The evidence against manmade global warming
I will be posting periodic articles that show manmade global warming to be false. I will seldom if ever just post opinion. The stuff I'll post will, in general, have scientific proof.
========================================
Wrong, wrong, wrong. And people still LISTEN to this B.S.!
Mystic Met: A Review of UK Met Office Predictions and Statements
http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/mystic-met-a-review-of-uk-me...
The Met Office is the UK Government’s official Meteorological agency and a key promoter of climate alarmism, which claims that simulation models are now accurate predictors of both global and local effects of stimuli to the climate.
Presented below is a chronology of notable predictions via Met Office press releases and media articles starting on January 4th 2007:
2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office.”
On April 11th they issued a press release stating “there is a high probability that summer temperature will exceed the 1971-2000 long-term average of 14.1 C … there are no indications of an increased risk of a particularly dry or particularly wet summer.”
This was interpreted by The Guardian as “Britain set to enjoy another sizzling summer.”
On August 31st, The Met announced that summer 2007 was the wettest on record with “normal temperatures,” although his description did not adequately describe the miserable summer - because high temperatures and sunshine were well below normal.
On August 10th, The Met Office announced new climate models, which included modeling of “the effects of sea surface temperatures as well as other factors such as man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, projected changes in the sun’s output and the effects of previous volcanic eruptions”. The same press release forecast that “2014 is likely to be 0.3 C warmer than 2004.”
In fact, global temperatures in 2007 dropped nearly 0.8 C according to satellite data, one of the sharpest drops on record. In order to hit The Met’s 2014 prediction, there will have to be a large increase over the next few years.
2008
Clearly, the Met Office didn’t want to repeat the 2007 mistake of predicting the warmest ever recorded year globally in 2008, so the press release of 3th January was entitled, ‘Global temperature 2008: Another top-ten year,’ stating, “2008 is set to be cooler globally than recent years say Met Office and University of East Anglia climate scientists, but is still forecast to be one of the top-ten warmest years.”
On April 3rd the Met made their annual UK summer forecast — “The coming summer is expected to be a ‘typical British summer’, according to long-range forecasts issued today. Summer temperatures across the UK are more likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or above average for the three months of summer.”
On August 29th The Met Office reported that the summer of 2008 was “one of the wettest on record across the UK.”
This is how The Independent described the UK summer - “It has been a miserable summer for bugs as well as people…The combined effect of low temperatures and rain has presented Britain’s invertebrates with a double whammy.”
On September 22nd The Guardian reported the Met Office claim that, “Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand,” which referred to climate sceptic Nigel Lawson and attempted to play down the fact that there has been no global warming trend since 2002.
On September 25th the Met Office issued a press release entitled, ‘Trend of mild winters continues’ stating, “The Met Office forecast for the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average. It is also likely that the coming winter will be drier than last year.” This was qualified with, “In contrast to last year’s exceptionally mild winter, this year is likely to feel somewhat colder and although the forecast of a milder winter is good news, we should still be prepared for the risk of colder spells at times.”
On 25th November this forecast was updated: A cold start to winter, “The latest update to the Met Office winter forecast suggests that although the coming winter will have temperatures near or above average, it is very likely that December will be colder than normal.”
On 6th December there was an article in The Guardian by James Randerson entitled, ‘Explainer: Coolest year since 2000.’
The article reads:
“This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.
The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists at the Met Office. “Absolutely not,” said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre. “If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends.”
Prof Myles Allen at Oxford University, who runs the climateprediction.net website, said he feared climate sceptics would overinterpret the figure: “You can bet your life there will be a lot of fuss about what a cold year it is. Actually no, it’s not been that cold a year, but the human memory is not very long. We are used to warm years.”
The Met Office had predicted 2008 would be cooler than recent years due to a La Niña event, characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean - the mirror image of the El Niño climate cycle.
Allen was presenting the data on this year’s global average temperature at the Appleton Space Conference at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Didcot, yesterday. The 14.3C figure is based on data from January to October. When the Met Office makes its formal announcement next week they will incorporate data from November. “[The figure] will differ from it, but it won’t differ massively,” said Stott.
Assuming the final figure is close to 14.3C then 2008 will be the 10th hottest year on record. Hottest was 1998, followed by 2005, 2003 and 2002.
In March a team of climate scientists at Kiel University predicted that natural variation would mask the 0.3C warming predicted by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change over the next decade.”
Roger Pielke Sr performed a reality check:
The statement that “The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing” mixes up regional and global temperatures changes. Also, there has been no global warming in the last 4 years (at least; e.g. see). Global warming has stopped for the last few years.
The statement that “In March a team of climate scientists at Kiel University predicted that natural variation would mask the 0.3C warming predicted by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change over the next decade” is scientifically incorrect. Heating cannot be ”masked”.
As given in the examples, the news releases provided by the UK Met Office make for interesting reading and show the complexity and difficulty of skillful season climate prediction.
Thus why should there be any confidence in the forecasts regarding climate change in the longer term?
The Daily Telegraph published an article on 13th December entitled, “Weather:Coldest start to winter since 1976 - Britain has endured its coldest start to winter in more than 30 years” by Stephen Adams.
An excerpt from the article reads:
“Since December 1, the meteorological start to the season, the average UK temperature has been only 35.1F (1.7C), well below the long-term 1971-2000 average of 40.5F (4.7C) for the first 10 days of the month.
It is the coldest start to December since 1976, when the average was 33.4F (0.8C).
Arctic and continental winds have dominated the weather since mid November, bringing colder conditions than normal.”
This very cold period certainly was not predicted by the UK Met Office.
But wait! There’s more climate alarmism in an article published on 19th December, 2008 in The Times entitled: ‘Met Office warn of ‘catastrophic’ rise in temperature’
Undeterred by recent short-term failed predictions, the article sub-heading states, “A new study by the Met Office warns that the world could warm by more than 5C in the next 90 years, if emissions keep on rising. This would be catastrophic for the environment and for humanity. Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains the science.”
Well Vicky Pope, why should CRN or anyone else believe a word you say?
Sources:
Guest post on Watts Up With That? by Steven Goddard entitled, ‘UK’s Met Office blows another summer forecast’
Roger Pielke Sr’s Climate Science weblog
Met Office news release archive
========================================
Wrong, wrong, wrong. And people still LISTEN to this B.S.!
Mystic Met: A Review of UK Met Office Predictions and Statements
http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/mystic-met-a-review-of-uk-me...
The Met Office is the UK Government’s official Meteorological agency and a key promoter of climate alarmism, which claims that simulation models are now accurate predictors of both global and local effects of stimuli to the climate.
Presented below is a chronology of notable predictions via Met Office press releases and media articles starting on January 4th 2007:
2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office.”
On April 11th they issued a press release stating “there is a high probability that summer temperature will exceed the 1971-2000 long-term average of 14.1 C … there are no indications of an increased risk of a particularly dry or particularly wet summer.”
This was interpreted by The Guardian as “Britain set to enjoy another sizzling summer.”
On August 31st, The Met announced that summer 2007 was the wettest on record with “normal temperatures,” although his description did not adequately describe the miserable summer - because high temperatures and sunshine were well below normal.
On August 10th, The Met Office announced new climate models, which included modeling of “the effects of sea surface temperatures as well as other factors such as man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, projected changes in the sun’s output and the effects of previous volcanic eruptions”. The same press release forecast that “2014 is likely to be 0.3 C warmer than 2004.”
In fact, global temperatures in 2007 dropped nearly 0.8 C according to satellite data, one of the sharpest drops on record. In order to hit The Met’s 2014 prediction, there will have to be a large increase over the next few years.
2008
Clearly, the Met Office didn’t want to repeat the 2007 mistake of predicting the warmest ever recorded year globally in 2008, so the press release of 3th January was entitled, ‘Global temperature 2008: Another top-ten year,’ stating, “2008 is set to be cooler globally than recent years say Met Office and University of East Anglia climate scientists, but is still forecast to be one of the top-ten warmest years.”
On April 3rd the Met made their annual UK summer forecast — “The coming summer is expected to be a ‘typical British summer’, according to long-range forecasts issued today. Summer temperatures across the UK are more likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or above average for the three months of summer.”
On August 29th The Met Office reported that the summer of 2008 was “one of the wettest on record across the UK.”
This is how The Independent described the UK summer - “It has been a miserable summer for bugs as well as people…The combined effect of low temperatures and rain has presented Britain’s invertebrates with a double whammy.”
On September 22nd The Guardian reported the Met Office claim that, “Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand,” which referred to climate sceptic Nigel Lawson and attempted to play down the fact that there has been no global warming trend since 2002.
On September 25th the Met Office issued a press release entitled, ‘Trend of mild winters continues’ stating, “The Met Office forecast for the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average. It is also likely that the coming winter will be drier than last year.” This was qualified with, “In contrast to last year’s exceptionally mild winter, this year is likely to feel somewhat colder and although the forecast of a milder winter is good news, we should still be prepared for the risk of colder spells at times.”
On 25th November this forecast was updated: A cold start to winter, “The latest update to the Met Office winter forecast suggests that although the coming winter will have temperatures near or above average, it is very likely that December will be colder than normal.”
On 6th December there was an article in The Guardian by James Randerson entitled, ‘Explainer: Coolest year since 2000.’
The article reads:
“This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.
The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists at the Met Office. “Absolutely not,” said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre. “If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends.”
Prof Myles Allen at Oxford University, who runs the climateprediction.net website, said he feared climate sceptics would overinterpret the figure: “You can bet your life there will be a lot of fuss about what a cold year it is. Actually no, it’s not been that cold a year, but the human memory is not very long. We are used to warm years.”
The Met Office had predicted 2008 would be cooler than recent years due to a La Niña event, characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean - the mirror image of the El Niño climate cycle.
Allen was presenting the data on this year’s global average temperature at the Appleton Space Conference at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Didcot, yesterday. The 14.3C figure is based on data from January to October. When the Met Office makes its formal announcement next week they will incorporate data from November. “[The figure] will differ from it, but it won’t differ massively,” said Stott.
Assuming the final figure is close to 14.3C then 2008 will be the 10th hottest year on record. Hottest was 1998, followed by 2005, 2003 and 2002.
In March a team of climate scientists at Kiel University predicted that natural variation would mask the 0.3C warming predicted by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change over the next decade.”
Roger Pielke Sr performed a reality check:
The statement that “The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing” mixes up regional and global temperatures changes. Also, there has been no global warming in the last 4 years (at least; e.g. see). Global warming has stopped for the last few years.
The statement that “In March a team of climate scientists at Kiel University predicted that natural variation would mask the 0.3C warming predicted by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change over the next decade” is scientifically incorrect. Heating cannot be ”masked”.
As given in the examples, the news releases provided by the UK Met Office make for interesting reading and show the complexity and difficulty of skillful season climate prediction.
Thus why should there be any confidence in the forecasts regarding climate change in the longer term?
The Daily Telegraph published an article on 13th December entitled, “Weather:Coldest start to winter since 1976 - Britain has endured its coldest start to winter in more than 30 years” by Stephen Adams.
An excerpt from the article reads:
“Since December 1, the meteorological start to the season, the average UK temperature has been only 35.1F (1.7C), well below the long-term 1971-2000 average of 40.5F (4.7C) for the first 10 days of the month.
It is the coldest start to December since 1976, when the average was 33.4F (0.8C).
Arctic and continental winds have dominated the weather since mid November, bringing colder conditions than normal.”
This very cold period certainly was not predicted by the UK Met Office.
But wait! There’s more climate alarmism in an article published on 19th December, 2008 in The Times entitled: ‘Met Office warn of ‘catastrophic’ rise in temperature’
Undeterred by recent short-term failed predictions, the article sub-heading states, “A new study by the Met Office warns that the world could warm by more than 5C in the next 90 years, if emissions keep on rising. This would be catastrophic for the environment and for humanity. Dr Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains the science.”
Well Vicky Pope, why should CRN or anyone else believe a word you say?
Sources:
Guest post on Watts Up With That? by Steven Goddard entitled, ‘UK’s Met Office blows another summer forecast’
Roger Pielke Sr’s Climate Science weblog
Met Office news release archive
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Sr. on -
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
If man didn't create it, then man can't destroy it. Forget the charts and grafts, providing additional evidence is just entertaining the ignorant.
-
Permalink Reply by AirFiero on -
Brief (almost) sigh of relief...
No world climate deal at Copenhagen
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/no_world_climate_deal_a...
Rick Moran
We can all breathe a little easier. It appears the enormously complex climate treaty being negotiated that would cede vast amounts of authority to the UN over sectors of the US economy will not be ready in time for the meeting in Copenhagen early this December.
Helene Cooper of the New York Times reports:
At a hastily arranged breakfast on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit meeting on Sunday morning, the leaders, including Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the prime minister of Denmark and the chairman of the climate conference, agreed that in order to salvage Copenhagen they would have to push a fully binding legal agreement down the road, possibly to a second summit meeting in Mexico City later on.
"There was an assessment by the leaders that it is unrealistic to expect a full internationally, legally binding agreement could be negotiated between now and Copenhagen, which starts in 22 days," said Michael Froman, the deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs. "I don't think the negotiations have proceeded in such a way that any of the leaders thought it was likely that we were going to achieve a final agreement in Copenhagen, and yet thought that it was important that Copenhagen be an important step forward, including with operational impact."
With the clock running out and deep differences unresolved, it has, for several months, appeared increasingly unlikely that the climate change negotiations in Denmark would produce a comprehensive and binding new treaty on global warming, as its organizers had intended.
The agreement on Sunday codifies what negotiators had already accepted as all but inevitable: that representatives of the 192 nations in the talks would not resolve the outstanding issues in time. The gulf between rich and poor countries, and even among the wealthiest nations, was just too wide.
The next climate treaty will almost certainly give the UN power to regulate at least some elements of the world energy industry. This ceding of sovereignty will be pushed as the only hope to save the world from global warming.
Good thing it's proving more difficult to figure out how to do this than anyone thought. Pushing this "grand bargain" down the road means that there's still time to head it off.
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce Hahn on -
AMEN!!!
-
Permalink Reply by AirFiero on
-
Steve Milloy: Climategate’s Perry Mason Moment
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/steve-milloy-climategate%E2%80%99s-per...
One of the released emails has the preeminent U.S. junk science critic renaming his allies: "We are no longer The Skeptics. We are The Vindicated." (See full PJM/PJTV coverage of Climategate here:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=browse-events&event-type-id=10&eve...
November 26, 2009 - by Steve Milloy
What’s the real smoking gun among the emails allegedly “hacked” from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit? We’ll get to that in a moment, but let’s first address the alarmists’ first line of defense — that the emails were stolen, and more than likely by some dastardly skeptic.
Since news of embarrassing, if not incriminating emails broke last Friday, it has become clear that the CRU computer system was not “hacked” and the emails were not stolen. In fact, the file containing the emails had been assembled by CRU staff in preparation for compliance with a Freedom of Information request. The file was then stored in a publicly accessible portion of the CRU computer network — making it just a matter of time before someone discovered it. Why the file was so stored may never be known, but that’s not really what’s important.
Nothing illegal or unethical was done to affect the file’s release.
Moving on.
Much has been written already about the now infamous “trick” to explain away recent global cooling, and the alarmists’ conspiratorial machinations to silence their critics. But the real “mushroom cloud” among the emails comes from Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports on global warming.
In an October 14 email to fellow alarmist Tom Wigley, Trenberth plaintively writes:
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
It’s a Perry Mason moment.
First, by admitting that we “are nowhere close” to understanding atmospheric energy flows, the much-vaunted Trenberth has trashed all the climate models on which the gloom-and-doom IPCC forecasts are based. If energy flows in the climate system cannot be accounted for, then they cannot be modeled — and there can be no basis upon which to make predictions of future temperatures.
That’s case closed, right there. But there’s more.
Two years ago, I privately surveyed U.S. scientists who participated in the IPCC’s review of climate science. Trenberth was one of those who responded to the survey.
One question asked:
Which best describes the role of manmade CO2 emissions in climate change?
Trenberth checked off the following answer:
Manmade CO2 emissions drive climate change, but other natural and human-related factors are also important.
So — while in October 2007 Trenberth seemed pretty convinced that he understood energy flows in the climate system, two years later he underwent such an about-face that he is now trying to get his colleagues to admit, at least privately, that they really don’t know squat.
It’s not surprising that Trenberth had a hard time convincing Wigley, since Wigley’s responses to the survey were extreme in terms of the significance of manmade CO2 emissions. On that same question, Wigley checked off this answer:
Manmade CO2 emissions are the principal driver of climate change.
Were the framing of CO2 as climate-culprit a TV drama, at this point Perry Mason would be cruising off into the sunset with Della Street in his gas-guzzling black 1957 Cadillac El Dorado convertible. But the magnitude of the global warming fraud is immense and widespread — too many politician/celebrity egos, corporate fortunes, and activist political dreams have too much invested in the scam to simply say “nevermind.”
They have no shame, and they will not go away. So our struggle against them will continue.
The difference now is that we are no longer The Skeptics. We are The Vindicated.
-
Permalink Reply by AirFiero on
-
A good article on how NASA and NOAA are cooking the books on temperature, introducing an intentional upward temperature bias:
Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_...
-
Permalink Reply by AirFiero on
-
IPCC scientist admits Glaciergate was about influencing governments
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/ipcc_scientist_admits_g...
By Rick Moran
In a stunning admission, the scientist responsible for publishing the part of the 2007 IPCC report on global warming in Asia says he knew the evidence for the disappearing Himalayan Glacier was suspect but allowed it into the report in order to put pressure on governments to take action.
This story is getting huge play in Great Britain - not so much here in America. David Rose of the Daily Mail pens this piece:
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.'
It turns out that the prediction about Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 was based on two interviews with an obscure Indian scientist and a World Wildlife Federation's report - that botched the math in figuring glacier shrinkage:
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres - the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.
Money quote from the article: "In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air."
It's not like reputable scientists didn't try to warn off the IPCC about this ridiculous assertion about Himalayan glaciers. Several scientists wrote to Lal and his group pointing out that the statement had not been peer reviewed and was based on bogus data. Lal's group ignored or dismissed all such claims.
Once again, we have clear evidence that the IPCC report from 2007 from which all recommendations on what to do about climate change flows, is seriously flawed not only in fact, but in the way it was compiled as well. The scientists went against their own guidelines time and time again to include information that was not properly vetted. Nor did they follow their own rules about including valid dissents from the majority.
IPCC Chairman Dr Pachauri - under a cloud as a result of conflict of interest charges - dismissed an Indian government study last year refuting the glacier evidence as "voodoo science." And why not? Pachauri has numerous business interests in India getting rich off the claim about Himalayan glaciers.
This is the most humiliating news yet for the IPCC. One wonders how much longer the chairman - and perhaps the organization itself - can survive given all the recent revelations.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
New Podcast 3/10/10
Haiti Disaster Relief
Click HereFollow us on Twitter!
Follow Us on Facebook
Forum
Its FREE! Send a virtual obamacare postcard to 43 Democrats
Started by Henry Wallace in General, Uncategorized Town Hall 16 seconds ago.
Census form experiences, mailings.........post for Census issues you have 22 Replies
Started by A . Murphy, Mod in Capitalism, Socialism, and America. Last reply by Donald Plumb 1 minute ago.
Chicago Tax Day Tea Party
Started by Barb in General, Uncategorized Town Hall 6 minutes ago.
The True Danger 2 Replies
Started by TeaDrowner in General, Uncategorized Town Hall. Last reply by Wanda 21 minutes ago.
Hawaii Considers Law to ban Obama Birthers 5 Replies
Started by Thomas Hohenstein in Obama Citizenship, Impeachment, Recalls. Last reply by Μιχάλης89 37 minutes ago.
Blog Posts
Shame on Pelosi's "Deem and Pass" Trickery
Posted by SpitFire on March 17, 2010 at 7:30pm
“ NOT A POLITICAL STUNT! NOT A DISTRACTION! NJ-D SENATOR M!”
Posted by George W. (gfwjr) NJDist8Coord. on March 17, 2010 at 7:17pm — 1 Comment
FREEDOM WORKS.ORG......ARMEY IS AN INFILTRATOR......
Posted by conservative cowgirl on March 17, 2010 at 7:06pm
Big Brotherism
Posted by Scott Ledbetter on March 17, 2010 at 6:56pm — 1 Comment
Latest Activity
Courtesy RNC. Takes five minutes.http://servethepeople.gop.com/Default.aspx?e=ultrasonic@att.net
This is fabulous! I am so proud of these Patriots and I pray you get the necessary petitions signed. Great news!
I am doing daily tasks for Jaynee--I am onboard 100%. Today it was putting up the biggie 4x4 signs up in Coos Bay and doing an impromptu precinct walk in downtown North Bend. Ok guys, this is why I am posting, we now need volunteers for her campaign…
Pamela,
You have not seen the American Community Survey yet. You will get one at some point and then you will see what the buzz is all about.
Excellent post Steph. I will share on facebook. Thank you.
The 2nd annual tax day tea party will be held April 15, from 12 PM to 1:30 PM at 230 S Federal (Federal building) downtown Chicago.Joel Pollak, who is running against Jan (the socialist) Schakowsky, will be a guest speaker.
Shame on Pelosi's "Deem and Pass" Trickery
Shame on Pelosi's "Deem and Pass" Trickery
Take Action!
March 17, 2010
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) shameful scheme to "deem" the Senate Obamacare bill into law without a vote vi…
huh?
Here's the link:
So Governor Otter and Idaho state legislators are to be commended for working to protect the good citizens of Idaho from illegal federal legislation like Obamacare.
Chicago tax day tea party April 15 from 12-1:30 at the Federal building...see events. Joel Pollak will be one of the guest speakers.
He is running against Jan (the socialist) Schakowsky)
Hi all. I'm the organizer for the protest, we students may be called patriots because of the basketball team name, but some of us actually are patriots. We would love to have y'all come. Please RSVP here
Badge
© 2010 Created by Grassfire Nation
