Climategate Update 10: Climategate Reverberates from The UK To Down Under

Accross the pond, the Daily Express has become the first national newspaper to give front page billing to Climategate. On the flip side of the coin, the BBC is furiously fighting a rear guard action to minimize fall-out from Climategate.

Down under, Australian PM Kevin Rudd, who has made cap and trade legislation to "combat global warming" the centerpiece of his agenda and who, but a week ago, seemed destined to see it pass the legislature, watched as the measure went down in flames today. The Times of London has the story.

James Delingpole rounds up the evidence that Climategate is starting to unravel the AGW world. Writing at UK's Telegraph. Delingpole brings up plans by some scientists to bring criminal fraud charges against the CRU. Equally of interest, he tells of a challenge to the Tory Party's David Cameron over Cameron's own mindless embrace of the green madness. This from Mr. Delingpole:

Watch out Green Dave! The Independent reports on the growing backlash within the party to Cameron’s libtard-wooing greenery. Turning to the Independent for a balanced report on environmental matters is a bit like consulting Der Sturmer for a sensible, insightful view on the Jewish question. Still, for once, the house journal of eco-loonery seems to have got it right and the point made by Tory backbencher David Davis is well made:

“The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”

At PJM, Ed Driscoll has a great roundup of climate scares then and now. The sky is falling, the sky is falling indeed.

Also at PJM, Christopher Horner picks up an interesting disconnect regarding Michael Mann and "Mike's trick" to hide the decline.

And also at PJM, an interview with distinguished scientist Roger Pielke, Sr., who discusses how climate science has been corrupted by the IPCC and how contrary voices have been ignored. Among his specific charges, Pielke states that the surface temperature data being relied upon has significant problems of reliability. While Pielke does not question some level of AGW, he believes the IPCC conclusions have been proven untenable.

Updates: This from PJM on what is likely to be the most important aspect of the fallout from Climategate - the application reconsideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the EPA's regulatory authority:

In light of the Climategate fraud scandal, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) on Wednesday filed a petition asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend its plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act, pending a thorough investigation of and public comment on the newly released information. . . .

Reason Mag has a very good article on the damage Climategate has done to the field of climate science and what that field needs to do to recover some sembelance of credibility. Someone needs to tell Barbara Boxer that it involves a bit more than simply prosecuting the individual or individuals who leaked the CRU e-mails. She is in complete denial.

As is the Huffington Post which, according to Newsbusters, is in the midst of a fully blown Climategate panic attack.

And Jon Stewart has a lot of fun with Climategate, though he has to add an evil Republican in for balance apparently:



Prior Posts:

Climategate and Surrealism
More Climategate Fallout
Climategate Update 3
Climategate Update 4: CRU Records Worthless
Climategate Update 5: IPCC's Chairman Mao
Climategate Update 6: Climategate In Video
UNEP, Green Religion & Global Governance
Climate Update 7: IPCC's Chairman Mao Plays The Obama Card, Peer Review Analyzed, Scientific Method Explained For Paul Krugman
Climategate Update 8: The NYT Reports
Climategate Update 9: CRU Head Phil Jones Steps Down During Investigation, An MIT Prof Explains The Holes In AGW Theory, And Climate Fraud Is Everywhere

Read More...

Summary only...

Thick Ice, Thriving Polar Bears, & Global Warming Legislation

This picture of polar bears puportedly stranded on a drifitng ice flow has become an icon of the global warming community. We now know it was taken wholly out of context. We also know that sea ice is at or above normal levels in both hemispheres. Polar bears are thriving. Yet there is legislation in Congress to declare polar bears a protected species. That legislation has little to do with protecting polar bears and everything to do with advancing the global warming agenda through our courts.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The iconic photo above, purported to show two forlorn polar bears stranded on a drifting ice flow, was made famous by the Goracle. Al Gore used that photo as a centerpiece on his lecture circuit, stating of the two bears: "Their habitat is melting . . . beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet."

There are several important falsehoods in the Goracle’s doomsday pronouncement. Arctic sea ice now covers as much territory as it did in 1970, there is actually more sea ice in the Antarctic, polar bears are thriving, and the use of this picture to show polar bears in danger was, as Carole Williams terms it in a recent article, a classic example of "How the Environmental Extremists Manipulate the Masses." Ms. Williams has the whole background story to the photo, which was stolen from a marine biologist and subsequently forwarded to the Goracle and his acolytes who proceeded to twist it completely out of context. (H/T EU Referendum)

As a threshold matter, polar bears are some of the world’s greatest swimmers, being able to swim tremendous distances. Polar bears have been tracked swimming over 60 miles at a time. You of course would not know that from the Goracle, but what you also wouldn’t know, until you read Ms. Williams article, is that the photo of the polar bears was taken near shore, easily within swimming distance for the bears. They were in no danger whatsoever. Or as Christopher Booker put it today, the bears "weren’t drowning," they were just "waving" for the cameras. And you would also not know from the Goracle that the polar bear population is at "historic highs" and growing.

The second bit of what we now know to be incorrect in the Goracle’s statement is that the sea ice has replenished. To be fair to Gore, what knowledge we had indicated otherwise whilst he was on the lecture circuit, bringing home the green. But, as Christopher Booker explains:

Last autumn the BBC and others could scarcely contain their excitement in reporting that the Arctic ice was melting so fast there would soon be none left.

Sea ice cover had shrunk to the lowest level ever recorded. But for some reason the warmists are less keen on the latest satellite findings, reported by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the website Cryosphere Today by the University of Illinois.

This body is committed to warmist orthodoxy and contributes to the work of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yet its graph of northern hemisphere sea ice area, which shows the ice shrinking from 13,000 million sq km to just 4 million from the start of 2007 to October, also shows it now almost back to 13 million sq km.

A second graph, "Global Ice Area", shows a similar pattern repeated every year since satellite records began in 1979; while a third, "Southern Hemisphere Ice", shows that sea ice has actually expanded in recent years, well above its 30-year mean.

Read the article here. That one will be difficult to explain away but I have faith in the Goracle and the IPCC once they get time to focus on it. They are busy at present trying to work out how global warming is causing snow from Iraq and Jerusalem to a massive snowfall in China.

But back now to the polar bears. In a bit of utter insanity, the Fish and Game Service is currently being pushed to declare polar bears an endangered species. Hearings are occurring as we speak.

What makes this truly insane is that the polar bears are thriving. According to the Inhofe blog, studies undertaken in 1970 estimated the the polar bear population to be about 5,000 –10,000. A 2002 study put the polar bear population at "historic highs, between 20,000 and 25,000. They occupy their entire natural range. And they are a hearty species. The fossil record shows that polar bears have survived several past global warmings that occurred before recorded history, one of which saw the Arctic wholly denuded of ice.

So how on God’s green earth can anyone suggest that polar bears should be listed on as an "endangered species?" And what could possibly be their motivation?

To justify listing polar bears as endangered, global warming enthusiasts are using dubious computer models that, they claim, predict that thirty years or so down the road, the now thriving polar bears will become endangered They have no physical evidence to support their assertions. It is a measure of how screwed we are as a people that our government is seriously considering this legislation.

The motivation for listing the polar bears as endangered has everything to do with the politics of global warming, not the plight of the thriving polar bears. Once listed as endangered, then global warming enthusiasts can challenge in court a whole host of economic and other activities across the width and breadth of America on the basis of their supposed effect on the polar bear and its Arctic home. Or as Senator Inhofe has stated:

Listing the bear as a threatened species is not about protecting the bear but about using the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to achieve global warming policy that special interest groups can not otherwise achieve through the legislative process.

Read the post here. You can find the Minority Report on this issue here. There is a reason we have democracy and several hundred men and women to debate and hold hearings. Somehow, though, I suspect this attept to run around the left side of the legislature and get it into the courts has the Goracle’s full support.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News - 8 January 2008

The NYT engages in a grand exercise of raising form over substance. And this passes for a legitimate editorial? Even adding Bill Kristol won’t be able to save this rag.

The People’s Republic of Baltimore vs. Wells Fargo Bank. As the city which gave birth to Nancy Pelosi suffers a short fall in revenue, they go after banks for making subprime loans, primarily to African Americans, which are going into default. The proposed remedy the city seeks include "damages to cover the diminished property tax revenues and higher costs that the city said it had incurred. Additional costs include those for fire and police protection in hard-hit neighborhoods and expenditures to buy and rehabilitate vacant properties." This is both racist and a travesty.

My own perception is that playing not to lose and simply preserve a tenuous lead is rarely smart. That truism holds for sports as it does for politics. In this case, Clinton strangled her presidential bid by limiting access to the press, refusing questions, and giving non-answers to the few questions she took. That has all changed now. But is there enough time left on the clock?
Its always someone’s special interest that seems to be getting gored. Gender-baiting Gloria Steinem bemoans her belief that, while vote for Obama in Iowa seems to mean that institutional racism is no longer a significant problem, the failure to vote for Clinton means that we all suffer gender-bias. This is leftist identity politics at its worst.

I normally agree with Ralph Peters, but on this one, I thinking he is reading more into the effect of what happened with the Iranian speed boats threatening our warships than is justified. Having worked on hot borders before, this seems like little more than some idiocy hatched by the speed boat crew members and likely to have no long term ramifications . . . unless they should try such a stupid maneuver again.

Professor Fouad Ajami has an excellent article in the WSJ discussing the ‘Bush legacy’ in light of the recent history and current circumstance of the Middle East.

A good article on earmarks in the Daily Standard. "President Bush seems to grasp the issue. A year ago he publicly complained that "over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate. They are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law."" Earmarks are corrupting and, unfortunately, a wholly bipartisan addiction.

A public opinion poll in Pakistan sponsored by the Univ. of Md. shows troubling results.

Of all the countries in the Middle East, I probably know the least about Yemen. But when the country’s major newspaper fete’s a person for their liberal contributions to the country, it sounds promising.

A "Green attack" on the Inhofe Report is dissected at A Western Heart. All of this seems to have the Greens rattled. But the EU is poised to make its run at some economy busting climate change measures anyway. And as Richard North notes, he does not expect it to stop even "when we are sending icebreakers up the Thames as the world hurtles into yet another period of cooling."

Read More...

Summary only...

Cal Thomas Asks When Will We Debate the Religion of Global Warming

More global warming heresy, this time from Cal Thomas who notes the lack of any substantive response from them the global warming camp - whom he classifies as "secular fundamentalists" - to the Senate Minority Report dissenting from global warming dogma. What ad hominem response there has been is particularly ironic given the difference in funding for scientists who support global warming as well as the sources of their funding. Then again, as Thomas notes, hypocrisy is not a big concern for the members of the Church of Global Warming.

You don't have to be religious to qualify as a fundamentalist. You can be Al Gore, the messiah figure for the global warming cult, whose followers truly believe their gospel of imminent extermination in a Noah-like flood, if we don't immediately change our carbon polluting ways.

One of the traits of a cult is its refusal to consider any evidence that might disprove the faith. And so it is doubtful the global warming cultists will be moved by 400 scientists, many of whom, according to the Washington Times, "are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis." In a report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, these scientists cast doubt on a "scientific consensus" that global warming caused by humans endangers the planet.

Like most cultists, the true believers struck back, not by debating science, but by charging that a small number of the scientists mentioned in the report have taken money from the petroleum industry. A spokeswoman for Al Gore said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobile Corp. Exxon Mobile spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying, "the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories."

The pro-global warming cultists enjoy a huge money advantage. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, noted in an EPW report how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions: "In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $50 billion (US) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," he wrote on June 18, 2007. The $19 million spent on research that debunks the global warming faith pales in comparison.

. . . Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over." In fact, the debate hasn't even begun because the global warming cultists won't debate. Despite numerous challenges, Al Gore has refused to debate the issue with any credible scientist who is a skeptic. Shouldn't the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize be willing to debate such an important issue? What does he have to fear? If his theory cannot stand up to scientific inquiry and skepticism, it needs to be exposed as a false religion and himself as a false prophet before he and his followers force us to change the way we live and alter the prosperous society that generations of Americans have built.

Gore and his disciples will still be living in their big houses, driving gas-guzzling cars and flying in private jets that leave carbon footprints as large as Bigfoot's, while most of us will be forced to drive tiny automobiles and live in huts resembling the Third World. But hypocrisy is just one of many traits displayed by secular fundamentalists like Gore.

Before adopting any faith, the agendas of the people attempting to impose it, along with the beliefs held by them and their disciples, should be considered. Gore and company are big government liberals who think government is the answer to all of our problems, including problems they create. In fact, as Ronald Reagan often said, in too many cases government is the problem. . .

Read the article here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate Minority Report On Global Warming

On December 20, 2007 the minority members of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee released a report, "U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007; Senate Report Debunks "Consensus." Or as I like to think of it, Senator Inhofe's version of "Satanic Verses." As the report states in the introduction:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust." In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement.

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated. . .

Do read the entire report.

On a personal note, I fully support actions that combine economic sense and environmentalism. The environmental movement has been grossly ill-served by those, such as the Goracle, who have hijacked the movement and turned it into a doomsday religion and those, such as the EU, who are using it as a vehicle for furthering socialism.

Read More...

Summary only...

Things Heat Up In The Anti-Capitalist Church Of Global Warming But Cool Down Everywhere Else

Science is only tangential to the orthodoxy of the Church Global Warming, the new religion of modern socialists and communists who have as their holy Trinity High Priest Goracle, the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the European Union. Its interesting to note that the real religions are not too happy with this increasingly apocalyptic secular one. The Pope weighed in the other day "on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology."

But that will not stop the socialist acolytes of the Goracle. The new religion is beloved by socialists because they can use it to justify those things they hold most precious - centralizing power, regulating people's lives, redistributing wealth - and lastly because its a very rich gravy train for its clerics.

Indeed, the EU has now gone so far as to make global warming a part of their new Constitution created by the Treaty of Lisbon yesterday. By Article 4 of the new Constitution, the EU takes primacy to pass laws on the "environment." The Constitution amends Article 179 to explicitly recognize the problem of "climate change" as an "environmental" problem and provides the EU with a constitutional mandate to take appropriate measures to "deal with" it. What mischief can the EU do with this new constitutional mandate? Europeans are already choking from massive over-regulation by the EU as described in this article by Der Spiegel. Something tells me they haven't seen anything yet.

And now, the holy trinity is holding their Holy Mass in Bali. And its no surprise that the homily at the Bali Conference was a call for a massive transfer of wealth from the US and rich capitalist nations to the UN for redistribution:

A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent "a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations." "Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs," Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled "A Global CO2 Tax."

Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm Schwank said at least "$10-$40 billion dollars per year" could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the "polluters pay principle." The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to "contribute significantly more to this global fund," Schwank explained. He also added, "It is very essential to tax coal."

The UN was presented with a new report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled "Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation." The report stated there was an "urgent need" for a global tax in order for "damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world." The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would "flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund" to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

There’s an economy buster for you - not to mention an invitation to fraud and graft on an unheard of scale. Yet High Priest Goracle has given such taxes his personal blessing. And lest you think this anything other than an anti-capitalist, socialist movement . . .

A common theme [at the Bali Conference] was that the "solutions" to climate change that are being posed by many governments, such as nuclear power, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and biofuels are false and are not rooted in justice. Another point was that as this current economic system got us here in the first place, a climate change response must . . . [provide for] a redistribution of wealth and resources.

And here . . .

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday. "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources," said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

One can almost hear their slogans now. No doubt it would be a mixing a bit of the Goracle with classical Karl Marx - say . . . "Global Warming Victims of the World Unite."

But while there are a lot of things heating up inside the Church of Global Warming, one of them is not the temperature. "The latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level. . . [Further] the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934."

And remember the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap. That has long been a centerpiece of the "proof" of global warming. Yet now, it seems the problem is not CO2 from above causing the problem, it magma seeping up through the earth’s crust underneath Greenland.

To believe in global warming, one has to accept the climate models used to predict the coming catastrophe as accurate. But it appears that might be a bit of a problem.

. . . [R]esearchers compared predictions of 22 widely used climate "models" — elaborate schematics that try to forecast how the global weather system will behave — with actual readings gathered by surface stations, weather balloons and orbiting satellites over the past three decades.

The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere —1 to 6 miles above the Earth’s surface — would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions. . .

Indeed, these and a host of similar facts led a lot of heretical scientists who dissent from the global warming orthodoxy to attend the service at Bali where, in the spirit science, they were welcomed into the nave and asked to air their disagreements to the participants so that a searching discussion could ensue, all in the names of scientific advancement and intellectual honesty.

HAH

These scientists were less welcome at the IPCC's Bali Conference than an infestation of crab lice. The IPCC censored all "dissenting voices at Bali," preventing dissenting scientists from addressing the press and "from participating in panel discussions, side events, and exhibits." This from the (Senator) Inhofe EPW Press Blog (a font of global warming heresty):

An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added.

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. . .

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies.

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog.

Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." . . .

"Most of the people here [at the UN conference] have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.

And there is more. A group of 100 scientists sent the following letter to the UN Secretary General yesterday, raising concerns both about the faulty "science" underlying global warming and the manner in which it is politicized and edited by the IPCC:

Dec. 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon Secretary-General,
United Nations
New York, N.Y.

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, . . .

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts. . . .

Do read the entire letter. The High Church of Global Warming is the penultimate socialist scam. While it is very wise to conserve energy and to look for cheaper and replenishable fuel sources, that is not what is driving the socialists of global warming. We have to keep a close eye on this religion. They are passing the collection plate and demanding far more than a tithe. But, then again, what’s a little questionable science when there is world socialism, the destruction of capitalism and the redistribution of American wealth to be had. Let us all bow our heads and regulate.

Read More...

Summary only...