Betraying the planet, and science


by Sunny
1st July, 2009 at 11:46 am    

Paul Krugman delivers a brutal smackdown in the New York Times over the climate change bill going through the US congress:

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Well of course. The right-wing nutjobs who have been denying global warming for years believe that precisely. They do actually believe its a massive socialist conspiracy by greenies to restrict their rights. That’s why these people should be treated as and seen on par with Holocaust deniers and 9/11 Troofers.

Unfortunately there are a significant number of these nut-jobs among the incoming Tory administration too. Which is a bad thing unless you remember the UK has diddly-squat influence on global negotiations around climate change. The Obama administration is not going far enough, but at least it’s on our side.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Environmentalism






38 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    New blog post: Betraying the planet, and science http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5013


  2. Is Tap Water Really Dangerous, is the Question on Everyone’s Mind These Days | Chemical Agents

    [...] Pickled Politics » Betraying the planet, and science [...]




  1. Shatterface — on 1st July, 2009 at 12:51 pm  

    Climate denialists and troofers are generally self-serving or genuine idiots, holocaust deniers tend to be motivated by something closer to pure evil.

    Otherwise, I agree.

  2. cjcjc — on 1st July, 2009 at 1:56 pm  

    They do actually believe its a massive socialist conspiracy by greenies to restrict their rights.

    And then what would the motorbike-owning Marrakech-holidaying classes do…?

    Take the train to Scotland like me I suppose!

    I don’t believe it is a hoax, but I do believe it is a delusion, and that (even if not) that mitigation rather than “prevention” (which that Gaia bloke tells us is impossible anyway) is the far less costly way to proceed.

    NB still willing to bet £1000 with anyone who want to take me up on it that in 100 months’ time we will have gotten over it.

  3. Sunny — on 1st July, 2009 at 2:25 pm  

    NB still willing to bet £1000 with anyone who want to take me up on it that in 100 months’ time we will have gotten over it.

    You still trying to make arguments through bets which are not credible hey cjcjc?

  4. Cjcjc — on 1st July, 2009 at 3:43 pm  

    Eh?

    I know it’s not an argument.

    It’s just a bet.

    But it’s revealing I’ve had no takers.

  5. Shatterface — on 1st July, 2009 at 4:11 pm  

    Okay, so how about 100 of us chip in a tenner each?

  6. cjcjc — on 1st July, 2009 at 4:22 pm  

    Look – you guys think this is a “no brainer” right?
    That I am either “self-serving” or a “genuine idiot”?
    So take me up on it.
    You are so confident that you should be grabbing an evens bet with both hands.

    Obviously we will then need to agree on the specification.

  7. Sunny — on 1st July, 2009 at 5:23 pm  

    No no, I’ll take you up on it! For sure.

    Name me the exact conditions, and then let’s meet so we can certify this is for real. And we’ll also need someone neutral who can adjudicate and take the money etc.

  8. MaidMarian — on 1st July, 2009 at 5:48 pm  

    Sunny – no, I’m sorry, but this is wanting the world to be as you say it should be rather than as it is.

    To my mind even the use of the term ‘denial’ with all its connocations – shows a huge disjoint from wider society. It is as though some greens simply can not understand day to day behaviour, the desire to have families, a resistance to the unwanted pushes of government and pressure groups, our aspirations to travel, wealth and the like. The message that is given off is that such actions are reckless and fly in the face of ‘the science.’

    Sunny, greens may not mean to sound as if they feel that life decisions should be explicitly made on the basis of ‘projections’ drawn up in far away labs, but that is what is comes over as. It is as if what people and their families need (and demand) matters not one jot.

    It is almost getting to the point where environmenalists see ‘the science’ almost as religion. Indeed, were it not for the smoke they would probably be demanding burnings at the stake.

    This steadfast refusal to recognise, still less engage the substance disagreements ie exactly where the tag of eco-fascism comes from. ‘That’s why these people should be treated as and seen on par with Holocaust deniers and 9/11 Troofers.’ No – they should be treated as citizens with valid, political and rational objections.

    I’ll sit back and wait for my pasting from dave s now.

  9. cjcjc — on 1st July, 2009 at 5:55 pm  

    Excellent – I’ll have a think about the conditions

  10. damon — on 1st July, 2009 at 6:44 pm  

    MaidMarian just above. I agree so much. But am ignorant (like most people) of the science.
    What I do know is that this ”personal carbon fotprint” and higher international air fares is (also) an ethnic issue.
    My Irish immigrant parents were (every summer in the 1970′s) driving the ”gas guzzler” from London to Ireland (over the Irish sea by ferry) to our traditional ”homelands”of aunties and uncles and cousins and grannies.

    I’ve been listening to ”Dotun Adebayo on Sunday” on my local radio on a sunday evening, and he and some of his guests (from for example the Jamicain Tourist Board) have a different opinion about inter-continental air travel.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2006/08/24/dotun_sunday_feature.shtml

    The opinion seems to be that there should be ever widening links between the UK and its ethnic dispora.
    To bring (even third or fourth generation) black English kids, back to places that their ancestors came from. On a regular basis.
    I’m sure this applies to Asians too.
    It certainly does to the ones who I know best, and are regulasrly flying ”home”. Or parents and family are frlying east to west.

    I wonder how all this works when you tot it up in your ‘carbon calculator’?
    http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx
    So we calculate what the Glastonbury festival’s carbon footprint was.
    And you calculate what was your personal ‘footprint’ for attending it.
    To be honest, I’d like a better explainatiion than Sunny’s at the the start of this thread when he talked of ”The right-wing nutjobs”.

    Do any of you drink from water cooler bottles (typically 17 litres) that are delivered by truck?
    I have worked as a driver for a company that has a fleet of these vehicles.
    This fleet of truck are jamming up your town’s roads and belching out diesel fumes every day.
    And for what? The same product you can get out of a tap.
    Their’s a good place to start. Boycott your local water cooler.

  11. asquith — on 1st July, 2009 at 6:46 pm  

    MaidMarian, do you accept that humanity is contributing to climate change or not? Because it seems to me that you’re making a political claim (straight out of Spiked as well) rather than engaging with whether it is actually happening. Do you agree with Paul Broun’s assertions?

    Politically- you speak of ordinary people. What about ordinary people’s desire to drink clean water, eat healthy food & have access to open spaces for their own & their children’s enjoyment? What, for that matter, about ordinary people in poorer parts of the world who are losing their livelihoods, their homes & often their lives as a result of environmental problems?

  12. asquith — on 1st July, 2009 at 6:47 pm  

    Damon, I drink only tap water. Bottling is bad news, I agree. Not sure what point you’re trying to make though.

  13. Shatterface — on 1st July, 2009 at 7:01 pm  

    ‘It is as though some greens simply can not understand day to day behaviour, the desire to have families, a resistance to the unwanted pushes of government and pressure groups, our aspirations to travel, wealth and the like.’

    Those factors might effect policies, but they don’t matter where the science is concerned. Truth isn’t decided on it’s convenience.

    ‘It is almost getting to the point where environmenalists see ‘the science’ almost as religion.’

    I’ve yet to see any religion which can be demonstrated in the laboratory, but I have seen experiments in which CO2 absorbs infr-red radiation.

    The fact that there’s a corelation of belief in god and climate change denial should indicate that their beliefs are not evidence-based.

    Claiming science is a religion because most intelligent people ‘believe’ in it is to equivocate over the meaning of the word ‘believe’. There’s a difference between the ‘belief’ the world orbits the sun and the ‘belief’ god put it there for his own mysterious reasons.

  14. marvin — on 1st July, 2009 at 7:09 pm  

    Minimizing or denying Hitler’s attempt to wipe out the entire race of Jews (only managing about 6 million) is the SAME as a person who doesn’t believe in man made climate change?

    Hahahaha. Classic. Why stop there? Surely they are evil incarnate? Perhaps Sunny and cohorts could start some sort of left wing militia, take out these evilest of evil fuckers with a righteous slash of the neck? Off with their heads? Bring on the guillotine! Viva revolution! Etc

    Can I just say… get a grip. Cheers :)

  15. the lord — on 1st July, 2009 at 7:14 pm  

    Get a grip? Why don’t you go and tell Chris Mounsey et al to get a grip, because they’re the ones who are irrational and hysterical over the issue.

  16. marvin — on 1st July, 2009 at 7:50 pm  

    They do seem irrational and a bit delusional. Exactly like their most ardent opponents – you lot.

    Equating people who argue against man made climate change with the most evil regime on the planet that put millions of people on to gas chambers is just fucking sick. If anyone said that in front of me, I might just punch in them in the face.

    Like I said. Get a fucking grip. Just because others are ignorant twats doesn’t mean it’s fine for you to be one too.

    Yes climate change is probably being accelerated by humanity (95% of scientists say so), we need to deal with that in a calm and efficient way. Not by reducing opponents to people not worthy of life. It’s extreme reactionary behaviour like that that is very much counter-productive.

    It makes me want to say well, f*** you, and f*** the environment, I’m going to use plastic bags, not recycle and buy a gas guzzling 4×4, just to piss off the left wing pompous wing bags.

    I won’t because I understand that that too is counter-productive and ‘cutting my nose off to spite my face’. Despite my obvious irritation at these ridiculous and offensive analogies with the holocaust, I won’t equate you lot with supporters of genocide. That would be irrational. And offensive.

  17. MaidMarian — on 1st July, 2009 at 8:43 pm  

    asquith (11) – ‘MaidMarian, do you accept that humanity is contributing to climate change or not?’

    Yes.

  18. Naadir Jeewa — on 1st July, 2009 at 9:47 pm  

    @cjcjc

    “I don’t believe it is a hoax, but I do believe it is a delusion, and that (even if not) that mitigation rather than “prevention” (which that Gaia bloke tells us is impossible anyway) is the far less costly way to proceed.”

    Mitigation is prevention. You must mean adaptation. Mitigation AND adaptation are the key strategies to dealing with anthropogenic global warming in IPCC Working Group 3 and Stern Report docs.

  19. Sunny — on 2nd July, 2009 at 1:12 am  

    Minimizing or denying Hitler’s attempt to wipe out the entire race of Jews (only managing about 6 million) is the SAME as a person who doesn’t believe in man made climate change?

    What do you think the impact will be marvin if we tipped over and the climate started irreversibly started heating up? If that happens 6 million is peanuts – that’s like half a city in India.

  20. douglas clark — on 2nd July, 2009 at 2:41 am  

    cjcjc,

    Name the terms of your ‘bet’, and if I think they are fair, I’m in for a grand of your cash too.

    More seriously than that, I see climate change deniers as a sort of cult. It is probably not true that most climate scientists have ganged up on damons’ parents:

    MaidMarian just above. I agree so much. But am ignorant (like most people) of the science.
    What I do know is that this ”personal carbon fotprint” and higher international air fares is (also) an ethnic issue.

    My Irish immigrant parents were (every summer in the 1970’s) driving the ”gas guzzler” from London to Ireland (over the Irish sea by ferry) to our traditional ”homelands”of aunties and uncles and cousins and grannies.

    That is, frankly, to put the cart before the horse. No-one is saying that people shouldn’t travel, what my side of the arguement is saying is that there are better ways of travelling, based, say on a hydrogen economy for instance. It is certainly not an ‘ethnic issue’.

    It might be an ethnic issue to allow climate change to continue unabated, given the likely effects on low lying areas such as Bangladesh, or more immediately folk living on islands in the Indian Ocean.

    I find it alarming, no, I find it downright scary that your comment includes the line:

    But am ignorant (like most people) of the science.

    Well, if you don’t know what you are talking about, why should anyone listen to you?

    I suggest you go and educate yourself.

    You could start here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

    See? It’s called, start-here.

    I can supply you with lots of other reading material if you are genuinely interested and not just another head in the sand sort of guy. Like the frankly crazy MaidMarian, who is a denialist of the first order. Whaddaya say if you don’t like something that contradicts your freedom to be a tit? You say:

    It is almost getting to the point where environmenalists see ‘the science’ almost as religion.

    No.

    The science is open to debate. So far, no credible scientist has managed to disprove global warming. And, believe me, I know the denialists inside out, and not one is credible.

    For a dose of contrary evidence, specifically about the mind set of denialists you should consider reading these two sites:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

    though that frankly would be throwing you to the lions.

    Franki Bi has an amusing analysis of the process of denial here:

    http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/towards-a-genealogy-of-climate-conspiracy-theories/

    albeit in a satirical and contemptuous manner.

    Who’d have thunk that climate denial is an evolving idiocy? And, yet, it is. When one target fades, another arises. You don’t hear a lot about it being a ‘Soviet Plot’ these days, do you?

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  21. douglas clark — on 2nd July, 2009 at 3:01 am  

    cjcjc,

    On your bet.

    The trend line on global warming is pretty obvious to anyone that isn’t a ‘born again’ climate sceptic. I suspect your bet would be based on no statistical global warming over the next twenty months. So, I assume you have calculated your ‘bet’ on the basis that you think it is fifty fifty or thereabouts that there will be no rise in global temperatures in that time scale.

    Your bet might pay off. But the better bet would be on a twenty year time scale, without any amelioration which now appears to be on the political agenda.

    However, I await, with interest your exact terms….

    For you are trying to confuse a long term trend with a fluctuation.

    What about a bet that glaciers retreat a tiny bit over the next twenty four months, taking seasonal variations into account? No, that doesn’t work as a bet either. For the evidence of glacial retreat is measured in decades, not months. Despite it being as clear as day.

  22. Cjcjc — on 2nd July, 2009 at 5:48 am  

    Douglas – you had your chance to take me up on it before, only I recall you offered to put up a tenner against my grand. Hardly a sign of great confidence!
    You’re too late, unless Sunny wants to share with you.

  23. cjcjc — on 2nd July, 2009 at 7:20 am  

    On the bet terms – the timescale I had in mind was the 100 months or 89 months or whatever it is we have left now to “save the planet”.

    Though I understand why you might want to push it out as far as you can since we are already undershooting the models aren’t we?

    Anyway, Sunny if you are agreeable, that is essentially the bet – no statistical warming between now and (say) 2017. We can thrash out the precise metrics between oursleves. Also suggest proceeds to charity?

    Meanwhile I feel the “cult” to which I belong is steadily growing:

    “The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

    The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html

    Yes Douglas, no wonder you want to push the bet horizon out as far as possible!

  24. marvin — on 2nd July, 2009 at 5:19 pm  

    What do you think the impact will be marvin if we tipped over and the climate started irreversibly started heating up? If that happens 6 million is peanuts – that’s like half a city in India.

    Sure. Not recycling your newspaper = the same as genocide. No wonder people are getting turned off by climate change hysteria…

  25. Sunny — on 2nd July, 2009 at 5:35 pm  

    The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N.

    You do know that Jim Inhofe is near clinically insane?

  26. Sunny — on 2nd July, 2009 at 5:36 pm  

    ExxonMobil funding climate sceptic groups:

    http://bit.ly/3QsrEr

    I wonder if they also fund Spiked Online…

  27. damon — on 2nd July, 2009 at 5:39 pm  

    Douglas Clark, I’m just saying that I find some of the politics (and morality) around this issue a bit tiresome. On another website last year, one guy gave me the titles a few books to look for, and I got the ”Ghia” one (and read as much as much as I could … but it was so complex – that you’d have to be a scientist to understand it).

    On the radio programme last week when they talked of the rises in arirfairs to places like the Caribbean and Africa, people thought that green taxes to deter flying WAS an ethnic issue.
    People from Britain (of overseas origin) taking longhaul flights ”back home” is getting evermore, a common occurence.
    If you are of Caribbean origin in England and you have never been to see where your family had come from … soon you will be regarded as a know-nothing bumpkin completely unaware of his culture.
    On another radio talk show in the week (the Vanessa Feltz show), three hours was filled with parents of African and Caribbean origin ringing in to say how sending their British children to Africa or the Caribbean was essential to their education.
    The story got started by the news that Dianne Abbot was sending her 16 year old son to Ghana to attend sixth form at school. To get in touch with his African roots.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6590369.ece
    My point is that the anti-flying green lobbies are diametrically opposed to this mass flying of people back and forwards across the globe, for tourism or family and cultural reasons.

    The two things are diametrically opposed. All those British people of Pakistani origin who make trips back east, it seems (listening to the likes of ”Plane Stupid”) should stop being so selfish.

    That would be the logical reason behind the strong green arguments against building the facilities (like runways) that are needed to deal with this demand.

    Governments have to sort this all out, and I’m mot going to get all pious and make an issue of my own personal carbon footprint, (which is what I find some of the green ”direct action types” do.)

  28. marvin — on 2nd July, 2009 at 5:42 pm  

    My point is I wish people would stop saying that a person who disagrees with a scientific theory about the weather (even if it’s 95% likely to be true) is the same as as a Nazi who denies the holocaust. Call them all the names under the sun if you want for their ignorance, but please don’t pretend that idiocy or scientific ignorance is in the same ballpark as nazi ideology!!

  29. Cjcjc — on 2nd July, 2009 at 6:10 pm  

    Sunny I have sent you a message re the bet via the “contact editors” box.

  30. Riz Din — on 4th July, 2009 at 10:10 am  

    I blame the hippies. If the ‘right’ discovered warming, they would have taken better ownership and the hippies would have chimed in and pushed the issue. Instead, the hippies pushed the idea long before it had scientific credibility, raising awareness but creating a wall of rational resistance based on a lack of credible evidence. When the pendulum of evidence swung in favour of the hippies it was too late, as the mindset of many on the right had become so anti-warming that they couldn’t, well, warm to the issue.

    I just wanted to put a spin on the issue that blames the hippies….I don’t trust them. I am not alone.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CtMNHbVJlM

  31. Riz Din — on 4th July, 2009 at 10:14 am  

    Marvin, you are like sooo right. If we take 100 equal scientists and 95 of them say the world is warming and 5 don’t, then you can say that warming is 95% likely to be true. That doesn’t make the 5% wrong, it makes them necessary for the percentage to work.

    Riz (Senior Professor, Wonky School of Mathemetatics)

  32. douglas clark — on 4th July, 2009 at 11:50 am  

    damon,

    I am not an out and out ‘lets all return to the Stone Age’ sort of person. But I do think there is a problem that has to be recognised and dealt with. It is within human control to make adjustments to the way we live and use technology.

    Do you remember ‘pea souper fogs’? Well, I do, and the Clean Air Acts cleaned them away pretty quickly. If we get our act together there is no particular reason we can’t put a lot of the carbon economy behind us. It doesn’t need to be 100%, it just needs to be reduced to a lower, sustainable level, than it’s at right now. The economic drivers are certainly not pushing us in that direction at the moment.

    Dunno if they strictly count as an ‘ethnic minority’ or not but the people of the Maldives are setting aside some of their tourist revenue to buy a ‘new homeland’ when – not if – it sinks beneath the waves. Well, that’ll be one less destination for the tourists Jumbo Jets, eh!

    The problem frankly is that the time scale is longer than we’re used to having to think about, which is my real arguement with the likes of cjcjc.

    It is perhaps unfair, but most denialists strike me as Nero like figures.

  33. JB21UK — on 5th July, 2009 at 12:22 am  

    My point is I wish people would stop saying that a person who disagrees with a scientific theory about the weather (even if it’s 95% likely to be true) is the same as as a Nazi who denies the holocaust.

    Do you accept that if Climate Change is true, the consequences would be extremely severe? Just take sea level rises, loss of food and water sources, and the resultant spread of disease and conflicts; it is not hard to come to the conclusion that if a significant temperature rise occurs the fatalities could be significantly greater than 6 million, and primarily among other national and ethnic groups. How would people looking back view our generation in that circumstance? Most of the citizens of Germany didn’t believe in what occurring, but they looked the other way because it was in their interest to do so.

  34. marvin — on 5th July, 2009 at 11:36 am  

    Do you accept that if Climate Change is true, the consequences would be extremely severe?Do you accept that if Climate Change is true, the consequences would be extremely severe?

    We have no accurate predictions.

    But yes it may well be the case.

    And what the f*** are you able to do about it? Do you really think even 1,000,000 people were to have meat-free Mondays as Paul Cartney suggests, it’s going to make the slightest difference to the coming apocalypse?

    Do you accept that if Climate Change is true, the consequences would be extremely severe, and you or I or anyone else shaking with rage, Guardian in one hand, organic lettuce in the other, that you can make the slightest difference by effectively screaming at everyone else to LISTEN, just LISTEN?!!111!!

    Perhaps you might have even taken to jetting around the world using cheap air travel, to educate the cretinous hordes…

    The other harsh fact that you lefties and climate change enthusiasts need to learn, apart from your absolute impotence, your utter uselessness in the face of the inevitable, you cannot force change, and yes you might convince a few more of the apathetic middle-class to try harder at recycling and perhaps buy an hybrid car, but these changes, even if every middle class member of all Western countries were to go green, insulate their homes, recycle, reduce energy consumption – these changes combined would be still be minuscule.

    The planet is overpopulated, just by existing you are contributing to climate change. The biggest single thing all of you can do that is within your power: DO NOT HAVE CHILDREN. Hear that? Lead by example – stop polluting the planet. Don’t reproduce. Don’t use the internet. Don’t drive anywhere. Don’t use electrical appliances. And try and keep your hot-air to a minimum.

    Ta.

  35. Edna Welthorpe — on 16th July, 2009 at 10:46 am  

    I’m old enough to remember when the intelligent children of well-educated parents used to sob themselves to sleep worrying about the impending nuclear war which everyone then thought just a matter of time – and at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis we came pretty damn close* to being fried, as some of you older readers may remember.

    So let us all look on the bright side!

    Now the well-nourished kiddies of Modern Parents [cf. the pages of 'Viz'] sob themselves to sleep about the fate of drowning polar bears and endangered snow leopards.

    * One Russian account is that the Commissar aboard a Soviet sub drew his gun to prevent the captain firing a torpedo at a U.S. blockade vessel … but these tales are often made up by journalists over a few drinks.

    If true, however, the Commissar in question deserves a gold medal the sze of a skating rink; he might – might – have been the man who saved the earth.

  36. Edna Welthorpe — on 16th July, 2009 at 10:49 am  

    Marvin ought to start preaching the virtues of homicide-and-cannibalism as an obvious answer to both overpopulation and food shortages.

    Haiti would be a good place to start.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.