David Suzuki is a confused man
He says skeptics are playing the man and not the ball and then does exactly that himself! He says that skeptics attack Warmists on the basis of personalities rather than attending to the facts -- but he then attacks skeptics on the basis of personalities rather than the facts! He is a rather stark case of pychological projection, I think
In the second part of his conversation with Bill Moyers, Dr. David Suzuki says climate deniers are engaging in a good ol’ game of “kill the messenger.”
“This is a very effective thing that we know has been done by the tobacco industry [and] it’s being done by the fossil fuel industry… You attack a person on the basis of their trustworthiness, their ulterior motives, anything to get away from dealing with the issues,” the scientist, author and philanthropist said.
He said it’s not unlike the attacks he has experienced from Canada’s prime minister, corporations and others over the years for speaking his mind about the government and the fossil fuel industry.
“The fossil fuel industry knows that fossil fuel use is at the heart of climate change,” Suzuki said. “But the problem is their job as CEOs and executives is to make money for their shareholders, and they’ll do it.”
More dippiness from Climate Central: Antarctica stealing Australia's rain (?)
One slight problem! Rainfall trends have been increasing in Australia, since around 1970
The answer to one of the enduring puzzles of global warming — the apparently sluggish response of the Antarctic continent to rising greenhouse gas levels — may have been settled by Australian scientists. And, in the course of doing so, they may also have solved another problem: the parching of Australia itself.
Nerilie Abram, of the Australian National University’s Research School of Earth Sciences, and colleagues outline their findings in Nature Climate Change. They report that they looked at the pattern of climate in the southern hemisphere and have concluded that the Southern Ocean winds that normally deliver rain to South Australia are being pushed further south towards Antarctica.
Their research was focused on a meteorological phenomenon known — although probably only to climate scientists — as the Southern Annular Mode, which marks the pattern of climate variability south of the equator. For the last 25 years of climate observation, it has been obvious that changes in the northern hemisphere have not been matched by changes in the south.
There are geophysical reasons for some of the difference. For example, most of the inhabited landmass of the planet is in the northern hemisphere; the North Pole is covered by an ocean, while the South Pole is in the center of an enormous continental landmass piled high with ice and snow; and the seasons and wind patterns of the two hemispheres run counter to each other. The two hemispheres are very different.
In addition, weather observations in the northern hemisphere are much more detailed and have been conducted over a much longer period than in the southern hemisphere.
Conspicuously, the Arctic has been the fastest warming region of the planet, and for more than a decade there was argument about whether the Antarctic was warming at all.
Lead researcher Dr. Abram and her fellow scientists took the measure of the Southern Annular Mode by looking at annual seasonal data since AD 1000 — recorded in Antarctic ice cores and South American tree rings. They then used the information to build up a picture of the past and the changing present.
“With greenhouse warming, Antarctica is actually stealing more of Australia’s rainfall,” she reported. “It’s not good news. As greenhouse gases continue to rise, we’ll get fewer storms chased up into Australia. As the westerly winds are getting tighter, they’re actually trapping more of the cold air over Antarctica. This is why the Antarctic has bucked the trend. Every other continent is warming, and the Arctic is warming fastest of anywhere on Earth.”
Hotter climate could turn sea turtles all-girl
And conservative gun owners might one day use their guns to wipe out all Leftists. Lots of things MIGHT happen. The article below is just a bit of speculation. There are many turtle clades from previous geological eras but we still have turtles
Out of her shell: Rising temperatures mean more female turtles.
Sea turtles are likely to be beneficiaries of a warming climate as hotter incubation conditions trigger a rising share of female hatchlings that could lift natural rates of population growth, new research to be published in Nature Climate Change on Monday shows.
But gains will be temporary if temperatures keep rising and nudge populations towards becoming all female, or exceed levels at which developing embryos die, the study found.
It will be end of story without human intervention.
"There'll be a bit of a breathing space … but down the track it'll be serious," said Graeme Hays from Deakin University, one of the report's authors.
It has been known for decades that reptile reproduction is highly sensitive to temperature, with the ratio of male to female offspring varying. For species of sea-turtles, the pivotal temperature is an oddly uniform 29 degrees for incubation, beyond which more females emerge from the eggs.
At about 30.5 degrees, populations become fully female. As remaining males die off, "it will be end of story without human intervention", Professor Hays said. At higher than 33 degrees, embryos do not survive.
The study focused on a globally important loggerhead turtle rookery on the Cape Verde Islands in the Atlantic but its results also apply to species elsewhere, including the Pacific. It found light-coloured sandy beaches already produce 70.1 per cent females, while beaches with darker sands are at 93.5 per cent.
The findings should help steer conservation efforts to make a priority of protecting lighter-coloured sandy beaches or planting more vegetation near dark ones to ameliorate the warming, Professor Hays said. "If you have to build a hotel, build it behind the dark-coloured beach," he said.
Since breeding populations are likely to swell in coming decades, sea turtle adult populations are "unlikely to be dire in the next 150 years", the paper said.
Professor Hays said any near-term increase in turtles would be modest compared with past populations. Green turtles in the Caribbean, for instance, are "a fraction of 1 per cent" of their original numbers.
Other changes linked to global warming, including effects on food sources, will also likely offset some of the benefits of having more breeding females, he said.
"Rising sea levels resulting in the loss of nesting beaches [through erosion] could push local turtle populations over the brink unless new suitable nesting beaches are found," the paper said.
It remains to be seen whether sea turtles, which have survived hundreds of millions of years, can adjust quickly enough to a changing climate, Professor Hays said.
Possible adjustments could include females laying their eggs at milder times of the year or shifting to cooler regions.
GLOBAL COOLING UNDERWAY
Written by Dr Sierra Rayne
With global temperature data now available for the first three months of 2014, an interesting trend has clearly emerged: global cooling. No longer is it just a hypothesis. For the first quarter of each calendar year since 2002, it is effectively a fact at reasonably strong statistical significance. Here is the data:
That downward trend since 2002 has a p-value of 0.097 (r=-0.48), which is below the p=0.10 (90%) threshold used in many climate science studies for statistical significance, and very close to the standard p=0.05 (95%) threshold generally employed across the physical and biological sciences. The same level of statistical significance is obtained regardless of whether parametric or non-parametric trend analysis methods are employed.
Some readers may be looking at this plot and thinking that the global climate data since 1880 looks a lot like a cycle, with a stable period (of neither warming nor cooling) of, say, 140 years in length between the approximately 70-year long alternating cool and warm periods. It certainly has that appearance. If such is the case, we would expect a return to "normal" January-March global temperatures by 2050, give or take a decade or two.
In the United States, the January-March 2014 temperature was well below the 20th-century average. There has been no statistically significant trend in January-March temperatures in the contiguous USA since 1980. None, for 35 years and counting. The same lack of trend applies for the December-February temperatures. Depending on how you define winter, either – or both – of these timeframes is considered the wintertime period.
So there has been absolutely no change in wintertime temperatures in the United States since before Reagan was president, and yet the The Guardian is reporting that the latest National Climate Assessment finds climate change to be a "clear and present danger" and that "Americans are noticing changes all around them ... Winters are generally shorter and warmer."
There is no trend – I repeat: no trend – in wintertime temperatures in the United States since 1980.
On an annual basis ending in March, there has been no change in the contiguous U.S. temperature since 1986 (actually, probably since 1985, but we'll give the alarmists the benefit on this). You get the same result on a calendar-year basis. That's right: there has been no change in annual temperatures for the United States since Bon Jovi had a number-one hit with "You Give Love a Bad Name," the Bangles were telling us to "Walk Like an Egyptian," Madonna was asking her papa not to preach, and Robert Palmer was "Addicted to Love."
According to Virginia Burkett, the chief scientist for global change at the U.S. Geological Survey, "all areas are getting hotter." All of them? So bold, yet so inaccurate. The entire Ohio Valley climate division has not seen any significant warming on an annual basis since 1896. The entire U.S. South climate division hasn't warmed since 1907. Neither has the entire Southeast climate division since 1896.
The National Climate Assessment claims that "summers are longer and hotter." Hotter summers? There is no trend in the average June-August temperature (aka summer) in the USA since 1930. Same lack of trend for July and August average temperatures.
On an annual basis ending in March (allowing us to use the most complete dataset possible), global warming stopped cold in statistical terms during 1997. And since 2002, the correlation coefficient has – in fact – turned slightly negative. Very weak evidence for global cooling, but on the balance of probabilities, since 2002, there is more statistical evidence for global cooling than there is for global warming. Scientists such as Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, have been making similar predictions for global temperatures.
In the Southern Hemisphere, where climate scientists are now apparently warning that the "Antarctic Ice Shelf [is] on [the] brink of unstoppable melt that could raise sea levels for 10,000 years," the annual cooling trend since 2003 is even more probable (r=-0.22, p-value as low as 0.34 using non-parametric approaches).
The poor-quality science reporting on climate change is ubiquitous. Over at the Daily Kos, we find a plot of "Global Temperature (meteorological stations)." Given that oceans cover 71 percent of the planet's surface, what possible meaning could a "global temperature" derived only from "meteorological stations" have? The answer is none. Any talk of a global temperature must include both land and sea data, and be properly weighted according to station type and location. And this assumes that the data itself is correct. Various climate skeptic websites have repeatedly shown that we need to doubt the data itself, not just the analyses.
As the countdown to the proposed climate agreement in 2015 ticks along, expect more of this hysterical nonsense not founded in the underlying data, as well as more concerted and emphatic denials of the global cooling phase we may be entering. One can only hope that the moderately conservative leaders in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom will not fall prey to the hysteria, but instead take a principled scientific stand in 2015 and lead the charge to reject any international climate agreements.
Unfortunately, many crony capitalists – including a number in the fossil fuels industry itself – are starting to see greater financial benefits for themselves by going along with the hysteria, rather than fighting for reality.
Perilous times indeed. The next couple years may not only see the end of America's economic domination on the world stage, passing the torch instead to communist China, but also witness the final death throes of rigorous, objective science in the public interest.
The War on Mercury
Written by Dr Klaus L.E. Kaiser
EPA’s new MATS rule is not based on scientific evidence of benefit from the reduction of mercury emissions; it is nothing but a ruse. The U.S. Government’s “war on coal” claims to be a “war on mercury.”
While the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposed “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards” (MATS) rule is supposed to reduce exposure to “mercury” emissions, this is just a pretext; the real intent is to control “carbon” emissions, or carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, to be more precise.
The Minamata Convention on Mercury, signed by nearly 100 nations a few months ago, aims to reduce emissions of mercury and mercury compounds, (i.e. “total mercury”) to the atmosphere. The Convention derives its name from the town of Minamata Japan, where the “Minamata disease,” a form of neurological poisoning was observed in Japan in the 1950’s and later on also in other locations in Japan.
The Minamata disease was determined to result from “methyl-mercury,” a derivative of the element mercury. Methyl-mercury, in contrast to elemental mercury is a also a common product of microbial action upon other dissolved mercury compounds, especially in ocean and lake sediments of low oxygen content; more on that further down.
With EPA’s use of “mercury” as a way to regulate the coal-using industry it behooves us to look at the whole mercury situation in more detail. What could be the problem with EPA’s attempt to reduce “mercury”?
Mercury or CO2?
EPA uses “mercury emissions” as a convenient mechanism to regulate and discourage the use of coal for electricity generation and heating. However, EPA’s real intent is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that President Obama frequently terms “carbon pollution.”
The mercury rule is nothing but a red herring to control fossil fuel-derived energy production which is claimed to contribute to “climate change.”
To use a crass analogy, it is akin to doing away with all civilian airplanes just because on 9/11 airplanes were used as weapons. Several trade unions recently called the proposed MATS rule “nothing less than industrial sabotage by regulatory means.”
While mercury (in whichever form) is only a minor by-product of burning coal, it is claimed to be the intended target of the proposed MATS rule. Therefore, it ought to be reasonable to look at the various forms and uses of the mercury, their chemistry, effects and quantities. Let’s begin with the element itself.
Use of Mercury
Elemental mercury is known to most people in the form of a silver-like shiny liquid. Elemental mercury is best known from such devices as thermometers like the kind used by your mom to measure your body temperature when you were a child and had a fever, or in motion-activated light switches under the hood of your old Chevy, or even some other electrical switches commonly found in households. For many decades, such uses were common throughout the western world. In fact, the humidity control device in my house contains a small glass vial with liquid mercury inside. It changes position with the humidity in the air to allow either a connection or break of the electrical circuit between the poles.
Because of its high density of 13.5 (relative to that of water, i.e. 1.0), liquid mercury can support all kinds of things close to its surface. There are practical uses for that property as in light houses. Widely used in former times and still found in some locations, their structures supporting the Fresnel lenses are floating on a bath of liquid mercury. The reason is twofold: there is hardly any friction to slowly turning the lens system for creating blinking lights and, more importantly the lens system is always perfectly parallel to the earth’s surface. The latter is critical to the distance from which the light can be seen to guide ships through treacherous waters.
In chemical laboratories around the world, elemental mercury is quite common. There are various applications of its unusual physical properties; from one-way valves to vacuum pumps. As a chemistry student, I worked with such things for years. With proper handling none of us experienced any problem using mercury.
Apart from applications that make use of elemental mercury’s physical properties like its high density and electrical conductivity, there are other common uses of mercury of which you may not be aware. Amalgam is one of those and more likely than not you have some of that in your mouth.
Indeed, you may have a significant amount of mercury in your body. I am not talking trace amounts here, but real quantities, say a volume like that of your mom’s sewing thimble filled with the element. Most of that mercury is found in your teeth, put there (after some drilling) by your friendly dentist. Of course, he or she didn’t put liquid mercury into your extended cavities but a mixture of mercury and another element such as silver powder. When well mixed, the liquid elemental mercury and the silver powder rapidly combine to a rock hard solid, generally known as an amalgam.
Silver-mercury amalgam is most suitable for filling dental cavities as it can be formed to any shape but will harden within a few minutes. It is also extremely durable, resisting any dissolution by saliva and can last for a lifetime. However, I do not dispute that some other amalgams, for example those made with lesser metals such as zinc, are less stable and should not have been used for dentistry.
Silver amalgam is still widely used by dentists around the world when it comes to filling cavities in teeth with a material that is easily applied, hardens rapidly, is strong and lasts a life time. Though quite obvious from its silver-like appearance, its properties for dental fillings are unsurpassed.
The ease with which mercury forms an amalgam with gold is also widely exploited by small claim gold miners around the world. Small claim panning for gold is a major use of mercury. In order to extract and consolidate the gold flakes and nuggets, miners in Brazil and elsewhere use elemental mercury to capture the gold flakes in water running over liquid mercury beds. The gold binds with the mercury and the solid gold-amalgam can be sieved off. The mercury is then easily recycled by heating the amalgam in an iron pot with the resulting mercury vapour forced through a water bath where it liquefies again. The gold remains as a solid lump in the crucible.
Mercury compounds are also common preservatives in various medicinal products such as vaccine solutions that require stability and shelf life before application.
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule
In order to understand how the new MATS rule stacks up against reality, some simple calculations are useful. The most basic ones would give estimates of mercury emissions from the “villain du jeur” (coal) and other sources. Let’s do some math:
Mercury from Coal
The U.S. consumes close to 1,000 million tonnes of coal a year, or 10^12 kg. That coal contains close to 0.1 ppm (parts per million) of mercury. Hence, on combustion, of all that coal and without any cleansing of the flue gases, a total of 100 tonnes or 100,000 kg mercury would be coming out of all chimneys in one year. As the density of mercury is quite high (approximately 13 times that of water), roughly, that amount of mercury would fit into a volume occupied by a table that comfortably seats eight persons..
Mercury from Teeth
As mentioned, for the last one hundred years or so, silver amalgam has been the material of choice to fill dental cavities. I recently visited my favourite dentist and asked him about the amount of amalgam in my mouth. He assured me that it was quite comparable to his other patients of equal age. When I asked about the combined volume of all of such fillings, he guessed about one milli-liter or the volume of half a sewing thimble. That would represent about 10 grams, or 0.01 kg of mercury as amalgam.
Now, let’s multiply that by the population in North America, say 400 million, and you arrive at an amount of 4,000,000 kg of mercury in the entire population’s teeth. As you can see, that number is approximately 40 times that of the annual release of mercury from the burning of coal, 100,000 kg/per year. Wikipedia states the total amount of anthropogenic (manmade) emissions of “mercury” in the U.S as 144,000 kg/year.
At a death rate of approximately 8% of the population and with an estimated one third of the population being cremated, the amount of mercury so released then also comes to 0.1 million kg (elemental) mercury; the same quantity as calculated for the mercury from coal. Indeed, EPA concluded that only one half of the mercury emissions comes from coal.
Mercury from other Sources
Most difficult to estimate is the amount of mercury released from sources other than the two mentioned above. While the element (in any form) is relatively rare with its abundance in the earth’s crust estimated at 0.067 ppm, slightly higher than that of gold, it also is found in any rock and soil in nature; mercury compounds are ubiquitous in nature. Therefore, methyl-mercury and other mercury compounds are also found in aquatic organisms around the world including those far from any human settlement.
In nature, mercury is almost never found as the free element but only in compounds with other elements. Of these, cinnabar, mercury sulfide is by far the most common one. Its bright red color made it a favored cosmetic for millennia.
Toxicity of Mercury
This brief discourse on mercury would be incomplete without a quick review of mercury’s (in any form) toxicity. However, that is also a major bone of contention.
Elemental mercury, i.e. its vapor is a known neurotoxin. Many of the early investigators of mercury’s effect suffered from its neurological toxic effects before they were recognized. However, it would be wrong to call mercury a villain on that basis only.
Chronic exposure to elemental mercury vapor causes neurotoxic effects like the “mad hatters” disease. However, as with all things toxic, the dose or concentration over time of exposure is most critical. While long-time exposure to elemental mercury vapors causes severe effects, no such effect has been proven to arise from the extremely low levels of mercury and its compounds in the atmosphere that result from the burning of coal. Therefore, the limitations on coal-fired power plants based on their mercury emissions are not scientifically defensible.
Pollution by soluble mercury compounds in lakes, rivers or ocean embayments like at Minamata can lead to increased methyl-mercury levels in local fish above the natural background concentration of approximately 1 ppm. However, the amount of mercury contributed to the atmosphere from burning coal is miniscule relative to its natural background levels in most environs. Even without the use of any coal whatsoever, the concentrations of mercury and its compounds in the environment would not change materially.
Therefore, EPA’s MATS rule is not based on scientific evidence of benefit from the reduction of mercury emissions; it is nothing but a ruse, solely invented to couch the “war on coal” as a “war on mercury.”
The Loony Anti-Keystone Campaign
What is this incessant nonsense over Keystone XL?
It’s a pipeline, for crying out loud. The United States already has 185,000 miles of liquid petroleum pipelines, 320,000 miles of natural gas transmission pipelines, and more than 2,000,000 miles of gas distribution pipelines. Using the latest steel, valves and other technologies to build another 1,179 miles of pipe – to move 830,000 barrels of oil per day safely from Alberta, Canada oil sands country and North Dakota’s Bakken shale territory to Texas refineries – should not be an earth-shattering matter.
KXL would create jobs – in an economy that grew at a pathetic Depression-era clip of 0.1% during the first quarter, and where the true jobless rate (unemployed, underemployed and those no longer looking) is almost 13 percent, and much worse for minorities.
In fact, Keystone would create some 20,000 construction jobs; another 10,000 in factories that make the steel, pipelines, valves, cement and heavy equipment needed to build the pipeline; thousands more in hotel, restaurant and other support industries; and still more jobs in the oil fields whose output would be transported to refineries and petrochemical plants where still more workers would be employed.
States along the pipeline route would receive $5 billion in new property tax revenues, and still more in workers’ income tax payments. Depleted federal coffers would also realize hefty gains.
The pipeline would ease railroad congestion all over the central USA. The pipeline’s absence is forcing oil producers to move crude by railroad tanker car. That certainly improves the bottom line for RR companies and folks like Warren Buffet who have big-time investments in tankers.
But it causes train logjams and delays that are creating backlogs in getting fertilizer and other supplies to farmers, who have already been hard-hit by a long winter and now may not be able to plant on schedule. Come fall, their efforts to ship corn, wheat and other crops to market will also be stymied.
By reducing the need for RR tankers, KXL would also reduce oil spills and improve safety. A 2013 derailment in Quebec killed 47 people; 2014 rail accidents in Colorado and Virginia resulted in significant oil spills but fortunately no deaths. The Bakken Field’s light crude contains more dissolved gases and thus is more flammable than heavier crudes (like Canadian oil sands output), but both tanker cars and the Keystone pipeline would carry a variety of crude products.
Improved track maintenance, train scheduling and other safety practices would reduce rail accidents and spills. However, as US State Department studies point out, the Keystone pipeline is inherently safer than RR alternatives – and would likely result in fewer than 520 barrels of crude being spilled annually, compared to 32,000 barrels in the three rail spills just noted.
KXL will augment America’s national security, make North America more energy independent, further improve US balance of trade, reduce global supply and demand imbalances, and aid our European allies in their quest to counter Vladimir Putin’s energy blackmail.
The hydrocarbon wealth the pipeline would transport will help ensure improved human health, welfare, living standards and other many other benefits, in a more stable world that has more sources of jobs, wealth and income equality. Approval would improve relations with our ally and trading partner Canada. Not tapping and safely transporting all these oil, natural gas and propane resources makes no sense.
But despite all these solid reasons for building the pipeline President Obama refuses to approve it, even to protect vulnerable Democrat politicians, for fear of offending ultra Keystone hater Tom Steyer or losing his hardcore eco-base. Senator Harry Reid can hardly bring himself to allow even votes on nonbinding resolutions in support of KXL. And rabid environmentalists say they’re prepared to go to jail over it.
What in blazes is going on here?
Keystone is symbolic! In fact, it has become the symbol of Big Green environmentalism’s immutable opposition to … and hatred of … anything hydrocarbon. KXL is fracking, oil sands, onshore and offshore drilling and, above all, “catastrophic manmade climate disruption” (the latest nom de guerre, since the global warming and climate change monikers and models have abjectly failed to reflect climate reality).
KXL represents their determination to de-develop the United States, reduce our energy use and living standards, redistribute wealth – and permit Third World development only in accordance with their supposed “sustainable development” and “renewable” energy “principles.”
The Keystone XL pipeline issue is as phony as a $3 bill. Blocking its construction will have about as much effect on Earth’s climate as a hand grenade would in stopping a hurricane, even if carbon dioxide does influence weather and climate change far more than thousands of scientists say it does.
(More than 1,000 climate scientists, 31,000 American scientists and 48% of US meteorologists say there is no evidence that humans are causing dangerous warming or climate change. And it is increasingly obvious that much of the remaining “consensus” is obtained by harassing, intimidating and browbeating any scientists who might be tempted to stray from the alarmist party line.)
China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and dozens of other countries are burning coal, driving cars, modernizing their hydrocarbon-based economies and emitting CO2 at a fevered pace. Further delaying or ultimately blocking Keystone will have no effect, especially if the oil simply goes to Asia, instead of the USA.
However, Big Green has staked its power and reputation on Keystone – and it will not back down.
This $13.4-billion-per-year US eco industry is determined to block the Keystone pipeline. As Washington Examiner columnist Ron Arnold revealed, the $789-million Rockefeller Brothers Fund launched its “tar sands” and pipeline campaigns in 2008. It funded a dozen attack groups, told them what the Fund wanted done, and presented the strategy and tactics for mobilizing the troops, inventing and spotlighting the pipeline’s alleged dangers, recruiting always-helpful media allies, and slowing and stopping KXL.
The campaigns are backed up by other fat-cat liberal foundations that collectively have more than $100 billion in assets! As Arnold pointed out, they gave more than $80 billion to some 16,000 American environmental activist groups between 2000 and 2012 – and those groups were also supported by over $100 million in grants from US government agencies!
Hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer has promised to give $100 million to anti-Keystone Democrats. Law firms are making serious money filing lawsuits against KXL. And of course Hollywood elites can always be counted on to lend their support and innate grasp of energy and economic issues to pipeline opponents.
This is a force to be reckoned with, a force that is largely responsible for inflicting nearly $1.9 trillion in regulatory compliance costs on United States businesses and families. That’s one-eighth of the entire US economy. It’s no wonder job, economic and investment growth rates are so miserably low.
President Obama and other Democrats, environmentalists and liberals love to expound on how compassionate and socially responsible they are. How devoted to justice, workers, middle class families, jobs, and human health, safety and welfare. How honest, transparent, respectful of others’ opinions and needs, and accountable for their mistakes and failures.
Am I the only one who sees pitifully little evidence for any of these self-proclaimed saintly attributes?
Keystone epitomizes how callous, arrogant, hypocritical and destructive the Big Green authoritarians have become. It’s high time the rights and needs of poor and middle class families got some recognition.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
Preserving the graphics: Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere. But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases. After that they no longer come up. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here or here