Waxman-Markey: Coercion for its Own Sake

Chaplin-Great-DictatorBy Marlo Lewis

Most media coverage of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act  of 2009 (ACES), focuses on the bill’s cap-and-trade program and the free rationing coupons (emission allowances) that the bill’s co-sponsors, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), had to hand out to utilities and other interests to secure their support for the legislation.

But the cap-and-trade program occupies only one of four of the bill’s main sections (”titles”).  Other titles contain a host of mandates and “incentives” (carrots and sticks) to reshape energy and transportation markets.

Read the rest of this article at Open Market.

35 Responses to Waxman-Markey: Coercion for its Own Sake

  1. Rob N. Hood May 27, 2009 at 9:41 am #

    There are technological solutions to having a postive future for us and those generations to follow, but they demand political action. Together they comprise the Eight Green Steps to a sustainable world:

    1. BAN WASTE AND WAR: Nothing may be produced that cannot be fully recycled or that will not completely bio-degrade. This includes weapons whose sole purpose is death and destruction, and whose manufacture and use must be ended by a global community that knows war to be the ultimate act of ecological suicide.

    2. MAXIMIZE EFFICIENCY & CONSERVATION: From energy to building materials, food to fiber, water to paper, our resources must be preserved. Our unsustainable consumption and wasteful industries must be made appropriate and efficient, starting with a reborn mass transit system and complete preservation of all remaining virgin land and waters.

    3. TRANSCEND FOSSIL/NUKE: King CONG (Coal, Oil, Nukes & Gas) must take its place in the compost heap of history. Our addiction to filthy, finite fossil/nuclear fuels has led us to the brink of economic and ecological collapse. In the new green millennium, we either kick the habit, or it kills us (or at least bankrupts us).

    4. CONVERT TO RENEWABLES: Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, ocean thermal, wave, current, sustainable bio-fuels and their green siblings are proven, profitable and have time on their side. Each has its imperfections, and no single source will dominate. But union-made renewables sing in economic and ecological harmony, and are the ultimate job-creators, which if this country doesn’t act on, others will.

    5. GO ORGANIC: Factory farming, genetically modified crops and chemical pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are unsustainable. Diverse, community-scaled, reliably organic agriculture is the key to a future fed by food that’s fit to eat.

    6. TRANSFORM THE CORPORATION: Our most powerful—and destructive—institution claims human rights without human responsibilities. Corporate charters must require social service, ecological accountability and establish a barrier between capitalism and cannibalism. “Green” corporations whose legal mandate still remains limited to accumulating profits will make a mess of the planet as surely as all those that have come before.

    7. ASSURE SOCIAL DEMOCRACY: Universal hand-counted (recycled) paper ballots and curbs on the power of money to sway elections are the essence of global democracy, as is the demand for social justice. Until all humans are assured the basics of life—food, shelter, clothing, health care, education—democracy and freedom are shallow illusions.

    8. EMPOWER WOMEN / CONTROL POPULATION: Where enfranchised, educated, fairly paid and in control of their own bodies, the natural union of women with Mother Earth brings us the children She wishes to support. On a healthy planet, birth rates find their natural level when all children are loved and wanted, which is where “Solartopia” starts.

    This list follows the form of Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths and Eight-Fold Path to Enlightenment. But all religions at their core call for universal harmony between people and the planet.

    Solartopia is diverse, sustainable, and socially just, and very likely necessary, vision of a civilization in which we can all survive and thrive.

    written by Harvey Wasserman

  2. Neil F. May 27, 2009 at 1:26 pm #

    Again, this has nothing to do with the story posted. What are you trying to accomplish posting this Left-wing bullcrap? It is unrealistic. Try selling that to Al Quada. Do you think they would throw down their weapons and join hands with us singing cum bi ya? What about Kim Jong Ill? Russia? China? India? Pakistan? Think about it. If we were to try to enforce this across the whole world, what would that make us? Hmmm? It’s just silly on it’s face, and freightening in it’s implications. It is a pipe dream from the 60’s. And it will never happen even if every single person in the United States wanted it to be so.

  3. Paul Wenum May 27, 2009 at 9:34 pm #

    I am now more convinced than ever that based upon this “Rob’s rantings” our one-sided media has a bigger hook than I thought. The statements have nothing to do with the article. I’m an outdoor person. I’d love to have 30 days in the woods with a person like this with no weapons, food or water. He wants to be eco, he would last two days at best. Like I’ve said before “dumbing down of America.” Thank our wonderful teachers. Now, somebody get back on the subject at hand!

  4. Neil F. May 27, 2009 at 11:19 pm #

    Paul Wenum:
    I agree. What do you think about this article? I think it illustrates the media bias because the media only covers what it wants us to hear, mainly about the cap-and-trade part. Not all the other things that are in there. I think they don’t focus on the rest because if some of those things were widely reported, it wouldn’t sound as much like President Obama is saving the planet. I think it would reveal that what is really going on is an authoritarian takeover of the energy industry.

  5. Rob N. Hood May 28, 2009 at 11:12 am #

    This is from a wartime diary entry by Joseph Goebbels: “Propaganda must … always be essentially simple and repetitious. In the long run only he will achieve basic results in influencing public opinion who is able to reduce problems to the simplest terms and who has the courage to keep forever repeating them in this simplified form despite the objections of the intellectuals.” (reminds me of what Republicans do).

    While the American Left has been developmentally deficient in thunderous slogans and bumper-sticker intellectuality, the American Right has excelled at them. Its first modern major success was “liberal media,” an efficient assault on two political birds with one deceptive stone. And with that success, the right then saw what it took as the unlimited possibilities of make-believe language.

    Also, one must be aware of the upper 1% white plutocracy that attempt to buy off both the right and the left. They are the true enemy here, and they know how to expertly play the angry hysterical right against the passive intellectual left, to the detriment of all but the upper 1%.

    So you 2 geniuses- what makes the above detailed post so unrealistic? You are the ones out of step with the times and not very imaginative. Then you throw in public education because it is something else “run” by the government, and as all geniuses apparently know that means it’s BAD. You guys are small-minded authoritarian weirdos. I probably have more education than the two of you put together (much of which I paid for myself). And another thing, I’ve camped many times, in a rustic manner, for weeks at a time. U. R. both brainwashed Fools.

  6. Rob N. Hood May 28, 2009 at 12:16 pm #

    Myths serve to restrict our education to the narrowly utilitarian and practical. One myth, particularly pervasive among conservative-minded critics, is that our system of higher education is way too liberal, as well as thoroughly dominated by anti-free-market radicals and refugee Marxists from the 1960s who, are indoctrinating our youth in how to hate America.


    Today’s college students are being indoctrinated in the idea that they need to earn “degrees that work” (the official motto of the technically-oriented college where I teach). They’re being taught to measure their self-worth by their post-college paycheck. They’re being urged to be lifelong learners, not because learning is transformative or even enjoyable, but because to “keep current” is to “stay competitive in the global marketplace.” (Never mind that keeping current is hardly a guarantee that your job won’t be outsourced to the lowest bidder.) History and the humanities have withered, and sometimes not required.

  7. Neil F. May 28, 2009 at 7:50 pm #

    Hey anybody! Can we talk about the posted stories? Please!?!?!?!

  8. Paul Wenum May 28, 2009 at 10:24 pm #


    Suggest you read Joseph D’Aleo, Roy Spencer, S. Fred Singer, John Coleman et al. Maybe we can talk rationally which I doubt with your uncompromizing attitude. Cap & Trade will be, in my opinion a tax so great to us as well as the rest of the world if enacted that it will cause untold strife to all nations (assuming they agree) with inflation so high that it will take a pickup truck of money to buy a loaf of bread. Al gore must be loving this as he sits in his ivory tower not debating anyone. Just like the Senate hearings where there was no dissent. Sad. That’s right Gore refused debates didn’t he? Enough said.

  9. Neil F. May 29, 2009 at 6:38 am #

    I think Rob is actually just having fun with us. He purposefully finds the most outrageous tripe and posts it here to see the reaction. That’s all it is, it’s just a game to him. I am not going to play anymore. So let’s not worry too much about what he says because, as I have pointed out numerous times, what he says is not really what he says. He gets most of the garbage he posts from liberal bloggers who, I would wager, would not be very happy with him if they new he was stealing their material.
    It’s no use giving him reading material, he’s not interested in an open exchange of ideas. Nor is he interested in discussing the topics of the posted stories.
    I say we should just ignore him, no matter what he posts. Maybe he’ll tire of toying with us and go away. Or, what I would prefer, he might grow up a little and start to say what he thinks about the posted stories

  10. Neil F. May 29, 2009 at 6:24 pm #

    Come on Dan, don’t you want people to know where Rob rips off his material from? I understand cutting the padded cell remark, that probably crossed the line. But I think exposing the fraud is what this website is about. Isn’t it?

  11. Rob N. Hood May 30, 2009 at 9:52 am #

    You guys make me laugh. Thanks for all the fun. Everything I’ve posted DOES have something do to with your dire issues but you are too small -minded or cowardly to discuss them honestly or don’t understand abstract concepts. I know full well trying to debate you re: the specific concrete items isn’t going to do any good- you aren’t going to change your minds, you and I both know that. I have tried nudging your thought processes outside of the little boxed-in beliefs and conspriacy fantasies you cling to. And I have actually tried debating some of the issues directly, and oddly enough it is you who has always changed the focus onto the irrelevant. And so what if I cut and paste- who really cares? I never claimed that they are all my words. To make that in issue is simply another way you have avoided and disregarded the message, the views and the statements. It’s what is said, and the ideas that need to be thought about and discussed, not who said what or how many typos I make, or whatever get’s Neil’s undies in a bundle. That’s a silly waste of time, in my opinion. Neil posts what I consider to be junk science all the time and thinks it’s words from God or something. And just because he’s anal about all of this doens’t make it any more valuable or accurate or legitimate. But see, even this concept seems to be lost on you conspricacy-minded paranoiacs. (and Neil, that last may not be an actual word, but don’t sweat it ok?!)

    You guys think everything Liberal is a conspiracy. You don’t have open minds so why do you get so upset when you imagine that I don’t? If you thought rationally you would realize both political parties in this country are corrupt, and our entire political system needs to be seriously reformed, and until that happens nothing will change.

    I am done with this lame site, and so I’m sure that will make you happy. That is sad actualy because everyone needs intellectual challenges, and to think outside the box from time to time. But you don’t understand that- you all made that very clear, and that says something about YOU.

    Good bye my narrow-minded brainwashed “friends”- have a nice time in this paranoid little echo chamber. Have fun stroking and reinforcing each other’s pre-conceived one-dimensional notions about a very complex issue in a very complex world. Your single-mindedness wore me out. Congratulations!

  12. Neil F. May 30, 2009 at 5:21 pm #

    I’m sorry that you think I’m closed minded because I don’t agree with you. And NO, the things you have been posting lately have nothing to do with anything that is supposed to be the discussion here. If you want to say that you think I am wrong about something…. say that!
    If you think what I post is junk science, then say that! Then post something that refutes it, and say why you think I’m wrong. And I don’t think things I post are gospel! They come from people and organizations that I believe. If you disagree then post something that refutes what I am saying, I will look at it and if it’s true will modify my thinking about it.
    And that is the definition of an open mind.
    But what you have been doing is posting things from far left bloggers, opinions, and offering that as “proof” of our/my “closed-mindedness”
    How open-minded is it to say “You guys think everything Liberal is a conspiracy.”? Not very, because you state as fact what is actually your opinion. And for the record I don’t think “everything” is a liberal conspiracy. I do believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a lie, and there is a global conspiracy to push that agenda. And it’s not a left or right issue. There are people who stand to gain billions of dollars, among them Al Gore (liberal) and T. Boon Pickens (republican), if cap n’ trade and “green energy” measures are enacted. This is not opinion, it is demonstrable fact.
    So, if what you say “I know full well trying to debate you re: the specific concrete items isn’t going to do any good- you aren’t going to change your minds, you and I both know that.” Is true, you seem to be giving up precisely because you can’t change our/my mind/s.
    I think you don’t want to debate because you are afraid that you may have to, at some point, modify your view. And you can’t let that happen because you’re so open-minded that everthing you believe is the truth.
    I mean, really, how willing are you to ponder anything that we say here? Because as far as I can tell, you have always disagreed with just about everything here. I remember you saying that you were’nt 100% sure about global warming. Was that a lie? Because I have never read anything from you that gave any serious consideration to my point of view. What I get is insults, and I’m narrow-minded, and brainwashed.
    I don’t know why you ever started posting here, because you don’t want to be informed, you just want everyone to agree with you.
    Good luck with that!

  13. Rob N. Hood June 2, 2009 at 9:20 am #

    Nils J. Bruzelius
    The Associated Press

    (AP) — WASHINGTON-If an unusually detailed computer simulation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has it right, global warming in this century is on track to be about twice as bad as predicted six years ago.

    The MIT model is said to be the only one that incorporates among its variables possible changes in economic growth and other human activities and draws on peer-reviewed science on the climatic effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems.

    After running the model 400 times with slight variations in the inputs, the new predictions are for surface temperatures to warm by 6.3 to 13.3 degrees Fahrenheit. The prediction is for a 9.4-degree increase in the median temperature, more than double the 4.3 degrees predicted in a 2003 simulation.

  14. Neil F. June 3, 2009 at 5:27 am #

    SCIENTISTS have put a huge amount of effort into generating computer models of our climate system. These models are very sophisticated and complex and their outputs suggest that increasing carbon dioxide will lead to significant temperature rises for our planet. Indeed the model outputs now represent the main evidence in support of the anthropogenic (man induced) global warming hypothesis. Why shouldn’t we take careful note of these results?

    Computers are a tool allowing many calculations to be done extremely rapidly. If we can describe a system we wish to explore via a set of interrelated equations we can then get a computer to repeatedly solve these equations with a small assumed time increment between each set of solutions and do it quickly. The output describes the future as predicted from the input equations. This is a computer model. It is important to remember that the model output is completely and exclusively determined by the information encapsulated in the input equations. The computer contributes no checking, no additional information and no greater certainly in the output. It only contributes computational speed.

  15. Neil F. June 3, 2009 at 5:56 am #

    As usual, the politicians rely on the people’s ignorance (and corporate media complicitiy) to push their agenda, using a theory that requires complete suspension of logic to believe it.

    Put all of the computer models to one side for a brief moment and think.

    Just think for yourself.

    Water vapour accounts for over 95% of the greenhouse effect. Humans’ contribution to that is about 0.001%.

    CO2 accounts for about 3%. Of that total, humans contribute 0.117%. That’s 0.117% of 3% remember.

    Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?

    It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.

    In other words, the TOTAL contribution to global warming by humans is less that 0.3%

  16. Rob N. Hood June 3, 2009 at 8:25 am #

    In just 10,000 years, a millisecond of geological time, Homo sapiens civilization, embodied by the rapacious paradigm of Western speciesist capitalism and anthropocentrism has managed to push the planet to the brink of ecological collapse. Droughts, violent hurricanes, melting ice caps, drowning polar bears, increasing hunger, food riots, diminishing supplies of potable water, species of plants and animals disappearing at an alarming rate, and a host of other frightening events are unfolding more quickly than scientists can even document. Scientists throughout the world are warning of a rapidly narrowing window of opportunity for averting a catastrophic level of climate change, and NASA scientist James Hansen warned newly elected President Obama that he has “four years to save Earth” through a radical shift in US energy policies or face the real potential of ecological breakdown reaching a crucial tipping point.

    Our childish collective belief that we are superior to other animals, which many Homo sapiens will fight tooth and nail to defend, is both delusional and a sign of a deep psychological insecurity. Some even revel in the illusion that we are at the “top of the food chain,” not realizing that we exist in a food web or that both human activities and human over-population are straining that web to its limits and beyond.

  17. Neil F. June 4, 2009 at 6:45 am #

    If your ancestors had not survived by doing what you claim is so bad and evil, you wouldn’t be here to criticise it.

  18. Rob N. Hood June 4, 2009 at 8:24 am #

    From Kurt Nimmo:
    “…“I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic,” wrote Andrew Jackson, “inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.”
    The end result will not be a welfare state indebted to and voting for Democrats/Republicans. It will be debt slavery and the imposition of a world government run by and for the international bankers.”
    The Republican Party needs to be extirpated. It is a Fifth Column, a domestic terrorist group, a metastasizing cancer right within our borders.
    There’s no need to sugarcoat it. They’re TRYING TO DESTROY the country. They are the enemy.
    Hey, reich-wingers: Jesus and the Founding Fathers were liberals (!)

  19. Neil F. June 4, 2009 at 12:08 pm #

    Ok Rob:
    Why would I take seriously what Kurt Nimmo says? I never heard of him. It did not take long to find out who is is though. A homeless, out of work, Left wing blogger. Who thinks everybody is a war criminal. Yeah, I should seriously consider what he says?
    Fat chance!
    And then you just throw out there that “Jesus and the Founding Fathers were liberals!”???? That’s a good one! Thanks, I got a good belly laugh out of that one.

  20. Rob N. Hood June 4, 2009 at 1:28 pm #

    Glad I could amuse you. Jesus was also a homeless, out of work, liberal-speechifying person, and so your point is ???

  21. Neil F. June 4, 2009 at 7:07 pm #

    It’s great advice if you aim to destroy people’s faith and tear down the walls of Christendom. After all, when you define Jesus as anything other than God you have diminished Him. Simply put, a person who thinks of Him as something other than God isn’t thinking of Him as God. Jesus said “I am the Alpha and the Omega” [the first and the last]. This tells us that He transcends time and that He is eternal, and then it certainly follows that he transcends an ideology or philosophy. He also said “I am the Way, the TRUTH and the Life,” and as the Truth He gives us the template that we should use to shape our ideology; we should not use our ideology as the template and endeavor to fit the Lord into it. God puts us in boxes based on what He allows us to do and what roles He ordains for us. It is not our place to put Him in a box.

  22. Neil F. June 4, 2009 at 10:03 pm #

    A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,” which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: “The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.”

  23. Neil F. June 4, 2009 at 10:09 pm #

    Do you still think it doesn’t matter what the sources of quotes are?

  24. Rob N. Hood June 5, 2009 at 8:29 am #

    That’s correct Neil. You’re catching on. But I also didn’t realize that in addition to being a scientist of the highest order, you are also a theologian, and so much an expert on Jesus that you could correct my simple but arguably true statement about Him. Thank you for that. Who knows what sort of evil I would be capable of if it weren’t for you. You seem to be omniscient like Him- kinda scary…

  25. Neil F. June 5, 2009 at 6:19 pm #

    I think you completely missed my point. I didn’t write any of that. You see when you copy and paste other peoples work, someone that reads it may think that it is your own original thoughts and ideas.
    The whole Jesus thing I found doing a search of “Jesus was not a liberal”. You know I don’t follow any religion. I’m certainly no theologian. How about you? I get the feeling that you aren’t exactly the bible study type. I tried reading the Bible once, I thought it was a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

    And just when did I ever claim to be a scientist? I’m an HVAC technician. I have an A.A.S. degree in heating and air conditioning. I do have some knowledge of the subject, maybe more than someone with a masters in psychology, perhaps. But of course I don’t know what science classes are required for that particular degree. But I never claimed to be a scientist. There are scientists that I agree with, and on occasion I use their facts and figures to dispute people who believe in AGW. And those are scientists of the highest order. Perhaps that’s why you may think that.

  26. Rob N. Hood June 6, 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    Well, Neil, you certainly portrayed yourself as an expert on both topics, all topics in fact. And rebutting my statement by doing a search for something “official” that is the opposite of my post is something you like to do, and its effectiveness is lost on me. How about using your own brain for a change? When I post something someone else wrote I don’t pretend anything- but often surround it by my own thoughts, etc. It is then posted that way to generate thought, and thoughtful discussion- instead what “we” get from you is some search generated “official truism” for the sake of being opposite, I guess. This is silly. You automatically shoot down whatever I post in whatever form, and I have tried several. You don’t want discussion you want ditto-headism. Just be honest for once and admit that.

  27. Neil F. June 7, 2009 at 11:18 am #

    I’m sorry. Did you just want to post whatever you want to say without challenge? Do you just want people to to say “wow Rob, your right! How deep and intellectual you are to think that. I’m just going to have to change my point of view now because you said that.”
    Come on Rob, I think your wrong. You think I’m wrong. That’s the way it is. I’m not going to look for a box of kleenex over it.

    I do a lot of searches for information on the internet. And I will admit to a certain level of confirmation bias. I don’t always find stories that back up what I believe. More often than not I find stories that back up your point of view. But what can I say? I’m a non-conformist. I, more often than not, reject public sentiment.
    What is funny, I think, is that your point of view is closer to the mainstream thought on the subject. Where my point of view is closer to the “radical” thought on the subject. If you don’t believe that, do a search for “global warming” and see how many entries support your point of view, opposed to how many support mine.

    And no, though I would like it if you agree with me, I don’t want ditto-headism. What a boring prospect. Why would I want that? This is way more fun!

  28. Rob N. Hood June 7, 2009 at 6:58 pm #

    Neil, you are a non-conformist in this issue only, or so it appears to me. In every other respect you are very conformist. So why are you “non-conformist” with regard to the global warming issue? That is actually a psychological question, one which I am tempted to tackle but won’t because I have done enough of that already. Maybe you can try to answer that…if you want to. I also don’t think you are being honest about wanting a lively debate, I’ve tried to do that and failed. Here is my reason for believing there is something to climate change- the vast majority of legitimate and respected scientists and institutions agree on it more or less (there are many details of course, some of which they may not agree). The deniers are much fewer, and theya re the ones that have a reason to skew their data, not the other way around. Why? Because they are in the minority and because they are backed by big oil and other rich elite who have a stake in maintaining the status quo for as long as possible. This is all just commaon sense. And the last commen sensenail in that coffin is this: The logistics for it to be a “hoax” and/or conspiracy are astronomical. Logic and reasoning will tell a reasonable person that it simply cannot be a scam, not inthe sense that this site, and you, imagine it to be. It really is a simple as that. And finally, just because there are aggressive CAPITALISTS out there, e.g. A. Gore and that Pickens dude, who are willing to take a risk (your words) to make money with green technology, doesn’t mean they are part of some big conspiracy. Jeez, Neil, it’s just capitalism- the very thing you love and defend ALL OF THE TIME. Those people will try to make a buck off just about anything, and some of them do. This site is pure right-wing propaganda. Plain and simple.

  29. Neil F. June 8, 2009 at 6:36 am #

    Need a kleenex?

  30. Rob N. Hood June 12, 2009 at 8:07 am #

    For example- the benefactors and sponsors of organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, and others of that type (i.e “Right-Wing Think Tanks”). The lists of those who support those organizaitons are revealing, of course. But money can be funneled easily through surrogates. But this is a very very old method used by the elite rich.

  31. Neil F. June 13, 2009 at 4:12 am #

    That is not proof. That is hearsay, and it’s lame.
    The deniers are in the pocket of big oil, and other rich elites?
    Prove it!

  32. Rob N. Hood June 13, 2009 at 9:21 am #

    Who funds their “research” and their rebuttles against other’s research? Again, that is revealing, but no one who is rich enough and wants to remain anonymous needs to reveal themselves, at least not fully or directly. Anyway, that is just common sense. Apparenlty the elite rich need your assistance and defense Neil. I’t very refreshing that someone is so willing and proud to look out for the big guys and not just worry about the little guys. And you’re not even getting paid for it! At least not that we know of. How noble and enlightened you are.

  33. Rob N. Hood June 14, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    Suggestion: read The Politics of Jesus, by John Yoder.

  34. Paul Wenum July 1, 2009 at 8:48 pm #

    Rob, take a breath and tell Al Gore to quit sending you tag lines on what to say. By the way, who are the “big guys?” Name them. I would love to know. You mean George Soros? Oh that’s right, he doesn’t count, he’s on your side! Name them!

  35. Paul Wenum July 6, 2009 at 10:00 pm #

    Read Roy W. Spencer, PHD! Suggested reading to you all out there.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.