Saturday, May 02, 2009


You wouldn’t think so if you read recent press reports. Just like this time last year, the global press is bombarding the public with alarming reports coming from the bottom of the world. From the Discovery Channel on April 28th, 2009 “Huge Ice Shelf Breaks From Antarctica, Fractures.” From National Geographic News on April 30th, 2009 “Giant Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses.” From Reuters on April 28th, 2009, “New York City-sized Ice Collapses off Antarctica.”

Exactly one year ago, similar stories circulated, and if anything, they were more alarming. On March 25th, 2008, the BBC reported “Antarctic Ice Hangs by a Thread,” a result, they stated, of “unprecedented global warming.” But these reports, both last year and this year, are talking about the same ice shelf - the Wilkins Ice Shelf, an insignificant bit of floating ice that is located on the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. Didn’t it break up last year? How many times do we recycle the alarm over the seasonal melting of the same few thousand square miles of floating ice (ice that floats cannot contribute to sea level rise), off a continent that exceeds five million square miles in area?

Apparently over and over. An excellent analysis posted on April 17th, 2009 by Ron de Haan entitled “The Antarctic Wilkins Ice Shelf Collapse: Media recycles photos and storylines from previous years,” documents how the Wilkins Ice Shelf has been reported by the mainstream media to be ominously collapsing every year now since 1999. Haan also provides satellite photography back as far as 1993 showing the end-of-summer thaws and mid-winter maximums for the Wilkins Ice Shelf. Not much has changed over the past 15 years. Thank goodness for the blogosphere to help us accurately assess the cryosphere!

The assumption in all these stories that report on the Wilkins Ice Shelf, and other melting ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, is that global warming is the cause, and that they are representative of a general melt occurring throughout Antarctica. And if this were true, this would be alarming, since 90% of the world’s land based ice is in Antarctica. So is the ocean warming around Antarctica, and is Antarctica’s overall total mass decreasing?

The answer to both of these questions is almost certainly no. As this recent imagery from NOAA indicates, the southern ocean is actually colder than average. Except for a few areas directly south of the Indian Ocean, and in the area south of Patagonia and surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula, the rest of the ocean surrounding Antarctica - virtually all of the South Pacific and South Atlantic - is cooler than average. This data indicates no reason to believe ocean temperatures are causing overall loss of ice mass in the Antarctic; with the exception of the insignificant quantity of ice on the Antarctic Peninsula, they suggest the opposite.

What about the ice mass of Antarctica? Along with land based ice, which can raise sea levels when melted into the ocean, another significant indicator of polar temperature is the extent of floating sea ice. As the above table prepared by researchers at the University of Illinois indicates, the actual sea ice surrounding Antarctica is well above average. The black line represents the last 12 months of sea ice area, based on satellite data. You can see the sea ice reached a peak of 15 million square kilometers around September, during the peak of the southern winter. You can see it dropped to a low of 2 million square kilometers in mid-February, at the height of the southern summer. Currently the sea ice surrounding Antarctica is 7 million square kilometers and rising. The red line, however, is what is significant, because the red line indicates whether or not the sea ice is above or below the historical norm. And as you can see, as of May 2009, Antarctic sea ice is about 1.0 million square kilometers above normal.

Just like last year, to assist in the research for this post I contacted Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist at the University of Colorado whose blog is one of the most balanced forums and respected sources of technical information on global climate anywhere. In response to my inquiry, he wrote the following: “The sea ice around the continent is far above average (ref. UIUC). Also, note the colder than average sea surface temperatures around Antarctic (ref. NOAA). If the media is going to discuss the Wilkins Ice Shelf, they should also discuss this other data. The expansion of the sea ice coverage implies a cooling.”



Sea-level rise trends in the Attico–Cycladic region (Aegean Sea) during the last 5000 years

By Serafim E. Poulos et al.


Sea-level change during the last 18,000 years is a combination of eustatic, isostatic and tectonic contributions. In an effort to minimize the tectonic contributions, our study of sea-level changes in the Aegean Sea within historical times is focused on the aseismic Attico–Cycladic geotectonic zone. On the basis of archaeological information and radiocarbon dating of coastal sedimentological formations, a sea-level curve for the Attico–Cycladic massif has been constructed for the past 5000 years and compared with existing curves. According to this curve, the rapid increase of sea level concluded prior to 5.5 ka and was followed by a slow steady rise at a rate of 0.9 mm/a up to its present stage. The latter is attributed primarily to the process of thermal expansion and secondarily to the residual melting of the glaciers and existing ice-caps. By extrapolation of the curve, the sea level at the end of the 21th century is predicted to be about 9 cm higher than the present level; this value is much lower than the prediction of the last IPCC report (49 cm). If higher SLR rates are realised in the next few decades, then the excess 40 cm of the IPCC prediction can be attributed to human-induced global climatic change. [...]


The main phase of rapid sea-level rise in the Central Aegean region ended prior to 5500 BP with the sea level being 4–5 m below its present stand. Subsequently, the sea level continued to rise slowly at a rate of 0.9 mm/a towards its present level, but without ever exceeding it. Due to the tectonic stability of the Attico–Cycladic Massif (central Aegean Sea), the rise of sea level within historical times is attributed to eustatic factors, with thermal expansion being the dominant one, followed by residual melting of glaciers and ice-caps. Hence, the current transgressional phase during the last interglacial period has not reached its optimum yet. No signs of accelerated sea-level rise in recent years are detectable from the available data for the Central Aegean region. The estimate of sea-level rise in the Aegean Sea for 2100 AD, on the basis of the Attico–Cycladic curve and presuming that the present trend will persist, is approximately 9 cm, which is significantly lower than the 49 cm, predicted by the IPCC (2001). Thus, any excess of the natural increment (i.e. 9 cm) during the coming decades would be attributed to the Global Climatic Change induced by human activities.

Geomorphology, Volume 107, Issues 1-2, 1 June 2009, Pages 10-17

Gore's Profitable Environment

Green Is The Color Of Money

During a House subcommittee hearing last week, former Vice President Al Gore was questioned about his ties to a company that stands to profit from proposed cap-and-trade legislation now pending before the committee. Mr. Gore testified in favor of this legislation. U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., wanted to know if he is profiteering.

During the April 24 House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing titled “The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” Ms. Blackburn asked Mr. Gore about a potential conflict of interest he might have. She cited an Oct. 8, 2008 New York Times story that mentions his partnership in the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield and Byers (KPCB). KPCB is “actively working with entrepreneurs to solve our climate crisis” according to its Web site. Mr. Gore’s firm, Generation Investment Management (GIM), formed an alliance with KPCB in November 2007. He became a partner in KPCB. He co-founded GIM in 2004.

The Times story referenced by Ms. Blackburn said KPCB invested $1 billion in 40 companies that would profit from new environmental and energy laws and regulations. She said the reason she asked Mr. Gore about this relationship is that her constituents wanted to know if there is any impropriety. She wanted to give him the chance to dismiss the notion. "I wanted to give you the opportunity to kind of clear the air about your motives," she said. "I’ve got an article from Oct. 8 New York Times Magazine, about a firm called Kleiner Perkins, a capital firm called Kleiner Perkins. Are you aware of that company?"

Mr. Gore replied that he was a partner. Ms. Blackburn then cited some facts about the company and the proposed cap-and-trade legislation. This legislation requires energy companies to buy permits from the government to emit carbon while producing electricity. The idea is to artificially increase prices to drive Americans away from buying electricity produced with carbon emissions. The government would use the funds to subsidize the creation of environmentally friendly, "green" technology. The government would then subsidize the purchase of electricity generated from this technology.

"So you’re a partner in Kleiner Perkins," she said. "Okay. Now they have invested about $1 billion in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and -trade legislation. So the legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?"

Mr. Gore replied that he would not. He denied profiteering. But Ms. Blackburn wanted him to clarify this. "For clarity," she said. "Are you willing to divest yourself of any profit?" He did not directly respond. He just reiterated that he was not profiting from his ties to KPCB.

But the Capital Research Center (CRC), a nonpartisan watchdog organization that monitors the activities of nonprofit groups is not so sure. CRC reported in its August 2007 newsletter "Foundation Watch" (”Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It,” by Deborah Corey Barnes), Mr. Gore "has established a network of organizations to promote the so-called climate crisis."

The report also noted GIM’s role in the climate change business. It said, "GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits." It also revealed that Mr. Gore’s nonprofit arm "Alliance for Climate Protection (ACP), budgeted $300 million to promote climate change.

CRC concludes, "If carbon emissions trading ever comes to the United States, Al Gore will be uniquely positioned to cash in....Meanwhile, Gore is pushing for tougher environmental regulations on the private sector. It wants “cap-and-trade” legislation so that companies will be forced to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and buy carbon credits."


Global Warming Revisited

In the May 2001 Freeman I published “Unprecedented Global Warming?” which noted that climate change (global warming and global cooling) is a continuing phenomenon and that what we’ve witnessed in the last 25 years is “by no means unprecedented.” The Medieval Warm Period (800-1300), which took place without SUVs, power plants, or factories, was warmer than it is today. Crippling our economy to solve a minor (or nonexistent) future problem struck me as a serious mistake.

That article was tantamount to heresy among those who devoutly believe in anthropogenic (manmade) global warming. A physics professor responded, “Heberling’s commentary is the latest in a long list of junk-science commentaries about climate change. Heberling, who is not a scientist, but rather the president of a small business school, repeats several old and misleading ideas.”

Of course, Al Gore, the Nobel laureate who has made global warming his cause, is not a scientist. He has a B.A. in government. For the record, I have a B.S. from Cornell University, where I took courses in physics, chemistry, geology, and meteorology. However, this makes little difference because my sin was to downplay the severity of global warming, and too many people and organizations are tied financially to the “crisis.”

As MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen puts it, “Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policymakers who provide funds for more science to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today.”

The Government Accountability Office says that for over 15 years the federal government has funded programs to study the earth’s climate and to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases linked to climate change. A review of the number of government agencies and the amount of government money devoted to “climate change” is staggering. Nine of the 15 cabinet-level departments receive significant funding for climate-change activities. A 2007 White House press release boasted, “The President has devoted $37 billion to climate-change-related activities since 2001.” The U.S. Global Change Research Program, which has 13 federal agency participants, has made the largest scientific investment in climate change research at $20 billion over a 13-year period. The federal organizations with the largest budgets devoted to climate-change activities include NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

For those who embrace big government and centralized planning, the global-warming crisis has been a godsend. Under the mantra “preventing global warming,” government has greatly expanded into our daily lives. Mandates have superseded consumer choice in the areas of energy, transportation, and appliances. For example, when compared to the traditional light bulb, the new government-mandated compact fluorescent light bulb is far more expensive, loaded with mercury, and takes time to illuminate. To compensate for this delay, consumers leave the lights on. How does this help the environment or curtail global warming?

And the Horse You Rode In On

Given the billions of federal dollars at stake, it is not surprising that there would be resistance to any free flow of ideas that might question the crisis. If we don’t have a crisis, then we won’t need the government to ride in on a white horse throwing billions around to save us. It therefore becomes imperative to squelch or marginalize dissent. Name-calling, shooting the messenger, and the use of such show-stopper statements as “We have consensus” and “The debate is over” usually do the trick.

In the name-calling category, we find the following epithets: “climate-change denier,” “flat-earth advocates,” and “tools or stooges of Big Oil.”

Jeff Kueter of the Marshall Institute says that scientists who challenge global warming “are quickly labeled as having received money from the petroleum industry. The media consider their findings and their opinions to somehow be tainted because they’ve got a financial relationship.” Why is there never any suspicion in the other direction, when a researcher has a financial relationship with the government and its agenda for more regulations, more mandates, a carbon tax, and the nationalization of the energy sector? Why don’t the media ever call such a researcher a “tool of big government”?

What about the consensus we hear so much about? Gregg Easterbrook expresses the mainstream sentiment: “The consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance.”

The late author Michael Crichton had this response: I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

One of the biggest tragedies of consensus science is the chilling effect it has on those who fall outside of this consensus. “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear,” Lindzen says. “It’s my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. Alarm rather than genuine curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policy makers.”

Threat Level Whatever

The problem with public policy based on alarmism is that it’s hard to sustain. There are three reasons for this. The first is overselling the crisis. The general public has become numb and cynical about the endless barrage of ills all tied to global warming. (Even the disappearance of the Loch Ness Monster has been attributed to it.)

The second reason is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. This is what did in the last climate-change crisis. A New York Times headline on May 21, 1975 blared: “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing: A Major Cooling Widely Considered to be Inevitable.” But it was hard to continue the hype about global cooling when it got hot outside. While the current global warming debate may be over, Mother Nature is, unfortunately, not cooperating. Contrary to the infallible computer climate-model predictions (which I call high-tech crystal balls), global temperatures peaked ten years ago, in 1998. There was no appreciable temperature increase for the next eight years. However, for the last two years the temperatures have actually fallen. The past two winters have been brutally cold. This painful realization may help to explain the sense of urgency in Congress to pass climate-change legislation–right now! Rep. Henry Waxman said at the opening of the 2009 congressional hearings on global warming that he plans to move “quickly and decisively” to push through climate legislation before Memorial Day (Or does he mean before it gets even colder?)

The final reason is that the alarmist crisis gets run over by a real crisis. With the financial turmoil, the housing crisis, the stock-market crash, and rising unemployment, it is hard to get excited about global warming. In the January Pew Public Survey Poll, global warming came in 20th out of 20 on the list of Top Priorities for America. The top five were: the economy, jobs, terrorism, Social Security, and education.

The global-warming crisis was tailor-made to simultaneously advance the agendas of the environmentalists, big government, and those who vilify the oil industry and business in general. There is far too much at stake to have this crisis die peacefully. As a result, there will be extensive efforts to keep it alive. For starters, the phrase “global warming” is being used less frequently (if at all). It’s been replaced with the nebulous, but error-free, “climate change.” Given that the earth’s climate has been changing for millions of years, “climate change” covers all bases (both warming and cooling). The problem with this approach, however, is that the public won’t buy it. It is hard to get excited about the dangers of “climate change.”

Be prepared for more talk about “energy security” and “energy efficiency.” This will lead to more government-mandated products and less consumer choice. There will still be a push for a carbon tax–or a cap-and-trade scheme, President Obama’s preferred policy. However, without the global-warming hysteria, this will be a harder sell.

Carbon dioxide will continue to be demonized as a “greenhouse gas.” Even though it is harmless to humans and is needed by all plant life, it will be called a toxic pollutant by the media, militant environmentalists, and politicians. Yet carbon dioxide makes up less than 4 percent of all greenhouse gases. Water vapor accounts for 95 percent.

Shut Off the Alarmists

What’s to be done? First, we should abandon all efforts and discussions related to cap-and-trade, carbon offsets, carbon footprints, and carbon taxes, which would never go away if implemented and won’t measurably change the temperature.

Second, we should stop government from funding climate change science. As John Tierney of the New York Times writes: “[Government] officials running the agencies have their own agendas . . . which can be [met] by supporting research demonstrating that there’s a terrible problem for the agency to solve.” Climatologist Patrick Michaels states, “[N]o one ever received a major research grant by stating that his or her particular issue might not be a problem after all.”

Third, we should demand that lobbyists for expanded government power disclose their financial backers.

Finally, we need to accept that climate change, both global warming and global cooling, will continue. Ironically, of the two we should wish for warming. Mankind has prospered in warming periods because agricultural production increased at higher latitudes and elevations. The opposite was true with global cooling. I’ll take global warming over another Ice Age. My request to Washington: Please don’t pass legislation to make Michigan any colder than it already is.


Do global warming skeptics have to accept the rest of the Greenie agenda?

Another day, another denier comes forward to challenge the views of Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The number of scientists who are speaking out for the first time is heartening — I take it as a sign that the climate of fear is subsiding, and that reason may soon reign in this politically charged debate.

But I find one aspect of the coming out of the deniers to be tiresome — a seemingly obligatory statement to the effect that they care about the environment, often coupled with bromides on energy policy that are not only trite but wrong.

Take Leonard Weinstein, now a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace, formerly a top scientist at NASA where he worked for 45 years, along the way amassing 11 patents and some 50 awards, including being named the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineer of the Year in 1999. This week, Weinstein formally declared himself a sceptic by releasing a paper in which he concluded “that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW [anthropogenic global warming] theory as proposed.”

Then Weinstein gratuitously ventures into territory outside his science ken through this seemingly safe statement: “Decreasing availability of oil and anthropogenic pollution (not greenhouse gasses) are real issues. Acid rain, smog and dirty water sources do need to be fixed. The problems associated with high fuel prices, and dependence on sources of energy from possibly less than friendly foreign countries are critical. While we can’t solve the problems with a single magic bullet, more nuclear power plants, along with wind and solar power, could fill much of the gap. There are solutions, but first we have to identify the correct problems.”

Yes, it’s important to identify the correct problems, and the non-problems, not just on global warming but on energy policy.

More nuclear, wind and solar as a solution to high fuel prices and oil imports? Not a chance, at least not anytime soon.

First, nuclear, wind and solar cannot today substitute for oil, which primarily fuels cars and is a feedstock for plastics. Nuclear, wind and solar are primarily used to produce electricity. Even if electric vehicles that ran on affordable batteries existed — despite the hype, no battery breakthrough has yet occurred — these three would still not substitute for oil because all three are uneconomic.

In large part, nuclear, wind and solar are uneconomic for the same reason: They are inflexible technologies that cannot be dispatched. Unlike other methods of generating electricity — from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas or from falling water — nuclear, wind and solar systems cannot moderate their output to meet society’s fluctuating demands for power. Nuclear reactors run flat-out 24/7, wind technologies depend on whether the wind happens to blow, solar technologies on whether the Sun happens to shine.

Because power companies make little or no money at periods of low demand, and are lucrative when meeting peak needs, power technologies that can be dispatched tend to be money makers and those that can’t tend to burn money. Of the three, only solar technology — because its production costs continue to drop and because it produces power during daylight hours, when demand is higher and the need for dispatch lower — is likely to become commercially viable in the next decade.

Next, Weinstein worries about the decreasing availability of oil, and America’s reliance on hostile suppliers. In fact, the world’s oil reserves have increased by 36% over the past two decades, excluding the massive unconventional reserves in Canada’s tar sands and America’s oil shale. As for American dependence on hostile countries, this is more myth: America’s only suppliers that could be considered hostile are Venezuela, which meets about 6% of U.S. needs, and Russia, which meets 2%. The entire Persian Gulf meets only 12% of U.S. needs, and that 12% comes from three allies: Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait.

The true enemy of American energy independence is the American government, whose politically driven regulations unduly restrict environmentally sound fossil fuel development while perversely subsidizing uneconomic energy-producing and energy-consuming industries.

Finally, Weinstein treats fossil fuels as environmental pariahs. In fact, decades of environmental pressure has led to immense improvements in coal and other fossil fuel technologies, making them no less virtuous than many renewable fuels. At the same time, some renewable technologies are losing their aura: New research shows that ethanol can be a greater threat to air pollution and water supplies than gasoline, and wind farms have become the most unwanted of neighbours.

Weinstein’s straying in energy policy shouldn’t dissuade people from checking out his illuminating analysis of anthropogenic global warming, found at He and the others who are coming out of the closet deserve kudos for speaking out at all. When sceptics are able to speak without feeling compelled to ward off accusations that they are environmental pariahs, we’ll know that the climate of intimidation has entirely dissipated.



Electro Thermal Dynamic Stripping Oil Recovery Could Unlock 400 Billion More Barrels of Oil in Alberta at $26/Barrel

A field test was performed from Sept 2006 to August 2007 and the recovery and performance exceeded expectations. The recovery factor was over 75%, energy used per barrel was 23% less than anticipated and peak production rates were better than expected.

ET Energy's Electro Thermal technology could be used to pump out 600 billion barrels of Alberta's oil sands bitumen. That's more than triple the Alberta government's best guess at what's currently recoverable from the oil sands, and enough to satisfy total global demand for twenty years.

Saudi Arabia has 260 billion barrels of oil reserves, so the additional 421 billion barrels would be close to double the oil in Saudi Arabia.


NOTE from Benny Peiser:

See also the recent WSJ article by Guy Chazan: Squeeze That Sponge. Often stymied in their quest for new crude, Western oil companies are squeezing more out of the reserves they already have. Despite the engineering advances of the past century, nearly two-thirds of crude still gets left in the ground. So oil companies are raising the ante, investing billions of dollars in cutting-edge technology to increase the amount of crude they can tap.

The potential rewards are huge: Raising the average recovery rate world-wide to 50% from 35% would boost the world's recoverable oil by about 1.2 trillion barrels -- equal to the whole of today's proven reserves, the International Energy Agency says....

Chair of University's Chemistry Dept. Declares: 'I must disagree with Mr. Gore'

Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, declared her dissent from man-made global warming fears during an April 2009 Earth Day presentation titled “"Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View.” "I am an environmentalist," Mumper said , but "I must disagree with Mr. Gore."

According to the April 29, 2009 article in the University's newspaper The Bottom Line, Mumper said, "We need to take care of our planet," and disagreed with the idea of putting all research money into CO2 abatement. “In my skeptic's mind, that is foolish,” she said during her presentation.

Mumper “believes that announcements such as Gore's, saying that the debate over climate change is over are false.”

“Mumper's presentation explained that the global warming skeptic tends to accept that mankind plays a role in warming the earth, both through greenhouse gas, and especially urbanization, but the lack of warming in rural areas suggests that the greenhouse gas component is overblown.”

According to the article, Mumper also explained that “Gore's message, as well as that of the IPCC, states that anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide gas is responsible for warming the planet, and is leading the planet to become an unlivable place for mankind. Mumper explained to her audience that CO2 is a natural gas, produced by every animal on earth with every breath. Without that gas, explains Mumper, there would be no life on earth.”



For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: