.


31 posted on 07/28/2011 2:17:44 PM PDT by CharlyFord (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I wonder how Hansen is going to explain this.... >PS


32 posted on 07/28/2011 2:28:27 PM PDT by PiperShade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roccus

thanks...


33 posted on 07/28/2011 2:46:30 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Great post E. Thanks.


34 posted on 07/28/2011 2:47:24 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....Duncan Hunter Sr. for POTUS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Carlucci; Little Bill; Desdemona; Nipfan; carolinablonde; marvlus; ...
Thanx for the ping Ernest_at_the_Beach !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

35 posted on 07/28/2011 4:39:37 PM PDT by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Baynative; Red Badger; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; ...

Thank for the pings!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2755416/posts


36 posted on 07/28/2011 6:29:24 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Yes, as a matter of fact, it is that time again -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
All of these liberal pressure groups -- be they concerned with the environment or abortions -- are linked together.

And they are all funded by taxpayer dollars.

And they all kick back a portion of their income to the Democrat party.

It's not policy. It's a political racket.

Job one for the next Republican President and Congress: unravel, de-fund and break-up this network.

37 posted on 07/28/2011 6:59:03 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
The collapse of physical science. I almost expect to hear that rocks adhere through crazy glue.

Oh, no. Rocks adhere due to the law of social justice.

38 posted on 07/28/2011 7:04:07 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: okie01
"It's not policy. It's a political racket.~~ Job one for the next Republican President and Congress: unravel, de-fund and break-up this network.

Another reason for term limits.

39 posted on 07/28/2011 7:59:36 PM PDT by Baynative (If the government was in charge of the desert , we'd soon have a shortage of sand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

.


40 posted on 07/28/2011 8:07:03 PM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Facts don't matter. They will find some other “theory” to fit their desired outcome.
That outcome is always the same. Higher taxes, limits on personal freedom; limiting free market economies, dictating where you live, what you drive, how many kids you have, etc etc...
41 posted on 07/28/2011 8:12:13 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (I love how the FR spellchecker doesn't recognize the word "Obama")
[ 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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