[Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office is cripplingBritain

Andreas Schou ophite at gmail.com
Thu Jan 6 00:01:13 PST 2011 

Paul --

You're an intelligent, well-educated person who has engaged in a
willful, years-long campaign to make yourself ignorant.

That's sad.

-- ACS

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with this.  Pollution is a cause I can get behind.  Conservation
> of resources I can also get behind.
>
> Classifying CO2 as a pollutant, I cannot, though.  But I am for reducing
> real pollution that is causing known harm to ourselves and the environment.
>
> Paul
>
> Andy Boyd wrote:
>> Try this analogy.
>> Would you let the exhuast from your car be piped into your house?
>> I imagine the answer is no for obvious reasons.
>>
>> the earth is the home to all humans and of course all life.
>>
>> the stuff we pump into the atmosphere is not good whether it is causing
>> climate change or not.
>>
>> It would seem prudent to limit this as much as possible...
>>
>> Andy Boyd
>> Manager/Education Coordinator
>> Moscow Recycling
>> 208 882 0590
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office is
>> cripplingBritain
>>
>>
>> Suppose you're right -- which I don't believe -- that the data is
>> flawed and that the belief in global warning is completely irrational.
>> What follows? Does it follow that we can't use the beliefs of global
>> warming theorists as a basis for passing laws that restrict behavior?
>> Is your view that laws must be based on scientific evidence that is
>> absolutely certain?
>>
>> Now maybe this is something I can wrap my head around! If this is your
>> view than you should be completely against laws based on moral or
>> religious beliefs. Is that your view? That laws should be based on
>> reason and evidence and nothing more? Again, this is an attitude I can
>> agree with.
>>
>> Now if you don't think there is anything wrong with, say, someone
>> passing a law on the basis of a personal religious belief, then what
>> does the issue of scientific evidence have to do with the global
>> warming agenda? Why does science and evidence matter here when it
>> comes to policy decisions but not elsewhere, not in fact EVERYWHERE
>> else? What is so special about this particular issue that it needs
>> scientific evidence to support it or it should be ignored altogether?
>>
>> Again, I think the evidence is there -- or enough of it at any rate.
>> But at the very least there is a lot more evidence that CO2 emission
>> is causally related to a rise in world temperature than that gay or
>> lesbian unions are harmful to the moral and social fabric of the
>> country, so harmful that they should be prohibited. Not that the right
>> to marry whomever you damn well please is as important as the "right"
>> to drive whatever you damn well please, but I'm just saying.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's not like I'm tearing through intricately detailed publications
>>> looking
>>> for anything at all that might be wrong with their rock solid research,
>>> finding maybe one in a dozen spelled something wrong.
>>>
>>> Looking at an increase in CO2 from 280 to around 390 ppm made me wonder
>>> how
>>> big of an effect that could actually have. I mean, for each million
>>> particles of air, we're throwing out 110 nitrogen molecules (dropping it
>>> from 780900 to 779790 or whatever) and adding in 110 CO2 ones. That lead
>>> me
>>> to look at greenhouses.
>>>
>>> Learning about the greenhouse effect as a practical thing (i.e. how does
>>> an
>>> actual greenhouse heat up it's air), the glass holding the air in place
>>> does
>>> far more than CO2 does to warm it.
>>>
>>> Of course, it's a big planet, and small changes over time can affect
>>> climate. How do they compare to natural processes, still not understood?
>>> We're coming out of an Ice Age, and locally we are recovering from the
>>> Little Ice Age (at least we were, until they tried to get rid of the LIA
>>> and
>>> the Medieval Warm Period with their Hockey Stick). CO2 is probably helping
>>> this along, but how much? Nobody seems to know, because nobody is looking
>>> at natural processes with the same fervor they are looking at CO2.
>>>
>>> Looking into global climate models made me immediately skeptical for a
>>> variety of reasons about their conclusions. It turns out they aren't
>>> trying
>>> to model the physics and seeing how close it matches the real world, they
>>> are assuming that global warming is happening and are modeling scenarios
>>> based on that assumption. All these models are worthless, because they
>>> don't model clouds, which have much more of an effect than CO2 does.
>>>
>>> Looking at the temperature record led me to surfacestations.org which
>>> showed
>>> me that quality control is not their highest priority. Continually
>>> watching
>>> historical measurements be adjusted every fricking month made some alarms
>>> go
>>> off. No where can you find the original data, before any adjustments, nor
>>> can you find anything about how they are doing their adjustments. What
>>> procedure are they using? What experiments have they conducted to verify
>>> them? All I see is a slow movement towards increasing the recent temps and
>>> downplaying any earlier higher temps. It's crazy.
>>>
>>> Looking for quantified amounts declaring what CO2 increases will bring led
>>> me to the IPCC's own numbers. Given no feedbacks, expect an increase of
>>> about 1.2C for a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial times. So how do we
>>> get those catastrophic scenarios? Assume massive positive feedbacks. More
>>> and more research is coming in from the field showing smaller positive or
>>> negative feedbacks in nature on-going, but does that get the climate
>>> modelers to change their model inputs? No.
>>>
>>> I could go on, but what's the point? You choose to believe some guy in a
>>> white smock that has "scientist" emblazoned on his lapel. Hell, there are
>>> very few people out there that even have a bachelor's degree in climate
>>> science, because it's so new of a field.
>>>
>>> In answer to your question about what's different about climate as
>>> compared
>>> to medicine, car mechanics, etc, here is what is different:
>>>
>>> Climate, by definition, requires decades of measurements just to get a
>>> baseline. It's similar to the geological sciences in this regard. It's
>>> horribly complex, because it's basically the aggregate of weather, which
>>> is
>>> the field that inspired the development of chaos mathematics. So many
>>> things are affected by so many other things that modeling it reliably is
>>> still a few decades off. You can't easily do experiments in the climate
>>> sciences that can really be finished before your career is over,
>>> especially
>>> if you are incorporating new measurements that have no history
>>> before-hand.
>>> Pharmaceutical researchers might have to wait a few years for the results
>>> of a study. Car mechanics can take the damn thing apart and physically see
>>> what is happening. Climate scientists might have to wait decades for their
>>> results to come back. That's why they rely on modeling so much - without a
>>> time machine, your options are greatly limited. Also, climate science is
>>> young. Almost nobody was doing it before the 1970's. That's around 40
>>> years in a science that measures things on decadal time scales.
>>>
>>> So, with the money-changers frothing at the mouth over a carbon credit
>>> scheme and politicians looking for any excuse to take over control of how
>>> much energy people use, I don't think that "trust us, we're scientists" is
>>> a
>>> reasonable approach to take at this point in time.
>>>
>>> Not that I expect anyone to agree with me.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>>> The man point is if you apply this same level of skepticism toward
>>>> anything, it will lose. We can't know anything for certain. If certainty
>>>> is
>>>> the standard, you shouldn't believe anything. End if story.
>>>>
>>>> It's the perfect approach for maintaining irrational beliefs that can't
>>>> be
>>>> sustained with a more realistic method, one that asks which among a set
>>>> of
>>>> options is best. (On this matter, check out Wilson's own skeptically
>>>> inspired epistemology.)
>>>>
>>>> Nonetheless not all beliefs are equal. So pardon me if, in the case of
>>>> empirical beliefs, I side with the folks who are in the best position to
>>>> know: the scientists who are trained to study climate. Pardon me if I
>>>> ignore
>>>> your misuse of skeptical reasoning since it would undermine anything you
>>>> had
>>>> to offer as well.
>>>>
>>>> My method, on the other hand, works for you too when it comes to
>>>> medicine,
>>>> car mechanics, and most other areas. If there is something different
>>>> about
>>>> the climate you've been unsuccessful in showing what it is. What is it?
>>>>
>>>> In matters empirical, our best bet is to listen to those with the most
>>>> training. Not perfect, as you'll continue to note, but reasonable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 4, 2011, at 9:30 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Speaking if which, I still say the anti-climate change rhetoric is much
>>>>>> worse than the climate change rhetoric. Yet you (Paul) never mention
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Because they aren't the ones in a position of power trying to foist some
>>>>> kind of carbon credit scheme on us. Yes, there are plenty of kooks in
>>>>> the
>>>>> "climate deniers" camp. People who have jumped on the political
>>>>> bandwagon
>>>>> because it feeds into their prejudices and is another bone of contention
>>>>> with their favorite enemies. I didn't join this camp, I simply started
>>>>> looking at things a little closer, without an approved list of ideas to
>>>>> follow sanctioned by the IPCC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, you can't draw ANY conclusions from bad rhetoric. It is a fallacy
>>>>>> to say "This is an invalid argument, so the conclusion must be false."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. That doesn't mean that
>>>>> I should give any more credence to the truth of a statement arrived at
>>>>> through bad rhetoric than I would any other random, unproven statement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue is, given everything we know what is the best course of
>>>>>> action?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, we've jumped too quickly to the stage where we think we
>>>>> have it all figured out. Which is ludicrous for such a soft and hard to
>>>>> pin
>>>>> down field as climatology, where experiments can and probably should
>>>>> last
>>>>> decades. So, I think we should put more money into the "other side" of
>>>>> the
>>>>> issue. That is, what role does natural variation play? The climate is
>>>>> effected to X% by CO2. What about the 100-X% that's left? How big is X,
>>>>> exactly? This is hard to argue for when asking for money, though,
>>>>> because
>>>>> there is no one to blame and no way to fine Mother Nature into slowing
>>>>> down
>>>>> on the warming. We might just learn a bit more about climate as a whole,
>>>>> though, if we didn't look at it so one-sided.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Status quo loses when you look at things this way. Changes should be
>>>>>> made for economic and environmental reasons. The real debate is how
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> change, and of what type?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not a big fan of "do something, anything!". It's just as easy to
>>>>> perform the wrong actions as it is to perform the right ones. We're not
>>>>> in
>>>>> danger of death by heat exhaustion in the next few years, so let's take
>>>>> the
>>>>> time to do this right. Let's multiply the number of temperature and
>>>>> other
>>>>> sensors world-wide by, say, 5. Let's get a crap-ton more ocean
>>>>> temperature
>>>>> sensors, and lets go out on the ice and measure the polar caps
>>>>> precisely.
>>>>> Antarctica, too, while we're at it. Let's get every single temperature
>>>>> station in the world to save their raw, unadjusted readings (historical
>>>>> and
>>>>> current) in a place that is publicly available. Lets put CO2 sensors all
>>>>> over the world, in every kind of habitat, and let's measure exactly how
>>>>> much
>>>>> CO2 is taken in and produced over the year. Let's use the money that the
>>>>> rich bastards were going to use to buy carbon credits to fund it, if we
>>>>> have
>>>>> to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every time I look into this closer, I start to see the men behind the
>>>>> curtain pulling the levers and pushing the knobs more clearly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com
>>>>>> <mailto:rforce2003 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>> You do know that the Daily Telegraph is the UK's equivalent of Fox
>>>>>>> News? Consider the source.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if climate change would have become a such political football
>>>>>>> if Al Gore hadn't become a spokesperson? Suppose George Bush
>>>>>>> had...Naaaaaah!
>>>>>>> Ron Force
>>>>>>> Moscow Idaho USA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> *From:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>>
>>>>>>> *To:* Vision2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>>
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tue, January 4, 2011 11:32:00 AM
>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office is
>>>>>>> crippling
>>>>>>> Britain
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was an article in the Telegraph last week that I think
>>>>>>> underscores the problems that the climate change community has with
>>>>>>> overconfidence. I've posted that article below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis
>>>>>>> have been suffering from a case of having blinders on. If you look at
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> history page on the IPCC website
>>>>>>> (http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml), you'll
>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>> that their role as they describe it is to "assess on a comprehensive,
>>>>>>> objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and
>>>>>>> socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific
>>>>>>> basis of
>>>>>>> risk of *human-induced* climate change, its potential impacts and
>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>> for adaptation and mitigation." Note that their role as they see it is
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> look at human-induced climate change ONLY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr. Roy Spencer, a climate change "denier" whose blog I often follow,
>>>>>>> states in one blog entry:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Twice I have testified in congress that unbiased funding on the
>>>>>>> subject of the causes of warming would be much closer to a reality if
>>>>>>> 50% of
>>>>>>> that money was devoted to finding /natural/ reasons for climate
>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>> Currently, that kind of research is /almost non-existent/."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, here is the article mentioned in the subject
>>>>>>> (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8223165/The-green-hijack-of-the-Met-Office-is-crippling-Britain.html):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The green hijack of the Met Office is crippling Britain
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Met Office's commitment to warmist orthodoxy means it
>>>>>>> drastically underestimates the chances of a big freeze, says
>>>>>>> Christopher Booker
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By Christopher Booker
>>>>>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/>
>>>>>>> 8:00AM
>>>>>>> GMT 26 Dec 2010
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By far the biggest story of recent days, of course, has been the
>>>>>>> astonishing chaos inflicted, to a greater or lesser extent, on all of
>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>> lives by the fact that we are not only enjoying what is predicted to
>>>>>>> be the
>>>>>>> coldest December since records began in 1659, but also the harshest of
>>>>>>> three
>>>>>>> freezing winters in a row. We all know the disaster stories –
>>>>>>> thousands of
>>>>>>> motorists trapped for hours on paralysed motorways, days of misery at
>>>>>>> Heathrow, rail passengers marooned in unheated carriages for up to 17
>>>>>>> hours.
>>>>>>> But central to all this – as the cry goes up: “Why wasn’t Britain
>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>> prepared?” – has been the bizarre role of the Met Office.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We might start with the strange affair of the Quarmby Review. Shortly
>>>>>>> after Philip Hammond became Transport Secretary last May, he
>>>>>>> commissioned
>>>>>>> David Quarmby, a former head of the Strategic Rail Authority, to look
>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> how we might avoid a repeat of last winter’s disruption. In July and
>>>>>>> again
>>>>>>> in October, Mr Quarmby produced two reports on “The Resilience of
>>>>>>> England’s
>>>>>>> Transport System in Winter”; and at the start of this month, after our
>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>> major snowfall, Mr Quarmby and two colleagues were asked to produce an
>>>>>>> “audit” of their earlier findings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The essence of their message was that they had consulted the Met
>>>>>>> Office, which advised them that, despite two harsh winters in
>>>>>>> succession,
>>>>>>> these were “random events”, the chances of which, after our long
>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>> run of mild winters, were only 20 to one. Similarly, they were told in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> summer, the odds against a third such winter were still only 20 to
>>>>>>> one. So
>>>>>>> it might not be wise to spend billions of pounds preparing for another
>>>>>>> “random event”, when its likelihood was so small. Following this
>>>>>>> logic, if
>>>>>>> the odds against a hard winter two years ago were only 20 to one, it
>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>> have been thought that the odds against a third such “random event”
>>>>>>> were not
>>>>>>> 20 to one but 20 x 20 x 20, or 8,000 to one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What seems completely to have passed Mr Quarmby by, however, is the
>>>>>>> fact that in these past three years the Met Office’s forecasting
>>>>>>> record has
>>>>>>> become a national joke. Ever since it predicted a summer warmer and
>>>>>>> drier
>>>>>>> than average in 2007 – followed by some of the worst floods in living
>>>>>>> memory
>>>>>>> – its forecasts have been so unerringly wrong that even the chief
>>>>>>> adviser to
>>>>>>> our Transport Secretary might have noticed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Met Office’s forecasts of warmer-than-average summers and winters
>>>>>>> have been so consistently at 180 degrees to the truth that, earlier
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> year, it conceded that it was dropping seasonal forecasting. Hence,
>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>> week, the Met Office issued a categorical denial to the Global Warming
>>>>>>> Policy Foundation that it had made any forecast for this winter.
>>>>>>> Immediately, however, several blogs, led by Autonomous Mind, produced
>>>>>>> evidence from the Met Office website that in October it did indeed
>>>>>>> publish a
>>>>>>> forecast for December, January and February. This indicated that they
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> be significantly warmer than last year, and that there was only “a
>>>>>>> very much
>>>>>>> smaller chance of average or below-average temperatures”. So the Met
>>>>>>> Office
>>>>>>> has not only been caught out yet again getting it horribly wrong
>>>>>>> (always in
>>>>>>> the same direction), it was even prepared to deny it had said such a
>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>> at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The real question, however, is why has the Met Office become so
>>>>>>> astonishingly bad at doing the job for which it is paid nearly £200
>>>>>>> million
>>>>>>> a year – in a way which has become so stupendously damaging to our
>>>>>>> country?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The answer is that in the past 20 years, as can be seen from its
>>>>>>> website, the Met Office has been hijacked from its proper role to
>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>> wholly subservient to its obsession with global warming. (At one time
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> even changed its name to the Met Office “for Weather and Climate
>>>>>>> Change”.)
>>>>>>> This all began when its then-director John Houghton became one of the
>>>>>>> world’s most influential promoters of the warmist gospel. He, more
>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>> anyone else, was responsible for setting up the UN’s Intergovernmental
>>>>>>> Panel
>>>>>>> on Climate Change and remained at the top of it for 13 years. It was
>>>>>>> he who,
>>>>>>> in 1990, launched the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Change,
>>>>>>> closely
>>>>>>> linked to the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia (CRU), at the
>>>>>>> centre of
>>>>>>> last year’s Climategate row, which showed how the little group of
>>>>>>> scientists
>>>>>>> at the heart of the IPCC had been prepared to bend their data and to
>>>>>>> suppress any dissent from warming orthodoxy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason why the Met Office gets its forecasts so hopelessly wrong
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> that they are based on those same computer models on which the IPCC
>>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>> relies to predict the world’s climate in 100 years time. They are
>>>>>>> programmed
>>>>>>> on the assumption that, as CO2 rises, so temperatures must inexorably
>>>>>>> follow. For 17 years this seemed plausible, because the world did
>>>>>>> appear to
>>>>>>> be getting warmer. We all became familiar with those warmer winters
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> earlier springs, which the warmists were quick to exploit to promote
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> message – as when Dr David Viner of the CRU famously predicted to The
>>>>>>> Independent in 2000 that “within a few years winter snowfall will be a
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> rare and exciting event”. (Last week, that article from 10 years ago
>>>>>>> was the
>>>>>>> most viewed item on The Independent’s website.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But in 2007, the computer models got caught out, failing to predict a
>>>>>>> temporary plunge in global temperatures of 0.7C, more than the net
>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>> of the 20th century. Much of the northern hemisphere suffered what was
>>>>>>> called in North America “the winter from hell”. Even though
>>>>>>> temperatures did
>>>>>>> rise again, in the winter of 2008/9 this happened again, only worse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Met Office simply went into denial. Its senior climate change
>>>>>>> official, Peter Stott, said in March 2009 that the trend towards
>>>>>>> milder
>>>>>>> winters was likely to continue. There would not be another winter like
>>>>>>> 1962/3 “for 1,000 years or more”. Last winter was colder still. And
>>>>>>> now we
>>>>>>> have another even more savage “random event”, for which we are even
>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>> prepared. (The Taxpayers’ Alliance revealed last week that councils
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> actually ordered less salt this winter than last.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The consequences of all this are profound. Those who rule over our
>>>>>>> lives have been carried off into a cloud-cuckoo-land for which no one
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> more responsible than the zealots at the Met Office, subordinating all
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> does to their dotty belief system. Significantly, its chairman, Robert
>>>>>>> Napier, is not a weatherman but a “climate activist”, previously head
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> WWF-UK, one of our leading warmist campaigning groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At one end of this colossal diversion of national resources,
>>>>>>> permeating
>>>>>>> every level of government, we have the hapless Mr Quarmby, who feels
>>>>>>> obliged
>>>>>>> to follow the Met Office and advise that the present freeze is a
>>>>>>> “random
>>>>>>> event” and calls for no special responses – with the results we see on
>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>> side. At the other, fixated by the same belief system, we have our
>>>>>>> Climate
>>>>>>> Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, hoping we can somehow keep our lights
>>>>>>> on and
>>>>>>> our economy running by spending hundreds of billions of pounds on
>>>>>>> thousands
>>>>>>> more windmills.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More than once in the past week, as our power stations have been
>>>>>>> thrashed way beyond normal peak power demand, the contribution of wind
>>>>>>> turbines has been so small that it has registered as 0 per cent. (See
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> website for the New Electricity Trading Arrangements: Google “neta
>>>>>>> electricity summary page”, and find the table of “source by fuel type”.)
>>>>>>> At
>>>>>>> the heart of all this greenie make-believe that has our political
>>>>>>> class in
>>>>>>> its thrall has been the hijacking of the Met Office from its proper
>>>>>>> role.
>>>>>>> It’s no longer just a national joke: it is turning into a national
>>>>>>> catastrophe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list