Telegraph wrong about IPCC report

The Sunday Telegraph has published an inaccurate story about the forthcoming IPCC fourth assessment report:

In a final draft of its fourth assessment report, to be published in February, the panel reports that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated in the past five years. It also predicts that temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, bringing more frequent heat waves and storms.

The Telegraph report is obviously wrong. The IPCC report just summarizes the scientific literature. There has not been any paper published that would justify reducing the estimate. The reporter has confused climate sensitivity (how much warming you eventually get from doubling CO2), with predicted warming in 2100. In the third assessment report the top end of the range for sensitivity was 4.5, while the top end for warming by 2100 was 5.8. These numbers haven’t changed
in the new report, all that has happened is that the reporter has mistaken the 4.5 number for sensitivity as a new estimate for warming and reported it as a reduction from 5.8. Naturally, all the usual folk are spreading the bogus story across the net, including, of course, Inhofe.

The depressing thing is that this has all happened before. In September, the Australian published a story making exactly the same error.

Comments

  1. #1 Eli Rabett
    December 11, 2006

    Eli explains the current outbreak of nuttery . This is known as muddying the ground for release of the AR4.

  2. #2 Dano
    December 11, 2006

    On the seventh day of Christmas, a denialist gave to me:
    Seven denialists a-shilling,
    Six Oilmen a-lying,
    Fiiiiive Inhofe rants,
    Four blogging Frauditors,
    3 petro-geologists,
    2 think-tank wanks
    and a CO2 is life video clip.

    I can hear RP Jr harrumphing now as the think-tank wanks flood his comment board.

    Septic Haiku:

    The Denialist:
    Hoping their nature hatred
    Doesn’t hurt wallet.

    Wishing facts away,
    Scientist speaks and dupe says:
    No, I can’t hear you.

    Best,

    D

  3. #3 Meyrick Kirby
    December 11, 2006

    Yes, whoever anonymous is, I appreciate his/her sense of humour.

  4. #4 Eli Rabett
    December 11, 2006

    We have renamed our poet laureate, anonymuse

  5. #5 Paul
    December 12, 2006

    In my various encounters with Monckton via email he started strongly hinting that the 4th IPCC report was going to be significantly influenced by his work! Apparently the IPCC has already adjusted their estimates in his direction. I wonder if there is any connection here…

  6. #6 ElGringo
    December 12, 2006

    There’s another inaccuracy in the following paragraph of the article:

    “It [the IPCC] also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.”

    It is hard to believe the IPCC would have reached such an unscientific conclusion. This sloppy redaction by the article’s author wrongly suggests the IPCC has now concluded that the human footprint on global warming is less than previously thought and that is simply not true.

    The Overall Human Effect on Global Warming is not less than had been thought previously as the article argues; its’ EFFECT has been the same as predicted before but has been partially countered by the aerosols-induced cooling effect.

  7. #7 M. Simon
    December 12, 2006

    There is global warming on Mars.

    I blame the oil companies.

  8. #8 pough
    December 12, 2006

    Is any of the warming of the Mars globe anthropogenic? No? Oh. Well, nevermind then I guess.

  9. #9 Geoff
    December 12, 2006

    And is any of that warming on Mars based on observations of one region around the South Polar Cap and not global at all? Gaaagh! Debunking is more fun when it’s at least a little bit hard.

  10. #10 philk
    December 13, 2006

    if the ice caps on Mars receed from excessive solar intensity that intensity is felt over the planet, ice recession is measureable

    “global warming” on earth is not supported globally either…thickening ice caps in antartica…no hurricanes off the US coast…it is a bit dry in OZ.

    if the sun is hotter than it’s been in 1000 years…it was as hot or nearly as hot 1000 years ago…the alps are hotter than they’ve been in 1000 years…point being it was hot a 1000 years ago without all these nasty people, pollutants or capitalists…guess it was the whale farts..

    what happened to that ice age that was supposed to show up as reported in the 70′s by Newsweek? What about all those vineyards the Poms had back in the 1100′s or so…thought it was too cold to grow (good) grapes there…

  11. #11 Ian Gould
    December 13, 2006

    You know, after a while you get tired of debunking the same old nonsense over and over again.

    So thanks to Philk for giving us some brand-new nonsense o debunk?

    “What about all those vineyards the Poms had back in the 1100′s or so…”

    http://www.english-wine.com/

    I’m also someowhat curious as to how a reduction in rainfall in Australia disproves global warming but that’s what happens when you you just repeat nonsensical claims.

    Let’s see what the Australian Bureau of Meterorology has to say on the subject:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi

    Oh look a 100 year documented warming trend – published by an organisation funded by the climate skeptics of the Howard government.

    Still, the high priests of PhilK.’s religion have told him that the sacred truth of capitalism is under threat (it isn;t) so mere facts must give way to “This guy down the pub told me…”

  12. #12 Ian Gould
    December 13, 2006

    Oh and rejected the theory of global warming because the entire globe isn’t warming uniformly is a rhetorical rort roughly on pare with insisting there was no global flu pandemic in 1918 because there were no cases recorded from Pitcairn Island.

  13. #13 Abe G.
    December 13, 2006

    Who is this climatologist, Dr. Newsweek?

  14. #14 Wadard
    December 14, 2006

    The perfect gift for your global warming skeptic friends and family, and of course, enemies, for this Christmas and beyond. :::[Global Cool Watch: Mug a Global Warming Skeptic]

  15. #15 CobblyWorlds
    December 14, 2006

    Like Geoff said above: “Debunking is more fun when it’s at least a little bit hard.” Quite. The only way to sustain a contrarist stance now is by a mix of truthiness and suspension of rational faculties (or lack thereof in the first place).

    This whole so-called debate is getting very, very, boring. Global warming on Mars? Is that the best they can come up with? Or is it the glacial CO2 lag issue? What do they expect given that CO2 isn’t the initiating driver? Perhaps they disagree with causality? Struth!

    Or perhaps Philk: “point being it was hot a 1000 years ago without all these nasty people, pollutants or capitalists…guess it was the whale farts” So because birds have flown for millions of years using aerofoils, planes cannot really be made by humans. Congratulations Philk, if you do go on to prove black=white then be wary of extending your logic to zebra crossings.

    Oh yeah, the Telegraph? Bored. Bored. Bored. Bored. Bored. Bored. Bored!!!

    I do love the 12 days of Christmas post on Rabbett Run though. :)

  16. #16 Mark Buehner
    December 14, 2006

    I think the point is AGW, or at least the activists pimping it, are doing their level best to make the theory unfalsifiable. If a glacier receeds its obviously global warming caused by humans. If another glacier advances, well thats all part of global warming too. If you are going to hysterically point to a given report on a melting glacier and spread it all over the media, you can hardly get the vapors when a skeptic plays the anecdotal evidence card on the other side.

  17. #17 Michael Seward
    December 14, 2006

    Today, glaciologists use lasers, satellites, and complex radar systems to measure the thickness of the Earth’s ice to within inches. This means we don’t have to rely on the anecdotal evidence to know that glaciers around the world are melting at increasing rates, well in line with expectations of a world warmed by increasing levels of human caused greenhouse gases. There is really no excuse for denying the facts, Mark Buehner.

  18. #18 Dano
    December 14, 2006

    There is really no excuse for denying the facts, Mark Buehner.

    Sure there is, Michael: the facts don’t support the worldview. Unless you expect the denialist to be rational, then yes, there is no excuse.

    Best,

    D

  19. #19 CobblyWorlds
    December 15, 2006

    “If a glacier receeds its obviously global warming caused by humans. If another glacier advances, well thats all part of global warming too. ”

    Mechanism Mark, Mechanism, Mechanism, Mechanism!

    In an area like the central mass of Antarctica what effect on ice melt will warming be having now? Very little, because when you’re running at say -30degC an increase of a degree doesn’t cause melt. BUT more water vapour due to higher temperatures because of the enhanced GHG effect may well imply an increase in precipitation, which would lead to a mass increase.

    In the case of a glacier spanning a range of temperatures, such as a mountain glacier, the warming at the lower ranges may well be enough to increase mass loss by melt. The upper range may well be high enough to remain cold enough year round to escape warming. The lower range in part underpins the glacier and it’s retreat then has an impact on it’s rate of movement. So it starts to slide down the mountain more rapidly bringing more of it’s mass into the warmer low level zone.

    (I know temperature affects sublimation rates – but I don’t want to get too complex.)

    These issues are complicated and making broad statements such as your fails to account for that complexity. The fact is we can posit reasonable explanations that link the bulk of glacial changes to the observed warming, and we can be pretty sure that the last 30 years of 0.6deg warming is down to human CO2 emissions, with warming prior to that also being reasonably attirbutable in part to CO2 emissions.

    Can we be sure that every single retreating or expanding ice mass is due to enhanced GHG warming? No we cannot. But we have a worldwide pattern of glacial retreat, with many of the most notable exceptions having a reasonable GHG linked explanation. So we’re veering back into the area of the lung cancer tobacco link. You cannot necessarily say that any one instance of lung cancer is definitely due to smoking, but that does not challenge the statistical correlation, which is underpinned by an available mechanism. i.e. Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer. In fact in the case of glaciers we can assert more certainty about changes in certain glaciers than we can about any specfic lung cancer case. For example studies on some of Greenland’s glaciers (e.g. “rapid synchronous melt” in different areas – I forget the full ref) combined with studies of the gross increase of ocean heat content, and attribution studies of the observed global warming.

    PS anecdotal = 1 smoker dying of lung cancer or 1 glacier retreating. Anecdotal does not dismiss the wider patterns, which in both cases are very significant. Your use of the word anecdotal here either implies a lack of comprehension or a deliberate and perjorative use of the word. I don’t care which, you are demonstrably wrong.

    Have a nice day. :)

  20. #20 JS
    December 24, 2006

    Since it appears that “just” about everyone on this website is so sure that a catastrophe is imminent, becasue of a trace gas in the atmosphere. What should we do about it, can we do anything that doesn’t limit growth.

    I am a skeptic, not a denialist. Denial: ( from m-w.com; refusal to admit the truth or reality (as of a statement or charge)), since I’m not in denial that the earth is getting warmer, just no one has convinced me that we are the main cause, and/or if we can do anything about it. At least nothing that has any measurable effect on the earth’s climate.

    But of course, I’m just an “idiot” Engineer, so please all, give me all of your infinite wisdom, and convince me that “we” are the main cause. And that we can do something about it.

    I’ll be waiting patiently, and if the sea rises 10 feet in the next few years, I’ll have beachfront property. Woo Hoo!

    Last I looked, things are better in a warmer climate than a colder one(IMHO). Why is it when people die in a heat wave, it’s global warmings fault, but when people die when it’s too cold, it hardly makes the news. Just curious?

  21. #21 guthrie
    December 24, 2006

    It is unfair and innacurate to say that we are predicting immediate catastrophe. We’re talking about mounting problems over a period of decades, not the next ten years. Yes, some extremists think we’re all going to die. MEanwhile, the scientists get on with their jobs, and the evidence is clear that we are the major cause of global warming, and that it will lead to high costs.
    You seem to want us to explain all the science behind it. Instead, since I dont have time, I’ll give you some links, and you can have a look through them yourself and decide whether you want to believe them or not.
    On the fact that its CO2 from fossil fuels:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

    On sea level rise:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/catastrophic-sea-level-rise-more-evidence-from-the-ice-sheets/

    Species extinctions as a result of Global warming:
    http://cns.utexas.edu/communications/2006/11/global_species.asp

    http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2004/01/12/never_mind_that_boiling_kettle.php

  22. #22 ian Gould
    December 24, 2006

    “Since it appears that “just” about everyone on this website is so sure that a catastrophe is imminent, becasue of a trace gas in the atmosphere. What should we do about it, can we do anything that doesn’t limit growth.”

    Let me ask a question in return JS, if we were facing catastrophe and had to “limit growth” to prevent it, would you support doing so?

    Or is economic growth somehow hoyl and unquestionable?

    “Last I looked, things are better in a warmer climate than a colder one”

    Where would you rather live – Sweden or Congo? Canada or Bangladseh?

  23. #23 Eli Rabett
    December 25, 2006

    Hmm. Seems that Santa let the concern trolls off early. To translate from the political

    “they are a bit cleverer than real trolls but at every turn seem to suggest the most obviously damaging or boneheaded or offensive thing they can. These are easier to catch than you might imagine: since it hardly matters whether someone is an obvious concern troll or just an unmitigated idiot, sometimes it doesn’t pay to think about it too hard.”

  24. #24 JS
    December 27, 2006

    No I would never limit economic growth under any circumstance. The free market system is the best of all worlds. Either the public buys it or it does not. There is no grey area.

    Eli-ROFLMAO

    guthrie, I’ve read all that stuff, for the past several years in fact. And I’m still not convinced we are the main reason for any of the current warming trend, for all we know we are still coming out of the last ice age, and this is a blip on the geological time frame.

    Climate is driven by: 1) Solar Radiation 2) Earth’s orbital roatation 3) the circulaiton and chemistry of the atmosphere 4) polar ice caps and glaciers 5) deep ocean currents and volcanic events 6) human factors.

    In all of these, there are hundreds of variables, and trying to pin the warming mainly on what comes out of your tailpipe or a smoke stack, is near impossible to determine regardless of what some supercomputer says (GIGO), IMHO.

    “Discounting that anything else happens, there would be a nice simple relationship (between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures). But other things do happen.” – Kirk Maasch, climatologist, University of Maine.

    Climate can evolve over millions of years or change abruptly, in very few years. And if we are in the midst of a change, can you really know anything?

    Just my two cents?

  25. #25 JS
    December 28, 2006

    And I would rather live where it’s warmer, if Bangledesh and the Congo had the economy of the US, I wouldn’t have any problem living there.

    I would rather spend billions of dollars providing clean water and sanitation to third world countries than spend 1 cent on the mythical global warming beast.

  26. #26 Dano
    December 28, 2006

    And I would rather live where it’s warmer, if Bangledesh and the Congo had the economy of the US, I wouldn’t have any problem living there.

    Even if the ecosystems (upon which economies are dependent) in those yummy warmer areas collapsed/altered and couldn’t support your lovely “free market”?

    Oh, wait: you didn’t think about that. Never mind your opinions then.

    Best,

    D

  27. #27 Ian Gould
    December 28, 2006

    “No I would never limit economic growth under any circumstance. The free market system is the best of all worlds.”

    The voice of true fanaticism.

    Let’s repeal all the current pollution laws while we’re at it?

    Hell, why stop there – legalise free enterprise murder, end the government monopoly.

  28. #28 Eli Rabett
    December 28, 2006

    The point, JS, is you don’t.

  29. #29 JS
    December 29, 2006

    Eli, Eli, Eli – Dude you make me chuckle. Is that the best you can come up with. I expected better of you than that. Wow, am I impressed! Whew, you made me sure look dumb there, gosh darn. I’m an idiot becasue I don’t follow the green religion. Thank you very much, because I feel the same about you.

    Where did I say repeal all of the environmental laws? I don’t believe I said that anywhere in my post (please quote me if I did), just because I happen to like free markets and libertarian ideals (it’s all that Ayn Rand and Adam Smith reading), doesn’t make me want to pollute everything. Although as long as there are people who do, I get to keep my job cleaning up the messes. Hell, if it wasn’t for environmental laws, I’d have to find a different type of work, and every day there are more and more and more messes to clean up.

    However, if, might, and could are strong words to hedge your bets on? Are you so sure that ecosystems are going to collapse? Do you have proof?

    That’s what I love about you guys, so strong with your opinions, but never truly want to listen to another point of view. You are of course 100% correct, and there is no chance that anyone else is right. Fanatic: From the merriam-webster dictionary: marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion. Man this sounds a whole lot like most of you on this site, read some of your posts.

    I just want less government intrusion in my daily life. I’m a global warming skeptic (not a denier, Eli, look up the word or if you like I can post it here for you). I try and read everything on this issue to make up my mind, and if someone can sway me with good arguments (and not name calling which is all most of you do), I’ll change my mind. Each side makes some good valid points, and as I said in one of my other posts, we’re probably the cause of some warming, I just don’t think you pin everything on us, there is just too much variability in our climate. So trying to limit CO2 is a feel good exercise, nothing more.

    As I said, I would rather spend billions trying to give clean water and sanitation to third world countries rather than spend it on the global warming beast.

    “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” – Any politician.

  30. #30 Ian Gould
    December 29, 2006

    JS: Where did I say repeal all of the environmental laws?

    I suppose when one talk the sheer volume of nonsense that you do it’s difficult to keep track.

    What you wrote was: “The free market system is the best of all worlds.”

    Pollution laws are a deviation from free market ideals therefore, by your reasoning, abolishing them would make the world a better place since it would more closely approach “the best of all possible worlds”.

    JS: “As I said, I would rather spend billions trying to give clean water and sanitation to third world countries rather than spend it on the global warming beast.”

    This a particularly odious and hypocritical bit of nonsense spouted by ultra-rightists who in every other circumstance fight tooth and nail against any form of economic aid to the developing because – there’s that chorus again “it’s socialism and its a deviation from the free markets.”

    Obviously if the free market says that the best livelihood available to a Khmer girl is as a child prostitute we must not interfere with its sacred decrees.

  31. #31 Ian Gould
    December 29, 2006

    “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” – Any politician.

    “Government is evil and corrupt and taxation is theft – but I still want a police force, public roads, national defence; fire and ambulance services; water and sewage services; publicly-funded schools and hand-outs to the particular industry I work in. I just don’t to have to pay for any of it.” Any libertarian.

  32. #32 Eli Rabett
    December 29, 2006

    Well JS there are any number of charities and NGOs who would appreciate your large donation to improve water and sanitation in areas where needed. Put your money where your keyboard is fella.

    However, not only is Ian correct when he writes that your little fingers behind the back pledge to support such things is a particularly odious and hypocritical bit of nonsense spouted by ultra-rightists who in every other circumstance fight tooth and nail against any form of economic aid to the developing but it also is the can’t chew gum and walk fallacy. Now, perhaps you are not intellectually capable of such immagining, seems to be a genetic lack among your ilk, but both and more can be done given the will. Free rider disease is a big problem tho.

  33. #33 z
    December 29, 2006

    “No I would never limit economic growth under any circumstance. The free market system is the best of all worlds.”

    I’ll believe somebody who says that the day they advocate a free market for national defense. “I’m signing up with United Army/Navy, they’re almost as good as ACME DeathDealers, and barely half the price”.

  34. #34 z
    December 29, 2006

    “There is really no excuse for denying the facts, Mark Buehner.”

    But the facts have a left-wing bias. Only fantasy can be relied upon to be properly rightwing.

  35. #35 z
    December 29, 2006

    “I would rather spend billions of dollars providing clean water and sanitation to third world countries than spend 1 cent on the mythical global warming beast.”

    Of course, you have no intention of providing either, and have never done so.

  36. #36 Ian Gould
    December 29, 2006

    Assuming I’ve been JS ovr the head sufficiently with the falalcy of his “the free market always knows best” position. Let’s discuss the likely impact of action to address global warming on developing countries.

    Denialists liek ot claim that Kyoto will simply drive pollutign industries to non-annex B countries. There is actually little to no evidence for such a “pollution sanctuary” effect (or at least there wasn’t several years ago when I last researched the issue.) But if that claim were true, it’d have the net effect of transferring lots of money and jobs to the developign world- a resutl JS claism he wants to see.

    Now moving on to reality – most developing countries are net oil importers. High oil prices hurt them and finding alternairves (like say locally-produced bio-fuels combined with plug-in hybrids)would increase local employment and improve their current account position.

    At the same time, the Clean Development Mechanism (parto f the much-maligned Kyoto Protocol) is directed billions of dollars in private sector investment into the developing world.

    Js might also want to reflct on the 20,000 or so Chinese miners who die in coal mine accidents every year and the millions of women across the developing world who die every year from lung and throat cancer linked to the burning of dung as a cooking fuel.

    If J really cares abotu the lvies of people in the developign world, he’ll support measures aimed at reducing Chinese coal use by replacing it with hydro, wind, biomass and nuclear energy and he’ll support programs to repalce dung (a highly inneficent fuel w=hich produces large amoutns of CO2) with kerosene or butane.

  37. #37 js
    January 15, 2007

    Eli – Can you guys come up with anything but ad hominen attacks. Free rider disease, genetic lack, wow, LMAO, I’m stunned. Last I looked I pay taxes every year, seems like my money goes to federal government and supports programs which I neither need, want or support. And I keep paying the taxes, been doing it for a long time now. Don’t plan on stopping anytime soon, either.

    I’m rightest, no I guess I’m leftist and I talk sheer nonesense. Is that the best you guys can come up with, I’m so impressed by your wit and wisdom. What’s next I must be a troll? I’m a shill for the Oil Companies, have I forgot anything. Oh yeah, I’m in denial. Not everything is black and white, there are shades of grey.

    Fellas, wind power is great when the wind blows, however, you can’t store the power for any length of time. No wind, no power, it’s that simple. I’m all for hydro power, but it appears that pretty much every dam in the US is going the way of the Dodo bird (at least in Maine), can’t disrupt nature for the benefit of man, heaven forbid. Let’s see, we’ve had rampant malaria in Africa for 30 years becasue of the DDT ban, so giving money to third world countries who keep their people in squaller, really don’t do much for me.

    Nuclear power would be fine as well, but that falls on deaf ears. Bio-fuels although great in theory take energy to make. From what I’ve read it’s takes more power to make bio-fuels than the energy you get out of it. Hydrogen power looks promosing but nothing I’ve seen makes it feasible yet.

    Environmental laws have their place, we just need to stop the fear and doom scenarios. Water is deadly if imbided in enough quantity. Ask the lady who just drank herself to death, sad, but what was she thinking? Life is better now than it’s ever been, we live longer, have more disposable income than our parents. If it wasn’t for the power of Chlorine (the greatest chemical ever found), we’d all live a lot shorter lives.

    I’m for the free market system as long as we don’t do so on the backs on the workers, there is a balance. You can stay with the free market ideals and still have some controls. But now the government is so big and unweilding, it’s out of control. My god, we have schools evacuated becasue a mercury thermometer broke.

    z- Do you have a point?

    Ian – I would have no problem with anything in your sentance. However, I don’t agree with socialism at all.

    By the way who do the millions in so-called Kyoto Protocol for Clean Development Mechanisms go to? I’m so sure that developing country leaders will be so willing to give the money thay reap from the Kyoto Protocol to their people. It’s happened so many times in the past.

    Actually Ian, I love you guys. You’re the reason I have a job. Being an Environmental Engineer is a great line of work, and I keep getting paid to clean up everyone’s mess. And with the bloated federal government,I just keep taking it to the bank. So I should probably thank all you guys. Keep up the good work!

    “Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without possessing merit. A politician is anyone who asks individuals to surrender part of their liberty – their power and privilege – to State, Masses, Mankind, Planet Earth, or whatever. This state, those masses, that mankind, and the planet will then be run by … politicians.-O’Rourke, P.J.”

    And being in a constant state of fear, keeps the sheeple in line. Have a wonderful time being in a state of constant fear.

    “I would prefer not to!-bartleby”

  38. #38 Dano
    January 15, 2007

    Pardon me, Eli, this topic is one of my favorites:

    Can you guys come up with anything but ad hominen attacks.

    “attacks”. Sure.

    Other issues with certain ideologies’ rhetoric:

    Definition of ad hominem.

    Ad hom: Your assertion is incorrect because you act like an idiot.

    NOT ad hom: your assertion is incorrect because of x, y, and z, and oh, by the way, you act like an idiot.

    HTH,

    D

  39. #39 Eli Rabett
    January 15, 2007

    Works for me

  40. #40 Ian Gould
    January 16, 2007

    “Ian – I would have no problem with anything in your sentance. However, I don’t agree with socialism at all.”

    Define socialism

  41. #41 Ian Gould
    January 16, 2007

    “By the way who do the millions in so-called Kyoto Protocol for Clean Development Mechanisms go to? I’m so sure that developing country leaders will be so willing to give the money thay reap from the Kyoto Protocol to their people. It’s happened so many times in the past.”

    CDM deals are deals, for the most part, between private firms in the devleoed world and private firms in the developing world with little or no government involvement.

    But don’t let the facts get in the way of you ideology.

    By the way, now that John McCain has re-introduced his Climate Stewardship Bill (which will probably pass both houses of Congress) I guess that makes him a socialist too.

  42. #42 Dano
    January 16, 2007

    Ben,

    your attendance at Greek fratboy parties to get lunch, while like certainly, like, dude is phat, could like be safer like dude if you like laid off the huhhuh like beer bong dude.

    You wouldn’t have to be such a big man that way.

    Best,

    D

  43. #43 Dano
    January 16, 2007

    whoops. wrong entry.