Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member CCUSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    7,675

    Cosmic Rays Blamed For Global Warming

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... warm11.xml - did



    Cosmic rays blamed for global warming


    By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
    Last Updated: 1:08am GMT 11/02/2007








    Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

    Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

    In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.


    High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

    Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

    This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

    He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

    The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century.

    Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.

    He said: "It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.

    "This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.

    advertisement
    "We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."

    Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.

    A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

    They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

    Mr Svensmark's results show that the rays produce electrically charged particles when they hit the atmosphere. He said: "These particles attract water molecules from the air and cause them to clump together until they condense into clouds."

    Mr Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming.

    Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth.

    He said: "Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.

    "Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted."

    Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as "tenuous".

    Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.

    Mr Harrison said: "I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small."

    But there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the effect may be genuine.

    Among them is Prof Bob Bingham, a clouds expert from the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils in Rutherford.

    He said: "It is a relatively new idea, but there is some evidence there for this effect on clouds."
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member CCUSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    7,675
    Here is another related article about glaciers not melting.

    http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/200 ... -breather/ -

    February 8, 2007, 4:08 pm
    Greenland’s Glaciers Take a Breather
    By John Tierney

    Tags: climate change, glaciers, Greenland, ice, sea level


    Helheim Glacier in southeast Greenland, pictured in 2005, is one of the two glaciers that have slowed down in their flow to the sea. (Photo: NASA/Wallops)Greenland isn’t melting as fast as we feared.
    It was big news when the rate of melting suddenly doubled in 2004 as ice sheets began moving more quickly into the sea. That inspired predictions of the imminent demise of Greenland’s ice — and a catastrophic rise in sea level. But a paper published online this afternoon by Science reports that two of the largest glaciers have suddenly slowed, bringing the rate of melting last year down to near the previous rate. At one glacier, Kangerdlugssuaq, “average thinning over the glacier during the summer of 2006 declined to near zero, with some apparent thickening in areas on the main trunk.”
    I asked the lead author of the paper, Ian Howat of the University of Washington, for some perspective. Here’s his take:
    Over the past few years there has been a major revolution in the way scientists think about ice sheet response to climate change. Previously, it was assumed that the big ice sheets react very slowly to climate, on the order of centuries to millenia. This is because surface melting and precipitation was thought to be the dominant way in which ice sheets gain and lose mass under changes in climate. However, over the past five years we have observed that the flow speed of the ice sheets, and therefore the rate at which the ice flows to ocean can change dramatically over very short time scales.
    By short, he means months or less.
    I also asked Dr. Howat about the argument that, since Greenland went through decades of relatively warm weather in the first half of the 20th century without catastrophic consequences, it’s unlikely that the glaciers are suddenly going to plunge into the ocean because of the current warming. His response:
    Greenland was about as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s, and many of the glaciers were smaller than they are now. This was a period of rapid glacier shrinkage world-wide, followed by at least partial re-expansion during a colder period from the 1950’s to the 1980’s. Of course, we don’t know very much about how the glacier dynamics changed then because we didn’t have satellites to observe it. However, it does suggest that large variations in ice sheet dynamics can occur from natural climate variability. The problem arises in the
    possibility that, due to anthropogenic warming, warm phases will become longer and more severe, so that each time the glaciers go through a period of retreat like this, they won’t fully grow back and they will retreat farther the next time.
    That sounds like a reasonable concern. But for now, with the glaciers moving in fits and starts, it’s wise not to make any sweeping predictions based on a few measurements. Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was criticized for not incorporating the recent scary data from Greenland into its long-range projections, these new results seem to vindicate its caution. As Dr. Howat and his co-authors warn: “Special care must be taken in how these and other mass-loss estimates are evaluated, particularly when extrapolating into the future because short-term spikes could yield erroneous long-term trends.”
    E-mail This
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    778
    "He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate."

    So what should we do? Stop eating fast food? You know, McDonald's forces me to eat its double cheeseburger, small fry, and large Sprite.

    Maybe we should stop having so many kids. Family quotas should be in order. This way we will have less carbon dioxide.

    Maybe I should stop working because I have to drive my SUV to get to work. Don't worry, my family and I will live off of the government's welfare system.

    Maybe I should turn off the heat and electricity, and start living by candlelight. We'll use the fireplace for warmth, but not too much. I don't want the smoke to create another hole in the ozone over Granbury. I'd go out and shoot animals for fur and food, but that would make another liberal group of zealots (PETA) upset, so I don't want that.

    Crud, this global warming thing just is too tough to figure out! So many different ideas and theories. Nothing concrete is proven. Some icebergs disappearing. Polar bears dying out in some region of Canada. Al Gore is nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize!!! It must be global warming. Or, how about this...IT IS GLOBAL INSANITY!!!

    If the earth is getting warmer, I believe we'll be intelligent enough to adapt. Besides, I can't bring myself to believe in anything being sold by the bitter-liberal, non-president salesman Albert Gore...though he did invent the internet.
    THE POOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IN MY AVATAR CROSSED OVER THE WRONG BORDER FENCE!!!

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Oak Island, North Mexolina
    Posts
    6,231
    time to get the aluminum foil back out.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Senior Member CCUSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    7,675
    Your too funny TyRANTosaur!


    I agree. There's more to this global warming hype that needs investigation.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Senior Member CCUSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    7,675
    HERE'S ANOTHER ARTICLE THAT HINTS TO NATURE NOT MAN TO BLAME.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 363818.ece -

    The Sunday TimesFebruary 11, 2007

    An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change


    Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
    When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

    The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

    Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

    Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Ad鬩e penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

    So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

    That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

    Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

    The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

    What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

    Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

    He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

    The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

    In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

    Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

    Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

    The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

    The Chilling Stars is published by Icon. It is available for £9.89 including postage from The Sunday Times Books First on 0870 165 8585
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #7
    Senior Member CCUSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    7,675
    AL GORE AND HIS FOLLOWERS ARE GOING TO HAVE CONCERTS BIGGER THAN LIVE AID

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ebad1e4a-b719-1 ... e2340.html


    Climate change concerts 'to dwarf Live Aid'
    By Carlos Grande and Fiona Harvey

    Published: February 8 2007 02:00 | Last updated: February 8 2007 02:00

    A series of concerts "bigger than Live Aid" is being planned for July, in a bid to put the subject of climate change before an audience of a global audience of 2bn.

    The event, scheduled for July 7, will feature co-ordinated film, music and television events in seven cities including London, Washington DC, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town and Kyoto, with major broadcasters and media owners aiming to extend the reach of public awareness of global warming.

    It is understood that former US vice-president Al Gore, whose movie An Inconvenient Truth brought climate change to cinema audiences last year, will announce the event tomorrow in London.

    The organisers hope to involve up to 2.5m people in events and link-ups at the cities involved, as well as other locations.

    They are promising a line-up of artists to "dwarf" that of the Live8 and Live Aid concerts, thought to be branded under the name "SOS".

    One person close to the event said yesterday: "The talent involved is just exponentially bigger because the issue itself is bigger.

    "Live Aid was about asking people to stump up money, this is about effecting systemic change.

    "The aim is not just to drive awareness but to get people to take action."

    These actions are likely to include personal pledges to reduce emissions, for instance by using energy efficient equipment or flying less.

    Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    South Western Ohio
    Posts
    5,278

  9. #9
    Senior Member gofer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,728
    http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowAr ... ate=070211

    WEBCommentary Editor
    Author: Bob Webster
    Bio: Bob Webster
    Date: February 11, 2007
    Print article -
    Email article link to friend(s) -

    Global Warming & the Natural Carbon Cycle of Plant Life


    Throughout this commentary the term "Chicken Little" refers to those who blindly support the assumption that human consumption of fossil fuel is responsible for global warming. I do not use the term lightly. Future commentary will address the gross misrepresentations in IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) climate change speculations and the discredited and grossly misused "hockey stick" graphic. This commentary will raise a few questions regarding what is a "natural" level for atmospheric CO2 and who is in a position to state with authority at any given moment in time what that level should be.

    Living Creatures Produce CO2

    Inevitably, in any discussion of a change in the amount of atmospheric CO2, the question arises, "what about the contribution to atmospheric CO2 as a consequence of the vast increase in human, animal and insect populations during the past hundred years?" The classic "Chicken Little" response to that question is that the creation of CO2 by humans, other animals, and insects is part of a closed system and does not affect the overall level of atmospheric CO2. Sounds plausible ... provide, of course, you don't question that convenient proposition.

    Consider that most of the Earth's land mass is found north of the equator. Consequently, the vast proportion of the human, animal, and insect populations are also found north of the equator. Now, for atmospheric CO2 to not be affected by the byproducts of human, animal, and insect life, the carbon that is consumed in the food chain would have to be readily available to absorb the excess CO2 produced (e.g., as humans exhale). However, since much of the northern hemisphere is dormant during the winter months, where is the plant life that will absorb any of the CO2 produced during those months? Well, you say, the food has to be grown somewhere so that is where the CO2 is going to be absorbed. Yet for that proposition to be true (and a valid reinforcement of the proposition that there is CO2 neutrality from the byproducts of human, animal, and insect life), then one would have to determine the impact on CO2 absorption when forests are cleared for land to produce more agricultural crops. Are food crops more or less capable of removing CO2 from the atmosphere?

    There is the further question of what is the impact of excess CO2 generated during dormant months for plants? It takes time for atmospheric circulation to distribute all that CO2 to a place where it might be absorbed. Does it have no impact on the greenhouse effect in the interim? If not, why not?

    Part of the answer to that question is that the overly simplistic greenhouse effect model often quoted by the typical "Chicken Little" proponents does not adequately describe the complex process that is known as the "greenhouse effect." For a more discussion of the greenhouse effect, see Meltdown - The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media (2004) by Patrick J. Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, and Global Warming, Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology (2005) by Professor Marcel Leroux, Directeur du Laboratoire de Climatologie, Risques Naturels, Environnement, Université Jean Moulin.

    So, while animals and insects consume carbon-based plants as part of their life cycle and produce CO2 as a byproduct of that cycle, it is by no means certain that there is no significant, if temporary, contribution to the level of atmospheric CO2 as a consequence of that cycle.

    Can Burning Fossil Fuels Raise Atmospheric CO2 to "Unprecedented" Levels?

    The entire thrust of the "Chicken Little" proponents of human-induced "global warming" (perhaps the most notable "Chicken Little" is Al Gore) is that humans, principally those in the United States, are raising atmospheric CO2 to "unprecedented" levels, thus producing "unprecedented" warming.

    But can that even be true?

    Think about it. What are fossil fuels, anyway? Coal, gas, oil, peat ... and what are these created from? Well, if you recall anything from General Science 101, you will remember that our "fossil" fuels were all at one time carbon-based plant life. Time, environment, pressure ... all converted the ancient plant life to today's fossil fuels.

    Well, since the Earth is a closed system, whatever CO2 is put into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels was, at one time, in the Earth's atmosphere as aerial fertilizer for those ancient plants. Such plants likely covered the planet's landmass at a time of more natural temperatures were prevalent. More natural temperatures would be those that are experienced when the Earth is not in an Ice Era, Ice Epoch, and Interglacial of an Ice Age, as Earth is currently. The vast portion of time since complex organisms arose on Earth about 2.5 billion years ago has seen climate regimes that typically have no surface ice at sea level anywhere on the planet (including the poles). Only at the highest mountaintops could year-round snow cover be found in the warm typical climate of Earth.

    How is it possible for "unprecedented" levels of atmospheric CO2 to be attributable to burning of fossil fuels when all the carbon released from that process was at one time part of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the first place?

    It is worth considering that the untapped supply of known coal reserves would supply energy needs for hundreds of years! Add to that the world's oil reserves, gas reserves, and untapped peat reserves, and there is a lot of carbon from plant life that is still locked in potential energy reserves.

    And all of that carbon was at one time or another in the Earth's atmosphere.

    Other than the time scale involved, how can the release of CO2 from fossil fuel burning be any different from the release of CO2 from human, animal, and insect life processes? In both cases, the carbon released was derived from plant life, which, in turn, absorbed its carbon from the atmosphere.

    What is the Natural Level of Atmospheric CO2?

    Which brings us to the question of what should be Earth's concentration of atmospheric CO2? Historically, CO2 levels have been dramatically higher (many times). Warming raises CO2 levels, which, in turn, can add to warming. But warm periods have always been followed by a cool period. It is the nature of Climate. What natural processes are at work to create the balance that has produced a continual climate change throughout Earth's history? Climatologists cannot tell you that. Yet they would have you believe they know that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 will be disastrous! On what basis? Wasn't true in the past, so why should it be true in the future?

    When "scientists" who use doctored data to grab headlines are aided by "journalists" whose agenda includes pushing a political policy of greater control over our lives, can we really expect that we're getting the true story about "global warming"?

    Who has authority to determine what levels of atmospheric CO2 are "normal"? Do we base our answer on what was true 100 years ago? Why? Why not base it on what has been the atmospheric concentration during the preponderance of time since complex living organisms existed on Earth?

    If there is one thing about atmospheric CO2 that we do know it is that there is far more that we are not being told and that, far from being a "pollutant" (as many "Chicken Littles" like to refer to CO2), carbon dioxide is the aerial fertilizer that plant life depends upon as much as humans depend on oxygen.

    Don't be misled by politicians whose knowledge of science and climatology is as shallow as their egos are monumental.

    Bob Webster
    Editor, WEBCommentary


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

    Biography - Bob Webster

    Bob Webster is a website designer who operates his business, Webster-Design, designing and maintaining custom websites and providing internet hosting services. He founded OpinioNet.com in 1997 as his first online commentary venture. After vision problems (since resolved) compelled him to sell OpinioNet to Tom Barrett (ConservativeTruth.org), he developed WEBCommentary.com in early 2004 as a project to create a site that allows contributing authors to easily post their articles while requiring little of his time for day to day site content maintenance.

    A descendent of Daniel Webster's brother Ezekiel, Bob has always had a strong interest in history, our Constitution, U.S. politics and law. A political conservative with objectivist and libertarian roots, he has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for every high school student.

    A lifelong interest in meteorology and climate spurned his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.


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

  10. #10
    Senior Member redbadger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The United States Of Invasion
    Posts
    3,005
    I think it is caused by all the hot air from La Raza and Mecha
    Never look at another flag. Remember, that behind Government, there is your country, and that you belong to her as you do belong to your own mother. Stand by her as you would stand by your own mother

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •