Scientists have been forced to retract a paper that claimed sea levels were rising due to the effects of global warming, after mistakes were discovered that disputed the results. The study was published in Nature Geoscience and predicted that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century.
However, mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied statistics have forced the authors to retract their paper -- the first official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, notes the Guardian. In an officially published retraction of their paper, the authors acknowledged these mistakes as factors that compromised the results. "We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark. The fact is, there’s no evidence for that claim
After the firestorm of criticism called Climate-gate, the British government's official Meteorological Office has decided to give its modern climate data a do-over. At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists in the quiet Turkish seaside resort of Antalya, representatives of the weather office (known in Britain as the Met Office) quietly proposed that the world's climate scientists start all over again.
I don’t know about you, but a scientific organization, made up of scientists, and presumably some of the world’s brightest people...who can’t get the facts right? Who can’t calculate the data correctly? And who screw up the “time intervals” and mess up the “applied statistics?” If we didn’t know better, we’d think they were talking about an eighth grade Remedial Math class.
As so-called “climate change” scientists continue to trot out statements declaring the earth really is warming, that the past month was the warmest January on record, that the past year was the warmest on record, that the past ten years have been the warmest on record, blah, blah, blah. Reminds me of a guy standing shirtless in a blizzard, freezing, but the climate scientist is standing next to him saying, “it really is warm out here, it is the hottest day on record, it’s the warmest January ever...it really is warm out here. Trust me, I’m a scientist.” Ok, sometimes the “experts” really appear very stupid, irrational, and down right dimented, if they expect rational people to believe such nonsense.
If we were talking about anything but one of the environmental “sacred religious” truths, we would declare the whole lot of them nuts and completely ignore them for evermore. But, since this is environmentalism we’re talking about, and “sacred” leftist/liberal ideology, the media is “obligated” to continue the ruse and pretend the all-knowing ones are beyond reproach, and even worthy of Nobel prizes. But the man on the street, the people on the ground, those who actually live in this “environment” know better...they actually know what’s what.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
No Global Warming Since 1995
The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.
Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to the BBC's climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn't a factor in global warming and was cited by the U.N.'s climate science body to bolster statements about rapid global warming in recent decades. FoxNews.com 15 Feb 2010
It just gets worse and worse. Now we learn that data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing, and warming periods have happened before, which everybody knows.
The academic at the center of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Ok, his only job is to keep track of the information, and he can’t do it? And governments are making policy based on random, poorly stored and poorly indexed data?
Plus, Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests. Hmmm, ok, I’m gullible.
The data which he has lost, failed to file, failed to keep track of, or otherwise fumbled away, is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory, but he can’t produce the data and refuses FOI requests. I see a big problem here.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. Now there’s a shocker. The evil “deniers” have been saying this for decades, and because “they” said it, the leftist environmentalists dismissed the claim because it didn’t come from themselves?
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. There are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions, and other oppressive legislation.
Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics. Well, I for one, have been saying this for years. Add to this fraud, the “Tribal mentality” of the closed, global warming, science fraternity, and we’ve got one really big “scientific” problem.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now, because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries. And throwing a handful of CO2 into the air and claiming it raises global temperatures, is complete nonsense anyway.
This set of lies will cause untold problems with governments trying to solve non existing problems. Indeed it will.
“Socialism can really be defined today as environmentalism. This movement seeks to control all aspects of society, to dictate what people eat, what farmers grow, how we travel, build, work, cap and trade, and climate change. Essentially, all the advances towards socialism have occurred within the environmental realm.”
And this just in: “on Saturday, November 21, 2009, Weather Channel Founder files suit against Al Gore for fraud. 30,000 meteorologists are banding together to sue former Vice President Al Gore for fraud in perpetuating the global warming fraud.” Wow. Sanity is being restored...and so much for President Obama's "overwhelming evidence" assertion. Oops.
Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to the BBC's climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn't a factor in global warming and was cited by the U.N.'s climate science body to bolster statements about rapid global warming in recent decades. FoxNews.com 15 Feb 2010
It just gets worse and worse. Now we learn that data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing, and warming periods have happened before, which everybody knows.
The academic at the center of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Ok, his only job is to keep track of the information, and he can’t do it? And governments are making policy based on random, poorly stored and poorly indexed data?
Plus, Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests. Hmmm, ok, I’m gullible.
The data which he has lost, failed to file, failed to keep track of, or otherwise fumbled away, is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory, but he can’t produce the data and refuses FOI requests. I see a big problem here.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. Now there’s a shocker. The evil “deniers” have been saying this for decades, and because “they” said it, the leftist environmentalists dismissed the claim because it didn’t come from themselves?
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. There are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions, and other oppressive legislation.
Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics. Well, I for one, have been saying this for years. Add to this fraud, the “Tribal mentality” of the closed, global warming, science fraternity, and we’ve got one really big “scientific” problem.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now, because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries. And throwing a handful of CO2 into the air and claiming it raises global temperatures, is complete nonsense anyway.
This set of lies will cause untold problems with governments trying to solve non existing problems. Indeed it will.
“Socialism can really be defined today as environmentalism. This movement seeks to control all aspects of society, to dictate what people eat, what farmers grow, how we travel, build, work, cap and trade, and climate change. Essentially, all the advances towards socialism have occurred within the environmental realm.”
And this just in: “on Saturday, November 21, 2009, Weather Channel Founder files suit against Al Gore for fraud. 30,000 meteorologists are banding together to sue former Vice President Al Gore for fraud in perpetuating the global warming fraud.” Wow. Sanity is being restored...and so much for President Obama's "overwhelming evidence" assertion. Oops.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Religion of Climate Change and its Rituals
I have spouted for months about how the global warming/climate change extremists are very “religious” about their so-called “science,” and how their zeal is far more like religion than science. The science these people use is horrid, in fact it isn’t science at all, but more like religious in nature. I love how Michael Barone (writes for The Washington Examiner, Feb 4, 2010), puts this issue, and I’m passing it on.
“The secular religion of global warming has all the elements of a religious faith: original sin (we are polluting the planet), ritual (separate your waste for recycling), redemption (renounce economic growth) and the sale of indulgences (carbon offsets). We are told that we must have faith (all argument must end, as Al Gore likes to say) and must persecute heretics (global warming skeptics are like Holocaust deniers, we are told). People in the grip of such a religious frenzy evidently feel justified in lying, concealing good evidence and plucking bad evidence from whatever flimsy source may be at hand.”
In his State of the Union Address, President Obama alluded to "the overwhelming evidence on climate change," Suggesting that no one could reasonably disagree, then he threw a left jab (pun intended) at the skeptics by adding, "even if you doubt the evidence." The religious faithful of the Climate Change Church are closing ranks, and intend to purge all disbelievers and heretics from the discussion.
From the president on down, from the former vice president, to the faithful followers in the pews of the Democratic Party, belief is essential, because in this false religion there is little truth, bad science, and a whole of shaking their finger going on at those who disbelieve.
“The secular religion of global warming has all the elements of a religious faith: original sin (we are polluting the planet), ritual (separate your waste for recycling), redemption (renounce economic growth) and the sale of indulgences (carbon offsets). We are told that we must have faith (all argument must end, as Al Gore likes to say) and must persecute heretics (global warming skeptics are like Holocaust deniers, we are told). People in the grip of such a religious frenzy evidently feel justified in lying, concealing good evidence and plucking bad evidence from whatever flimsy source may be at hand.”
In his State of the Union Address, President Obama alluded to "the overwhelming evidence on climate change," Suggesting that no one could reasonably disagree, then he threw a left jab (pun intended) at the skeptics by adding, "even if you doubt the evidence." The religious faithful of the Climate Change Church are closing ranks, and intend to purge all disbelievers and heretics from the discussion.
From the president on down, from the former vice president, to the faithful followers in the pews of the Democratic Party, belief is essential, because in this false religion there is little truth, bad science, and a whole of shaking their finger going on at those who disbelieve.
Monday, February 8, 2010
More Bogus Climate Change "science"
The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage. The statement comes from a key 2007 report to the U.N., and asserts that by 2020 yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% in some African countries thanks to climate change.
This revelation follows a continuing trend of bogus claims, now being disputed, by this 2007 report. Earlier the IPCC retracted a claim, that was widely hyped, that the Himalayan glaciers could all melt by 2035. It turns out the glacier claim had no scientific basis, but was included in the IPCC climate change publication. And Dutch environment ministry spokesman Trimo discredits the U.N.'s climate change panel’s assertion that more than half of the Netherlands is below seal level. Dutch authorities explain that, in fact, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, not 55% as was claimed in the IPCC report. And the 26% is holding steady, not increasing, as climate models suggest.
The newest discredited claim comes from the IPCC's report on climate change, and is also repeated in its "Synthesis Report." That report is the IPCC's most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers.
The report states, "In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020." In a speech last July, Ban said: "Yields from rain-fed agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 years."
Speaking this weekend, Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's climate impacts team, said: "I was not an author on the 'Synthesis Report,' but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines."
This sort of claim should be based on hard evidence, said Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the U.K.'s department for environment food and rural affairs, who chaired the IPCC from 1997 to 2002. "Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature... I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report," he said. Wow.
The pattern is becoming all too clear. The U.N. IPCC is based not on science, but politics, it would appear. Authors are able to slip in single, undocumented sentences, not reviewed by other authors, or paragraphs are included making wild claims, but without scientific documentation. Even, completely unscientific data is included, such as the Himalayan glacier melting claim, which came from an outdoor enthusiast, that was quoted in a magazine–then it ends up in the IPCC report as scientific research. This is pretty bad.
It’s time for a complete review, and overhaul, of the U.N. procedures. Their credibility is shot, gone, down the toilet. Their science is not science at all, but political manipulation at its worse. And we should not forget that the entire thrust of the “global warming” hoax came from a single sentence slipped into the first IPCC report. I quote from a news report here, “In 1996 the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the United Nations, published it’s now famous report. The report was “approved” on November 30, 1995. But the only significant line in the 586 page report, a last minute change, made after midnight, with most of the delegates gone from the room, and without the knowledge of most of those who contributed to the report, stated “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”
The only problem? There was no evidence in their entire 586 page report to support that claim, and none of the other authors to that 586 page document had the opportunity to review the statement and either confirm or dispute the assertion. So a phony beginning by the U.N. leads to a string of bogus scientific claims, lacking peer review, that leads to governments around the planet making political decisions based on nonsense. And most governmental legislation is so draconian that, if implemented, would radically change life on the planet, from rich nations and poor nations alike.
It’s time for political leaders to admit they’ve been duped, and start basing their decisions on real science, common sense and truth.
This revelation follows a continuing trend of bogus claims, now being disputed, by this 2007 report. Earlier the IPCC retracted a claim, that was widely hyped, that the Himalayan glaciers could all melt by 2035. It turns out the glacier claim had no scientific basis, but was included in the IPCC climate change publication. And Dutch environment ministry spokesman Trimo discredits the U.N.'s climate change panel’s assertion that more than half of the Netherlands is below seal level. Dutch authorities explain that, in fact, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, not 55% as was claimed in the IPCC report. And the 26% is holding steady, not increasing, as climate models suggest.
The newest discredited claim comes from the IPCC's report on climate change, and is also repeated in its "Synthesis Report." That report is the IPCC's most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers.
The report states, "In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020." In a speech last July, Ban said: "Yields from rain-fed agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 years."
Speaking this weekend, Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's climate impacts team, said: "I was not an author on the 'Synthesis Report,' but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines."
This sort of claim should be based on hard evidence, said Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the U.K.'s department for environment food and rural affairs, who chaired the IPCC from 1997 to 2002. "Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature... I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report," he said. Wow.
The pattern is becoming all too clear. The U.N. IPCC is based not on science, but politics, it would appear. Authors are able to slip in single, undocumented sentences, not reviewed by other authors, or paragraphs are included making wild claims, but without scientific documentation. Even, completely unscientific data is included, such as the Himalayan glacier melting claim, which came from an outdoor enthusiast, that was quoted in a magazine–then it ends up in the IPCC report as scientific research. This is pretty bad.
It’s time for a complete review, and overhaul, of the U.N. procedures. Their credibility is shot, gone, down the toilet. Their science is not science at all, but political manipulation at its worse. And we should not forget that the entire thrust of the “global warming” hoax came from a single sentence slipped into the first IPCC report. I quote from a news report here, “In 1996 the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the United Nations, published it’s now famous report. The report was “approved” on November 30, 1995. But the only significant line in the 586 page report, a last minute change, made after midnight, with most of the delegates gone from the room, and without the knowledge of most of those who contributed to the report, stated “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”
The only problem? There was no evidence in their entire 586 page report to support that claim, and none of the other authors to that 586 page document had the opportunity to review the statement and either confirm or dispute the assertion. So a phony beginning by the U.N. leads to a string of bogus scientific claims, lacking peer review, that leads to governments around the planet making political decisions based on nonsense. And most governmental legislation is so draconian that, if implemented, would radically change life on the planet, from rich nations and poor nations alike.
It’s time for political leaders to admit they’ve been duped, and start basing their decisions on real science, common sense and truth.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
What is Science? And Who is Qualified to Speak?
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairperson of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has no training whatsoever in climate science. Yet he heads the pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world. How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was competent? His degree and training is in railroad engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads from point A to point B.
So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. Then we have the fact that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350, some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an Indian glacier expert, who borrowed the statement from a mountain climber, in an interview to a magazine. It had no scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative. So, as it turns out, this “scientific fact” turns out to be completely bogus, yet was published as fact, and with the strength and substance of “science” behind it, when in fact there was none.
The same goes for dire predictions on Amazon rain forests. The IPCC maintained that there would be a huge depletion in Amazon rain forests because of [global warming] lack of precipitation. Needless to add, no Amazon rain forest expert could be found to back this claim. They depended, instead, on a report by a freelance journalist and activist, and now it has blown up in their faces as well.
So is there any good science to support global warming? Not lately. Most of the so-called “science” is a few years old, and now most of that is being called into question as well. “There is no scientific consensus at all that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, as claimed by the IPCC. In a recent paper, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who has worked extensively on climate change models, argues: ‘There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps—if any—we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.”
An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false. And so deeply entrenched is the global warming lobby, the prestigious journal Science did not publish a letter that Dr Peiser wrote pointing out the lack of consensus. Says Dr Peiser, “The IPCC process by which it arrives at its conclusions lacks balance, transparency and due diligence. It is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years.
Sadly, government ideologues like President Obama cling to the global warming myth and ridicule the right for questioning it–and worse, he’s prepared to force through global warming based legislation even if it turns out to be a hoax. What kind of a president is that?
Another total lie has been that the Sunderbans in Bangladesh are sinking on account of the rise in sea level. The IPCC claimed that one-fifth of Bangladesh will be under water by 2050. Well, it turns out this is an absurd, unscientific and outrageous claim. According to scientists at the Centre for Environmental and Geographical Information Services (Cegis) in Dhaka, its surface area appears to be growing by 20 sq km annually. Cegis has based its results on more than 30 years of satellite imagery. IPCC has not retracted this claim. As far as they are concerned, Bangladesh is a goner by 2050, submerged forever in the Bay of Bengal.
“The revelations have been nothing short of jaw dropping. Dozens of claims made in the IPCC 2007 report on climate change that was supposed to represent the "consensus" of 2500 of the world's climate scientists have been shown to be bogus, or faulty, or not properly vetted, or simply pulled out of thin air.
We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates who were pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN.” from The American Spectator, February 2, 2010
So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. Then we have the fact that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350, some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an Indian glacier expert, who borrowed the statement from a mountain climber, in an interview to a magazine. It had no scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative. So, as it turns out, this “scientific fact” turns out to be completely bogus, yet was published as fact, and with the strength and substance of “science” behind it, when in fact there was none.
The same goes for dire predictions on Amazon rain forests. The IPCC maintained that there would be a huge depletion in Amazon rain forests because of [global warming] lack of precipitation. Needless to add, no Amazon rain forest expert could be found to back this claim. They depended, instead, on a report by a freelance journalist and activist, and now it has blown up in their faces as well.
So is there any good science to support global warming? Not lately. Most of the so-called “science” is a few years old, and now most of that is being called into question as well. “There is no scientific consensus at all that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, as claimed by the IPCC. In a recent paper, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who has worked extensively on climate change models, argues: ‘There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps—if any—we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.”
An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false. And so deeply entrenched is the global warming lobby, the prestigious journal Science did not publish a letter that Dr Peiser wrote pointing out the lack of consensus. Says Dr Peiser, “The IPCC process by which it arrives at its conclusions lacks balance, transparency and due diligence. It is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years.
Sadly, government ideologues like President Obama cling to the global warming myth and ridicule the right for questioning it–and worse, he’s prepared to force through global warming based legislation even if it turns out to be a hoax. What kind of a president is that?
Another total lie has been that the Sunderbans in Bangladesh are sinking on account of the rise in sea level. The IPCC claimed that one-fifth of Bangladesh will be under water by 2050. Well, it turns out this is an absurd, unscientific and outrageous claim. According to scientists at the Centre for Environmental and Geographical Information Services (Cegis) in Dhaka, its surface area appears to be growing by 20 sq km annually. Cegis has based its results on more than 30 years of satellite imagery. IPCC has not retracted this claim. As far as they are concerned, Bangladesh is a goner by 2050, submerged forever in the Bay of Bengal.
“The revelations have been nothing short of jaw dropping. Dozens of claims made in the IPCC 2007 report on climate change that was supposed to represent the "consensus" of 2500 of the world's climate scientists have been shown to be bogus, or faulty, or not properly vetted, or simply pulled out of thin air.
We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates who were pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN.” from The American Spectator, February 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)