Climate Scientists Are Not Noble, Stop Paying Them
Everyone assumes climate scientists are noble. Fighting to save the planet. What nonsense. Not even close
Me included. I (Dr. Duane Thresher) am a climate scientist too. As I have said I went into climate science so I could study what I wanted, get paid, and be left alone, and that is one of the better reasons to go into climate science.
Even the ones (see ahead for the others) who, like myself, honestly put in the years of courses and research necessary to be a real climate scientist are often twisted by it, made much less than noble. They put in a lot and give up a lot. And then nobody takes them seriously, not even other scientists.
Men climate scientists for instance. I'm tempted to name names and tell tales out of school here. But for now let's just say a lot of men climate scientists missed out on dating as graduate students and are determined to make up for it when they become senior scientists. And a lot of young women grad students are recruited by them into climate science these days. And as we learned from Hurricane Harvey, correlation is causation. Nah, I'm sure it's just because those men climate scientists think women are smarter than men so will be better scientists.
Climate scientists are academics. Academics living in ivory towers -- elites living a privileged life away from the harsh practicalities of the real world -- is a common expression because it is so true. They often have never had any other jobs except at universities, which take very good care of them (best health insurance I ever had). Academics live in their heads (and it's often not pretty in there!) not in the real world.
Climate scientists are so thrilled with having any power, they don't even think about the billions of poor who will suffer based merely on their opinion that carbon emissions should be drastically cut. Duh, who do they think is going to suffer the most if carbon emissions are cut? The poor. Yeah right, they are going to carbon tax the rich and give it to the poor to make up for their losses. Grow up. Robin Hood is a myth. That money will end up back in the pockets of the rich and the poor's quality of life will get worse. Real heroes those climate scientists.
And then there are the not qualified who become climate scientists. When the science bureaucrats (if you can't do real science be a science bureaucrat) decided global warming was the next big thing, there was a huge influx of money, which meant a huge influx of unqualified into climate science since there just weren't enough qualified and the money HAD to be used. Enter opportunists, carpetbaggers, the corrupt, the ignoble. Physicists and mathematicians who couldn't make it in their own fields, like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt (who actually told me one reason he became a climate scientist was because he couldn't make it in his degree field of mathematics). People who just wanted instant success as fake heroes or showmen rather than doing years of hard slow obscure real science.
Given the save-the-planet nature of the field, the unqualified included herds of do-gooders, particularly women. (Note: Dr. Claudia Kubatzki agrees with this assessment.) They love committees. Protection by the herd. Power without sticking your neck out.
Science by committee. The IPCC for example. Yeah, that's going to work. Particularly when you have unqualified people on the committee to begin with. Scientific committees spend their time compromising to get -- God save us -- scientific consensus. 32 (ft/sec/sec) for gravitational acceleration is hard to remember, 100 would be better but all, except for the deplorable deniers, agree to compromise on 50. Now demand that be implemented in NASA's programs since it is by scientific consensus (and the committee was diverse). What did happen to the Mars Climate Orbiter? (Yes, I know, it was a mix-up of English and metric units but that could have been caused by the committee to force Americans to adopt the metric system. I like rocket units with pounds in it; so much more descriptive than newtons. And remember, I worked for NASA so I am a rocket scientist.)
This influx into climate science of unqualified also meant they threw out good scientific practices, like not pretending climate models can actually predict climate when they were just invented to study it by experimentation. That inconvenient truth was such a hassle for the fake heroes and showmen of climate science. Things really didn't start taking off until they got rid of that. And then when failing celebrities started to help, oh my!
What to do?
Stop paying climate scientists. The good ones are so into their science they will work for food, maybe less, maybe even pay to do it. French President Macron has invited the rest to move to France so they will be fine. He'll probably even provide free burqas for the women climate scientists. Oh, wait, the women won't be allowed to work.
(Anybody ever notice how the leaders destroying Europe don't have any of their biologically-own kids so no real reason to care about the future but they are always accusing Holocaust deniers, I mean climate change deniers, that if they don't believe in global warming they don't care about their kids?)
Then let climate scientists make some clear predictions for 5 years into the future, not 50 when they won't be around any more to take responsibility. When they are wrong they have to give back their taxpayer-provided salaries, with interest, and quit climate science.
Or go to prison, like the seismologists in Italy. There -- actually like seismologists everywhere -- they wrote their funding proposals stressing the (impossible) prediction aspect way too much. Then an unpredicted earthquake, as they all are (forever), hit with a major loss of life. It had to be somebody's fault. A cautionary tale for California seismologists. When San Francisco is leveled it's going to be your fault. Join the "Admit You Can't Predict" movement before you go to prison!
Start with defunding NASA GISS where this whole global warming nonsense started. It was started by James Hansen, formerly head of NASA GISS and considered the father of global warming. It was continued by Gavin Schmidt, current head of NASA GISS, anointed by Hansen, and leading climate change warrior scientist/spokesperson.
I know from working there for 7 years that NASA GISS has almost been defunded several times in its life anyway. It's a small group over a restaurant (Tom's Restaurant from the TV comedy Seinfeld!) in New York City, nowhere near any other major NASA facility. Just the dedicated data link to the nearest NASA facility, GSFC in Maryland, is a big expense. GISS is the Goddard Institute for SPACE Studies. If you don't need a rocket to get to it, it's not space.
Besides, NASA GISS is a monument to bad science that truly should be torn down. Take the money and buy a rocket.
SOURCE
John Stossel: A Climate Of Growing Skepticism
When it comes to hurricanes, it’s the alarmists who are wrong — on so many levels.
“How many once-in-a-lifetime storms will it take,” demanded “The Daily Show” comic Trevor Noah, “until everyone admits man-made climate change is real?” His audience roared its approval.
When Hurricane Irma hit, so-called friends admonished me, “Look what your fossil fuels have done! Will you finally admit you are wrong?”
No. It’s the alarmists who are wrong — on so many levels.
First, two big storms don’t mean much. The global-warming activists must know that because when Donald Trump joked about a lack of warming on a snowy day, they lectured us about how “weather is not climate — one snowstorm is irrelevant to long-term climate.”
But now that bad weather has come, they changed their tune. Time magazine reported confidently, “Climate change makes the hurricane season worse.”
But Irma and Harvey came after a record 12 years without any Category 3-5 storms.
The government’s own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said neither its models “nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120-plus years support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers.”
As Irma approached, The Washington Post ran an even dumber headline: “Irma and Harvey Should Kill Any Doubt That Climate Change Is Real.”
Of course climate change is real! Climate changes — it always has and always will. For the past 300 years, since “the little ice age,” the globe warmed about three degrees. The warming started well before man emitted much carbon.
So the real unanswered questions are: 1. Will climate change become a crisis? (We face immediate crises now: poverty, terrorism, a $20 trillion debt, rebuilding after the hurricanes.) 2. Is there anything we can do about it? (No. Not now; the science isn’t there yet.) 3. Did man’s burning fossil fuels increase the warming? (Probably. But we don’t know how much.)
Politicians (and ex-politicians like Al Gore) are eager to exploit our fears by calling for more spending and regulation in the name of fighting deadly but preventable climate change — as if feeble efforts like the Paris climate accord would have made the tiniest difference. They wouldn’t.
A video I made about this seems to have struck a chord. It got more than a million views last weekend.
Some people reacted with anger online: “the scientific community suggest that humans are contributing to the warming of the planet. Isn’t (it) at least a little reckless to put a finger in each ear and say ‘Nuh uh! LALALALALALALALALA!’ ”
A calmer commenter wrote, “Don’t forget the hurricanes of the past. 1926 Miami, 1935 Keys, 1947 West Palm Beach, Donna 1961. People act like hurricanes like these have never happened.”
Right. And he left out Galveston’s hurricane in 1900, which killed as many as 12,000 people.
One commenter added, “It’s called El Nino and La Nina. We will be entering El Nino again (and) so seeing storms actually form. It shifts back and forth every 7-10 years or so. Do schools not teach these things?”
Climate fluctuates, and humans don’t have too much to say about it. Maybe someday humans will be gone. The storms will continue. But at least there’ll be less hot air.
SOURCE
Delingpole: Climate Change Skepticism Now Virtually Illegal in Trudeau’s Canada
Did you know that in President Bieber’s Canada it is now virtually illegal to express doubts about the existence of ManBearPig?
No, I wouldn’t have believed it either, till I learned via Lorrie Goldstein about the extraordinary criminal action brought in Canada by a bunch of eco-fascistic litigants against three climate skeptical organisations.
The complaint was filed by Ecojustice on behalf of six “prominent” Canadians, including former Ontario NDP leader and UN ambassador Stephen Lewis.
It accused three groups, Friends of Science, the International Climate Science Coalition, and the Heartland Institute of making false and misleading claims about climate change, including that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
When it launched its complaint in December, 2015, Ecojustice told the National Observer it would press the Commissioner of Competition to refer the matter to the Attorney-General of Canada for “criminal charges against the denier groups.”
What’s really shocking is the reason the case was dropped by the Competition Bureau (an arm’s length agency funded by President Bieber to the tune of $50 million a year) after an investigation lasting 14 months.
No, the reason wasn’t because someone in Bieber’s administration suddenly realized that this would be an unconscionable abuse of state power to curtail freedom of speech and to adjudicate on scientific issues so contentious and moot as to be far beyond any government body’s area of competence.
Nope. It was simply that the Competition Bureau ran out of money.
The federal government won’t say if it has any immediate plans to boost funds for Canada’s competition watchdog so that it can resume an investigation into climate change-doubting advertising.
Last week, Canada’s Competition Bureau told National Observer it didn’t have enough resources to pursue a probe of websites and billboards that share false information about climate change unless new evidence is provided by members of the public that would help the bureau reboot its stalled investigation.
(Note, by the way, the aggrieved tone of the liberal newspaper reporting on this issue. In the New World Order which National Observer is clearly itching for President Bieber to impose on Canada, there should be limitless quantities of public money made available for the zealous prosecution of climate deniers, wherever they may be lurking.)
It is, as Goldstein says, like something out of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.
It’s also a grotesque inversion of justice. As many of us in this parish are perfectly well aware, if anyone deserves prosecution for publishing criminally misleading material it’s the guys in the climate alarmism industry.
I’m not suggesting we should lock these guys up. Merely that if ever it came to trial before an honest judge and an open-minded jury, the skeptics would have a slam dunk case against the alarmists.
After all, the only bad thing climate skeptics have ever done is make a few dodgy scientists and a heap of rent-seeking businessmen sleep less easily in bed at night by questioning the quality of the data and the economics behind their Enron-style money-making scam.
But the Warmists, as I have argued before, have a charge sheet as long as your arm:
The Green Blob’s tentacles extend everywhere: into our kids’ classrooms (where they are brainwashed with environmental propaganda); into our universities (where whole departments have now been hijacked by green junk science—because hey, that’s where the money is); into the mainstream media (most of which repeats, unquestioningly, the spurious claims of impending eco-disaster put out by environmental activists and publicity-hungry university departments); into business, which now wastes billions on environmental compliance and billions more on energy costs artificially inflated by the almost entirely unnecessary government-mandated drive for renewables); into government (where few politicians, even now, have the nous to appreciate that they have been sold a pup and who still continue to inflict more “sustainable” initiatives on their hapless electorates); into the economy, where jobs have been killed and growth blighted by measures designed by eco-fascists on a self-admitted mission to destroy Western industrial civilisation; into the environment, which has been ravaged by the very things we’re told are supposed to help save it—from bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes to those forests in the US which have been chopped down to create wood-chip biofuels to be burned at Britain’s Drax power station to the rare-earth minerals mined in appalling conditions in China to make wind turbines; into the cost of living (inflated by green taxes, regulations and tariffs), where in some cases people have been driven into fuel poverty and an early death because governments like Obama’s have caused electricity prices “necessarily” to “skyrocket” by mandating renewables over cheaper, more reliable fossil fuel.
SOURCE
Finally, some commonsense Western fire policies
New DOI and DOA policy to cut overgrown, diseased, dead and burned trees is long overdue
Paul Driessen
President Trump promised to bring fresh ideas and policies to Washington. Now Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue are doing exactly that in a critically important area: forest management and conflagration prevention. Their actions are informed, courageous and long overdue.
Westerners are delighted, and I’ve advocated such reforms since my days on Capitol Hill in the 1980s.
As of September 12, amid this typically long, hot, dry summer out West, 62 major forest fires are burning in nine states, the National Interagency Fire Center reports. The Interior Department and Ag Department’s Forest Service have already spent over $2 billion fighting them. That’s about what they spent in all of 2015, previously the most costly wildfire season ever, and this season has another month or more to go. The states themselves have spent hundreds of millions more battling these conflagrations.
Millions of acres of forest have disappeared in smoke and flames – 1.1 million in Montana alone. All told, acreage larger than New Jersey has burned already. However, even this hides the real tragedies.
The infernos exterminate wildlife habitats, roast eagle and spotted owl fledglings alive in their nests, immolate wildlife that can’t run fast enough, leave surviving animals to starve for lack of food, and incinerate organic matter and nearly every living creature in the thin soils. They turn trout streams into fish boils, minus the veggies and seasonings. Future downpours and rapid snowmelts bring widespread soil erosion into streambeds. Many areas will not grow trees or recover their biodiversity for decades.
Most horrifically, the conflagrations threaten homes and entire communities. They kill fire fighters and families that cannot get away quickly enough, or get trapped by sudden walls of flames.
In 2012, two huge fires near Fort Collins and Colorado Springs, Colorado burned 610 homes, leaving little more than ashes, chimneys and memories. Tens of thousands of people had to be evacuated through smoke and ash that turned daytime into choking night skies. Four people died. A 1994 fire near Glenwood Springs, CO burned 14 young firefighters to death.
These are not “natural” fires of environmentalist lore, or “ordinary” fires like those that occur in state and privately owned and managed forests. Endless layers of laws, regulations, judicial decrees and guidelines for Interior and Forest Service lands have meant that most western forests have been managed like our 109 million acres of designated wilderness: they are hardly managed at all.
Environmentalists abhor timber cutting on federal lands, especially if trees might feed profit-making sawmills. They would rather see trees burn, than let someone cut them. They constantly file lawsuits to block any cutting, and too many judges are all too happy to support their radical ideas and policies.
Thus, even selective cutting to thin dense stands of timber, or remove trees killed by beetles or fires, is rarely permitted. Even fire fighting and suppression are often allowed only if a fire was clearly caused by arson, careless campers or other human action – but not if lightning ignited it. Then it’s allowed to burn, until a raging inferno is roaring over a ridge toward a rural or suburban community.
The result is easy to predict. Thousands of thin trees grow on acreage that should support just a few hundred full-sized mature trees. Tens of billions of these scrawny trees mix with 6.3 billion dead trees that the Forest Service says still stand in eleven western states. Vast forests are little more than big trees amid closely bunched matchsticks and underbrush, drying out in hot, dry western summers and droughts – waiting for lightning bolts, sparks, untended campfires or arsonists to start super-heated conflagrations.
Flames in average fires along managed forest floors might reach several feet in height and temperatures of 1,472° F (800° C), says Wildfire Today. But under extreme conditions of high winds and western tinderboxes, temperatures can exceed 2,192° F (1200° C), flame heights can reach 165 feet (50 meters) or more, and fires can generate a critter-roasting 100,000 kilowatts per meter of fire front. Wood will burst into flame at 572° F. Aluminum melts at 1,220 degrees, silver at 1,762 and gold at 1,948° F!
Most of this heat goes upward, but super-high temperatures incinerate soil organisms and organic matter in thin western soils that afterward can support only stunted, spindly trees for decades.
These fires also emit prodigious quantities of carbon dioxide, fine particulates and other pollutants – including mercury, which is absorbed by tree roots from rocks and soils that contain this metal, and then lofted into the sky when the trees burn.
Rabid greens ignore these hard realities – and divert discussions back to their favorite ideological talking points. The problem isn’t too many trees, they insist. It’s global warming and climate change. That’s why western states are having droughts, long fire seasons, and high winds that send flames past fire breaks.
Global warming, global cooling and climate change have been part of the Earth and human experience from time immemorial. Natural climate fluctuations brought the multi-decade Anasazi drought, the Dust Bowl and other dry spells to our western states. To suggest that this summer’s heat and drought are somehow due to mankind’s fossil fuel use and related emissions is deliberately delusional nonsense.
Neither these activists nor anyone in Al Gore’s climate chaos consortium can demonstrate or calibrate a human connection to droughts or fires. Rants, rhetoric and CO2-driven computer models do not suffice. And even if manmade (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide does play a role amid the powerful natural forces that have always controlled climate and weather, reducing US fossil fuel use would have zero effect.
China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam alone are building 590 new coal-fired power plants right now, on top of the hundreds they have constructed over the past decade. Overall, more than 1,600 new coal generators are planned or under construction in 62 countries. People in developing countries are also driving far more vehicles and making great strides in improving their health and living standards. They will not stop.
Western conflagrations jump fire breaks because these ferocious fires are fueled by the unprecedented increase in combustibles that radical green policies have created. These monstrous fires generate their own high winds and even mini tornados that carry burning branches high into the air, to be deposited hundreds of feet away, where they ignite new fires. It has nothing to do with climate change.
Remove some of that fuel – and fires won get so big, hot, powerful and destructive. We should also do what a few environmentalist groups have called for: manage more areas around buildings and homes – clearing away brush that federal agencies and these same groups have long demanded be left in place.
Finally, we should be using more of the readily available modern technologies like FireIce from GelTech Solutions. They can suppress and extinguish fires, and protect homes, much better than water alone.
The last bogus eco-activist claim is that “fire isn’t destruction; it’s renewal. It creates stronger, more diverse ecosystems.” That may be true in managed forests, timber stands in less tinder-dry states, and forests that have undergone repeated, non-devastating fires. For all the reason presented above, it is not true for government owned and mismanaged forests in our western states.
Over 50 million acres (equal to Minnesota) are at risk of catastrophic wildfires. Right now, we are spending billions of dollars we don’t have, should not have to spend fighting all these monstrous killer blazes, and should have available to improve forests and parks and fund other vital programs.
Above all, the new Interior-Agriculture approach would demonstrate that Rural Lives Matter.
Dumping green folly will secure Australia's energy future, reboot economy
In the blink of an eye we are confronted by a national energy pricing and supply crisis. This is the cost of virtue signalling — that propensity for those on the political left, including moderates in the Liberal Party, to advocate policies aimed more at demonstrating their moral superiority than delivering practical results.
This nation’s most pressing economic challenge, it is also the most volatile political dilemma that threatens to derail Malcolm Turnbull’s career for a second time. (It cost him the Liberal leadership in 2009.) Climate and energy are set to define the next decade of national affairs just as they have plagued us since 2007.
To comprehend the politics we need a helicopter view; to examine first principles and the true aims of the policies. Far too much of the debate is predicated on gestures rather than results.
We are an energy-rich nation. Last year we exported 388 million tonnes of coal (valued at $35 billion) to supply affordable and reliable energy to countries such as Japan, China, South Korea and India. Our liquefied natural gas exports are doubling from 30 million tonnes a couple of years ago to almost 80 million tonnes (valued at $42bn) by 2019.
Australia also remains one of the largest exporters of uranium (nuclear energy is the silver bullet if we ever get serious about emissions) and, after a price and volume slump, trade will rebound to values of more than $1.2bn during the next few years.
While we happily export our energy advantage, we have deliberately sacrificed it at home. Households are paying some of the highest electricity prices in the world and manufacturing industries have been closing or downscaling because of cost pressures created in part by rapidly rising power prices. Energy bills are also creating commercial hardship for struggling retailers as well as hospitality and other sectors.
The largest single factor in the power crisis is the renewable energy target demanding 23 per cent of electricity be supplied by renewables, which are subsidised by consumers. When the renewables (mainly wind turbines) supply power they can do so at zero cost, thereby undercutting the viability of baseload generators and hastening their demise. The trouble is renewable energy can’t supply all our needs at any time and, crucially, is intermittent and unreliable. So we still need all of the baseload and peaking generation.
Under this formula we must either be caught short of supply or need to almost double our investment in energy so every megawatt of renewable energy is backed up by storage or thermal generation.
And just when we need more rapid-response gas generation to back up wind energy we have a gas supply/price issue courtesy of long-term export contracts and state restrictions on exploration and exploitation. What a mess.
What we don’t ever hear our major party politicians ask is why we are doing this to ourselves. We might also expect this would be a line of inquiry for media in fearless pursuit of their audiences’ interests. But no; incurious acceptance of the imperative for emissions reductions is universal in the public broadcasters and love media.
News Corp papers and Sky News are the only mainstream media likely to offer a plurality of views. Journalists who sail with this zeitgeist will justify their position by pointing to the political consensus on the emissions reductions targets set in Paris. But public and media debate should not be about accommodating convenient bipartisan compromise; it should be about reality and the public interest.
If the justification for our self-imposed energy crisis is saving the planet, then any reference to the facts will expose the futility. Australia’s carbon emissions make up about 1.4 per cent of global emissions and we are looking to reduce them by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030. Simultaneously, emissions are rising elsewhere by quantities that dwarf our total emissions, let alone our inconsequential reductions.
As this newspaper reported this week, China has 299 coal-fired power stations under construction and India 132. Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, The Philippines, South Africa and other nations also are expanding coal-fired generation so that an extra 621 plants are under way. Yet we disrupt our economy, surrender a natural economic advantage, shed jobs and reduce our standard of living to phase out a handful of plants.
On the first principle of whether our efforts do any environmental good — no matter the urgency or otherwise of climate action — the answer is our efforts are pointless. So we are then left with the diplomatic commitment to Paris that both major parties support.
Astonishingly, less than a day after Donald Trump won the US election promising to abandon Paris, Malcolm Turnbull announced Australia’s ratification. The Prime Minister thumbed his nose at the obvious opportunity to hold out, see if the US withdrew (as it has) and perhaps forestall our own commitment.
The accord is dramatically weakened without the world’s largest economy, especially given other powerhouses such as China and India will continue to increase their emissions. (Ironically, perhaps no country is making a greater contribution to emissions reductions than the US through its innovation in areas such as fracking and battery technology.)
The Paris Agreement is not binding, so we don’t need to meet our targets anyway. Yet the political-media class seems viscerally locked onto them.
Turnbull talks about the energy “trilemma” of affordability, reliability and emissions reductions. But even the Finkel review noted these objectives are at odds with each other.
Chief Scientist Alan Finkel tried to prescribe “policies that simultaneously provide a high level of energy security and reliability, universal access to affordable energy services, and reduced emissions. This is easier said than done. There is a tension between these three objectives.”
Neither Turnbull nor Finkel or Labor are willing to compromise on the third leg of the trilemma. Their starting point is emissions reductions; and they accept that reliability and affordability can be compromised to meet the target.
Finkel says: “The uncertain and changing direction of emissions reduction policy for the electricity sector has compromised the investment environment in the NEM.” But his solution — and that of the Coalition and Labor so far — is to try to formulate a settled, preferably bipartisan, emissions reductions scheme.
So the aim is to provide investment certainty even if it locks in higher electricity prices. The obvious alternative of relegating emissions reduction aims in favour of cheap, reliable power is simply not considered, even though we know it would have no discernible impact on the global environment. (We can always run other carbon abatement and energy efficiency schemes if we feel the need.)
The only pragmatic argument against scrapping the emissions reduction imperative is that it, too, may fail to break the investment strike because potential investors will still fear a future carbon pricing scheme. The political temptation is to lock in expensive and debilitating long-term policy solely to deliver the certitude of bipartisanship. This is the antithesis of seeking bipartisanship in the national interest.
All the federal government has succeeded in doing so far is taking ownership of the energy mess from the states. The Coalition will not admit that the RET — which it has backed, along with Labor, out of political convenience — is the heart of the problem.
On present settings the government is doomed to fail at the next election and then we will see a Labor government lock in permanently higher energy costs through a carbon pricing scheme. Perhaps the only salvation for the Coalition — and the economy — would be to call time on this green folly in the interests of protecting consumers, boosting jobs and rebooting a competitive advantage.
It would be a risky gambit contested by the rent-seekers in the energy sector. But it would be a fight for the national interest. The question is whether Turnbull, who has always claimed to be as green as Labor, can find it within himself to make the case.
SOURCE
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. Email me (John Ray) here.
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment