|
|
 |
|
#1
07-01-2007, 01:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Paging Mr. Gore......
http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...REF30b.article
Time for Mr Gore to answer the critics, before You buy those Live Earth tickets! Now see...that was nice  
|
|
#2
07-01-2007, 08:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#3
07-01-2007, 08:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Timm, if you want to perceived as anything more than an rabid partisan with an ax to grind, you need to post articles with less of an obvious idealogical bent. Here's some information on the author (who I had never heard of; this took me ten seconds to find on Google: )
<<This is an op/ed piece by James M. Taylor. As it states at the bottom of the article, 'James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute.' The Heartland Institute is a well known anti-global warming group that supports big oil (including Exxon) and the tobacco industry. The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007, www.globalwarmingheartland.org, which asserts there is no scientific consensus on global warming and features a list of experts and a list of like-minded think tanks, many of whom have received funding from ExxonMobil and other polluters. The Heartland Institute networks heavily with other conservative policy organizations, and is part of the State Policy Network, a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition (as of 4/04), and co-sponsored the 2001 Fly In for Freedom with the Wise Use umbrella group, Alliance for America. Heartland also co-sponsored a New York state Conference on Property Rights, hosted by the Property Rights Foundation of America. The Institute puts out several publications, including "Environment & Climate News" which frequently features anti-environmentalist and climate skeptic writing. They also published "Earth Day '96," a compilation of articles on environmental topics. The publication, distributed on college campuses, featured "Adventures in the Ozone Layer" by S. Fred Singer, and "the Cold Facts on Global Warming" by Sallie Baliunas. The articles denied the serious nature of ozone depletion and global warming. Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor, according to Heartland's 2005 IRS Form 990, pg. 15. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocument...0295fbb2-9.pdf The Heartland Institute formerly sponsored and hosted www.climatesearch.org, a web page ostensibly dedicated to objective research on global warming, but at the same time presenting heavily biased research by organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute as an FAQ section.>> So, an anti-global warming piece comes out from a guy whose job is supported by Exxon? I'm not saying there's a bias there, but...  Original link: http://community.comcast.net/rss/mes...ssage.id=50650
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#4
07-01-2007, 08:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
how amusing!
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#5
07-01-2007, 09:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#6
07-01-2007, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming
6 Apr 07 - "A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming. "He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech. "Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm. Gray, 77, is known as "America's most reliable hurricane forecaster." See entire article by Cain Burdeau, Associated Press Writer:
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#7
07-01-2007, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
5 Feb 07 - Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong? Let me stress I am not denying the (global warming) phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on. Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent. In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment? I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises. Another cry in the wilderness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen. As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted. Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information. Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#8
07-01-2007, 09:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A sample of experts' comments
about the science of An Inconvenient Truth Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, New Zealand: "I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands have fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific." Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden: ""We find no alarming sea level rise going on, in the Maldives, Tovalu, Venice, the Persian Gulf and even satellite altimetry if applied properly." Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor - Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France, comments on Gore’s belief that Nairobi and Harare were founded just above the mosquito line to avoid malaria and how the mosquitoes are now moving to higher altitudes: "Gore is completely wrong here - malaria has been documented at an altitude 2500 m - Nairobi and Harare are at altitudes of about 1500 m. The new altitudes of malaria are lower than those recorded 100 years ago. None of the "30 so called new diseases"" Gore references are attributable to global warming, none." Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Manager, Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada: "Our information is that 7 of 13 populations of polar bears in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (more than half the world’s estimated total) are either stable, or increasing …. Of the three that appear to be declining, only one has been shown to be affected by climate change. No one can say with certainty that climate change has not affected these other populations, but it is also true that we have no information to suggest that it has." Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: "Mr. Gore suggests that Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005. But 1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland and the melt area of ice sheet was exceptionally low due to the cooling caused by volcanic dust emitted from Mt. Pinatubo. If, instead of 1992, Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new ice age is just around the corner." Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California: ""The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling. … Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all." Dr. R. M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia: "Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening. The temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than 1 degree C since 1950. And the area of sea-ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years." Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, formerly advisor to the World Meteorological Organization/climatology research scientist at University of Exeter, U.K.: "From data published by the Canadian Ice Service there has been no precipitous drop off in the amount or thickness of the ice cap since 1970 when reliable over-all coverage became available for the Canadian Arctic." Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Colombia, Canada comments on Gore’’s belief that the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) is an "invasive exotic species" that has become a plague due to fewer days of frost: "The MPB is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand."
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#9
07-01-2007, 09:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists
Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears Claim 95% of Meteorologists Skeptical 19 Feb 07 - Increasing numbers of scientists and climate experts are growing more skeptical of predictions of a man-made catastrophe. Ohio TV meteorologists, Dan Webster, Dick Goddard, Mark Johnson, Mark Nolan and John Loufman, mock the UN's global warming alarmism. "You tell me you’re going to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that’s 6 billion years old?" Johnson said. "I’m not sure which is more arrogant; to say we caused (global warming) or that we can fix it," Nolan said. "Mr. Webster observed that in his dealings with meteorologists nationwide, that about 95% share his skepticism about global warming." From The Cleveland Plain Dealer, 16 Feb 07: "TV Weathermen Downplay Global Warming Fears." http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...210.xml&coll=2 See also http://www.crainscleveland.com/apps/.../70213008/1010 Thanks to Craig Adkins for this link. And here’s a quote from Kentucky meteorologist Chris Allenâ’s blog on the 2007 UN IPCC global warming report: "Just because major environmental groups, big media and some politicians are buying this hook, line and sinker doesn't mean as a TV weatherperson I am supposed to act as a puppy on a leash and follow along," Allen said in his blog titled "Still Not Convinced" on February 7, 2007. Allen has the Seal of Approval of the National Weather Association and is the chairman of the Kentucky Weather Preparedness Committee. "As I have stated before, not only do I believe global climate change exists - it has always existed. There have been times of global warming and cooling," Allen, who is with WBKO in Bowling Green, added.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#10
07-01-2007, 09:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Than 17,000 Scientists
Protest Kyoto Accord Has everyone forgotten this? In April 1998, more than 17,000 scientists, two-thirds of whom hold advanced academic degrees, signed a Petition against the Kyoto climate accord. The Petition urged the US government to reject the Accord, which would force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States . In signing the Petition, the 17,000 basic and applied scientists -- an unprecedented number for this kind of document -- expressed their profound skepticism about the science underlying the Kyoto Accord. The atmospheric data simply do not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models that are being cited by the United Nations and other promoters of the Accord as "proof" of a major future warming. The covering letter enclosed with the Petition, signed by Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and a past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, states it well: "The treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful." "The 'silent majority' of the scientific community has at last spoken out against the hype emanating from politicians and much of the media about a 'warming catastrophe.' The Petition reflects the frustration and disgust felt by working scientists, few of whom have been previously involved in the ongoing climate debate, about the misuse of science to promote a political agenda," said Dr. Seitz. The Petition drive was organized by Dr. Arthur Robinson, director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (Cave Junction, OR) and a vocal critic of the shaky science used to support the Kyoto Accord. It was staffed by volunteers and supported entirely by private donations, with no contributions from industry. "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto , Japan , in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#11
07-01-2007, 09:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Top astrophysicist denies global warming exists
2 Feb 07 - Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, a prolific researcher and one of Israel's top young scientists, no longer accepts the logic of man-made global warming. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states. The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate. -- nor will cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate. Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#12
07-01-2007, 09:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i could continue...but that's a fair amount of reading material, anyone can do a search for more.
but, it all depends on what you choose to believe, as there are scientists on both sides. just like some still believe in creation, and some in evolution. enjoy.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#13
07-01-2007, 09:36 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Danzig, creationism isn't a science; it's a religious belief. I wouldn't use that as a comparison.
Evolution is a Theory, yes, but it's a Theory on the level of gravity, which is also a Theory.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming05.html Referring to Dr. Gray; he's also very dismissive of advances in meteorological research, specifically using computer-generated models, because it's dried up his research grants. Again, not to say he doesn't have an agenda... And remember, he's a hurricane specialist; not a climate specialist. http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archiv...ray_revis.html First post: <<August 09, 2006 In recent years, Colorado State University's Bill Gray has become one of the most visible critics of climate scientists who warn about the consequences of increased greenhouse gas emissions, and a warming world. Look no further than a recently published, enlightening article in the Washington Post on climate change critics. It presents, on the whole, a somewhat sympathetic view of Gray. As a science writer, I have respect for Gray's work in predicting hurricane season activity, and he is certainly one of the world's most famous hurricane scientists. But, golly, he sure doesn't like the view that humans might be inducing climate change. I wrote about his vitriol here, and it also came up in an interview I did with Jeff Masters. Gray's views on climate science have not been well received by practicing scientists. The point Jeff made is that Gray has lost favor with the scientific community not because of his science, but because he is making strong statements without backing them up with evidence. This view has been confirmed by Texas A&M's Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist who recently spoke to Gray at a scientific meeting: After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own *why* the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it. After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, "OK, maybe the feedback isn't negative, maybe it's neutral. I'll give you that." I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he's talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange. I might also add that Gray made two appearances at this year's hurricane conference at the National Hurricane Conference that were handled, and probably sponsored, by Tech Central Station. This is an important detail because the Web site's funding has been linked to Exxon, among others, in this article and by other sources. I'd also like to add that this post in no way should be construed as an attack on Gray's annual hurricane predictions, nor his able colleague Phil Klotzbach, who now does a majority of the forecasting work.>> That's the same National Hurricane Conference that you cite in your earlier posts, isn't it, Danzig? Next post: the 17,000 scientists:
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#14
07-01-2007, 09:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
<<Were They Duped?
In response to the the claim that the Anti-Global Warming Petition Project had gathered 19,000 signatures of scientists who allegedly downplay the significance of climate change, the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote this response to suggest that many of the signees might have been duped. "In the spring of 1998," the Union writes, "mailboxes of US scientists flooded with a packet from the 'Global Warming Petition Project,' including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed 'Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth,' a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that 'increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate,' a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide 'would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.' "The sponsor, the little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, 'the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.' "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.">> http://www.newwest.net/index.php/cit...0347/C396/L396
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#15
07-01-2007, 09:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
back to global warming tho. some scientists think it's true, others do not. both have credentials. so how to move forward? having grown up during a time when the next ice age was rapidly approaching, i guess i'll take the warnings of the exact opposite suddenly occuring with a grain of salt.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#16
07-01-2007, 09:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
And here's the biggest thing in this whole debate, and why I must respectfully disagree with your accusation that I am the liberal version of Timm (
)- I hope scientists are wrong about global warming. I really do. Because I think, if they're not, it's too late to fix it. And while I don't have any kids, and probably won't live to see the effects of it, the kids of my friends and peers likely will. And I'm not selfish enough to not care about that. But wanting it to be wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. But that doesn't mean it's not worth trying to do something about man-made CO2 emissions. Maybe I'm right, and it's too late to affect 100+ years of burning carbon. But maybe not. And better to try than to not try. Finding alternative energy sources will end a dependence on a finite energy source, and get us out from under the thumb of the Middle East, which would have enormous ramifications for the political situation there. So why not try to limit CO2 emissions? Other than it'll be a hassle and we're lazy?And of course, you won't live to see the effects either, so if you don't want to believe it's true, then don't. It's not going to affect your life in any noticeable way, and if it affects future generations, hey, we'll all be dead anyway, so who cares, right?
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#17
07-01-2007, 09:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This one, I think, is affected by business and political arguments, and in the end, the anti-global warming side is likely to win, because all they have to do is create enough doubt to stall any sort of action on the issue- it takes a major catastrophe to get real action on anything (and sometimes that's not even enough- Katrina) and right now we're not at catastrophe stage. So, I suspect we're going to find out whether they're right.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#18
07-01-2007, 10:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I think, in a funny way, it's why I was so affected by the final scene in "Angel," which ended with our heroes on their way into a hopeless battle, because it was still the right thing to do. I can be such a sap. (Now, there's a test to see how devoted Somer is to the Whedonverse... will he sniff out this carefully hidden reference to one of his favorite shows... tucked away in a global warming thread? tee hee)
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#19
07-01-2007, 10:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
By the way, Danzig; fascinating, invigorating discussion for a Sunday morning- thank you! I could spend all day here, but I have to do laundry, bleah.
(In cold water; saves energy- tip for the day. My detergent is also vegetable-, not petroleum-based, but that's harder to find outside a city.)
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#20
07-01-2007, 10:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Look at what your link created! All this Sunday morning reading is head spinning, and "truth" spinning. Global warming...believe whatever you want. For sure it's Gore's fault for calling attention to it. Why did the signators of the Kyoto accord sign? Hmmm, I suppose there's no problem with ozone over Antarctica either, naw, there's no such thing, no PCB's. It's an "invention" of the liberals. And look at how good those bald eagles are doing! DDT was really not the problem. It was all the popcorn they were eating. So, now that we've gotten the popcorn under control, yup! They are no longer endangered or threatened. So, have the past two years been warmer than all the previous hundred? Does excessive CO2 in the atmosphere create a confining "blanket" for trapping heat? If so, it must be completely Gore's fault for contributing to it. Or calling attention to it. Hmmm...what was the Nobel prize for? And since I took the time to read your stuff, which I truly thank you for cause I had a few giggles, such entertainment...read this: http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot...impeached.html
|
Linear Mode
