Jones and CRU exonerated by parliamentary inquiry

31 comments on “Jones and CRU exonerated by parliamentary inquiry ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Turn off the TV 1

   11 April 2010 at 1:05 pm

   The one good thing about this whole sorry saga is that the opponents of action on climate change have now been shown to be what they are. They’ve overplayed their hand and now everyone knows what cards they have
2. mickysavage 2

   11 April 2010 at 3:32 pm

   I wish that I could agree with you TOTT but the wingnuts will be back. They are quite silent right now but I am sure they will be back.

   They do not debate the issue rationally, they look for the slightest chink in the most ephemeral of issues, pound it for what it is worth and then claim that the science is wrong and the globe is not warming.

   It seems to me that creationism type counter science is spreading throughout science and that humankind is in for a rough time.
   • Clipbox 2.1

     11 April 2010 at 4:18 pm

     I think its quite a sweeping statement to say that climate denier’s science can be compared to the scientific ideas that creationists use to argue against human evolution. Even the winner of The Prime Minister’s Science Prize 2009 Dr Jeff Tallon is himself a creationist and I don’t think you could doubt his scientific ability.
3. Pascal's bookie 3

   11 April 2010 at 4:41 pm

   I think its quite a sweeping statement to say that climate denier’s science can be compared to the scientific ideas that creationists use to argue against human evolution.

   No it isn’t. They use very similar types of arguments. “Peer review is biased against us” “look at this statement signed by x number of scientists speaking outside their field”, “AGW/Evolution says x (when it doesn’t)”.

   Even the winner of The Prime Minister’s Science Prize 2009 Dr Jeff Tallon is himself a creationist and I don’t think you could doubt his scientific ability.

   Yeah. that sort of thing. I’m sure Dr Tallon has awesome scientific ability, but if he thinks the science doesn’t point to human evolution, then on that matter, he’s left his scientific ability at the door and is using something else in it’s place.
4. Clipbox 4

   11 April 2010 at 4:56 pm

   That’s a bit of a cop out to say a scientist would just leave his science at the door when you know that scientists always use evidence to back up their arguments. I’ll leave this at his article. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/print.cfm?objectid=10616394&pnum=3
   • Pascal's bookie 4.1

     11 April 2010 at 6:09 pm

     That’s a pretty awful piece.

     For example, he claims that it is incredibly unlikely for various complex biological structures to have appeared purely by chance. Evolutionary theory actually explains how these things happen. It isn’t by chance. Things are selected by darwinian processes. The search space for a new form isn’t ‘all possible forms starting from scratch’, but ‘slight modifications of existing forms’. This is a rough and ready description for sure, but so is his article.

     Leaving that aside, the article is more a defensive piece about whether or not the existence of God is probable or not. I don’t see him explicitly stating that he doesn’t believe humans evolved from other lifeforms. Maybe he does believe that, but this article doesn’t show that.

     “creationism’ is a broad church. Some believe in theistic evolution, with the creator merely kicking the whole thing off, and setting the scene, as it were, for the universe to unfold with us in it. Others like some so called ‘biblical literalists’, believe in ‘special creation’ with humans being created by God in our current form.
     • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1

       11 April 2010 at 6:21 pm

       But anyway, the article is a good example of the sorts of things both AGW and evolutionary deniers write, ignoring the screeds of evidence to focus on an argument from incredulity*, so thanks for that.

       http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity

       *He argues that the only way for the universe to be as it is,
       is if there are x number of other universes,
       where x conveniently = too many for him to accept;
       therefore, “why, it’s just absurd”.

       That is an argument to be sure, but it’s not a scientific one, and it should be noted that there may be other ways for the universe to be as it is beyond the ‘conveniently absurd number of universes thesis’. He also gives no reason why the existence of God is any less absurd than the existence of other universes. A rather telling miss seeing we know, at least, that things rather like universes do exist.
       • tsmithfield 4.1.1.1

         11 April 2010 at 7:35 pm

         Hi Pascal,

         Multiverse theory has been advanced as an explanation for how the finely tuned universe we exist in came about:

         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

         However, this theory involves replacing one scientifically untestable entity (God) with an infinite number of scientifically untestable entities. If we were forced to choose between multiverse theory and the existence of an intelligent originator as an explanation for the existence of the current universe (which we aren’t) then on the basis of Occams razor, then the intelligent originator theory would have to win out.
         • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.1.1

           11 April 2010 at 8:43 pm

           We already know at least one universe exists though T. The God hypothesis needs the existence of a whole new class of unknown entity.

           If you see more batshit that can be created by a single bat, and already know that one bat does exist, Occams razor would suggest imaging many bats over a single batshit breathing dragon.
           • tsmithfield 4.1.1.1.1.1

             11 April 2010 at 10:19 pm

             I’m not sure that analogy works any better, PB. The multiverse is supposed to be composed of universes that each have their own distinct properties. Therefore, a more accurate way of stating your analogy would be to say that because we know a bat exists we can say an elephant exists. Thus, from the point of view of testability, I am not sure that you can rely on the existing universe to point to the existence of other universes that are fundamentally different to the one we exist in.

             Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to argue a theistic position here. My view is that science can demonstrate how things work, but not the why. The why ends up being a faith issue as it is untestable. People will either accept a theistic explanation or not.

             Given that multiverse theory is ultimately untestable because we can’t leave our existing universe to observe others, then multiverse theory is at a similar level except it requires more entities.

             Look at it this way. Imagine you have been put in front of a firing squad. You here the guns go off, but awake to find yourself alive. It would not be a very satisfactory explanation to hypothesize that there must be an infinite number of universes, and in one of those universes people survive firing squads. A more concise explanation would be that the shooters were bad shots, or some other more plausible explanation.
             • Pascal's bookie …

               11 April 2010 at 10:41 pm

               Bats have their own distinct properties. Elephants do not produce batshit.

               I’m not relying on the existence of this universe to point to the existence of other universes that are fundamentally different to the one we exist in. I am just saying that this universe exists. We know from that that universes are definitely in the set of things we know exist. This is not the case with gods.

               It’s not a difficult point.

               Your analogy with the firing squad somehow manages to miss it however. It would only be analogous if I took it for granted that people survived firing squads and one day some clever clogs discovered that the laws of physics allowing for that survival needed to be just so. Sure, I might think ah there must be god what set things up just so, praise be.

               But we know better, because we live in a different universe from that other me proving the multiverse theory within the analogy.
             • tsmithfield …

               12 April 2010 at 10:37 am

               As I said, I don’t want to try and argue for the existence of God, persue. But rather whether a multiverse explanation is a more parsimonious explanation than a God one.
               (or some other single cause for the beginning of the universe for that matter).

               So far as the multiverse is concerned, this is tied into string theory. String theory proposes the existence of all sorts of unprovable entities. For instance, branes, and extra dimensions. As I understand it, the requirement for extra dimensions has been added because without them the theories don’t work. Depending on the version of string theory being considered, the number of required extra dimensions can vary. Under some string theory explanations I have read, the collision of a brane from another universe with the brane from our own supposedly caused the big bang. However, again, such a collision has never been observed or never can be.

               The fact that in string theory unprovable entities are being stacked on unprovable entities makes it fairly tenuous as a theory for everything.
             • Pascal's bookie …

               12 April 2010 at 11:28 am

               None of which makes it a less parsimonious explanation than ‘God dunnit’.

               God’s traditional description includes being able to create a multiverse, a pony, and a bag of chips, ex nihilo; just by thinking it. I can’t think of anything less parsimonious than that.

               Even if I could, God simply out-do it in any case. I think that’s in one of Anselm’s proofs.
         • NickS 4.1.1.1.2

           11 April 2010 at 8:46 pm

           I’m going to be on a /facepalm roll tonight…

           No, ID is not the simpler hypothesis, as you need to go through all the various questions that arise from such a hypothesis, vs the competing hypothesis in order to quantitatively work out which one’s simpler…

           Which it doesn’t take much thinking to realise the issues with the two concepts you mention above are deep, but more so that ID involves lots of special pleading and appeals to teology in order to justify itself, where as it’s competitor here goes more along the lines of “insufficient data/theory work/beer imbibed/technological constraints”. Which in terms of ye olde science, is somewhat better, but still plagued by speculation and lack of supporting evidence. Then there’s the parallel to abiogenesis vs ID, which it doesn’t take a degree in molecular biology to figure out the reasons why the ID hypothesis is a giant load of sh*t….

           Also, it’s worth noting that any origin of the big-bang theory is at this stage highly speculative (hello Penrose…), and that string theory is not even wrong.
           • NickS 4.1.1.1.2.1

             11 April 2010 at 8:51 pm

             I have, it’s neat per the blackhole hypothesis, but I still find it highly speculative 😛
         • lprent 4.1.1.1.3

           11 April 2010 at 8:49 pm

           You obviously haven’t run across the evolutionary multiverse…
       • NickS 4.1.1.2

         11 April 2010 at 8:50 pm

         It’s also a massive argument from ignorance that fails utterly to examine seriously any competing explanations, let alone think quickly over what is life, let alone the line of (just as flawed) reasoning “that because humans are outnumbered by black holes, thus the universe is fine tuned for producing blackholes”.

         Though of course, it must be all about us, because otherwise we have no purpose 1!!!1111!
         /sarcasm
         • Pascal's bookie 4.1.1.2.1

           11 April 2010 at 8:54 pm

           I like Douglas’ line about the puddle that thinks the hole in the ground it rests in was fine-tuned just for it.

           Such a special puddle.
           • NickS 4.1.1.2.1.1

             11 April 2010 at 10:14 pm

             Heh, I forgot about that one, ’tis brilliant.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.2

     11 April 2010 at 11:25 pm

     And that article proves that his scientific ability is lacking. It doesn’t matter what the chance of something occurring randomly is. The lower the probability doesn’t prove that there’s a god, it just proves that there’s a lower probability.

     He is, quite simply, using the low probability to justify his own beliefs.
5. Minami 5

   11 April 2010 at 5:17 pm

   It’s quite irrelevant to bring the issue of creationism into the climate change debate.
   Climate change is measurable, creationism is something we cannot measure directly.
   That’s the difference between experimental science and observational science.
   The evidence of always the same, it is the interpretation of it that is disagreed upon. The issue of creationism will need more space than this forum provides. Just bear in mind that evolution, even though it’s part of the modern scientific framework we have been taught, is still a theory. Scientists have every right to question its methods in the search for truth.
   • NickS 5.1

     11 April 2010 at 10:09 pm

     /The Stupid, It Burns

     …creationism is something we cannot measure directly.
     That’s the difference between experimental science and observational science.

     /facepalm

     Not this again…

     All experimentation does is allow us to directly influence what’s occurring within a system of interest, of which we then observe the results, and a lot of the time we don’t have that luxury and rely purely on observation + thinking, of which you’ve evidently failed to think here, because otherwise I wouldn’t have this crap to deal with.

     Anyhow, the issue with observational vs experimental science is that it fails to realise that it’s not that difficult to pick up real patterns straight from purely observational data. Which is how Newton etc were able to figure out quite a bit of astronomy, and Darwin & Wallace were able to notice and develop initially their concepts of evolution and natural selection. So the question then is why privilege one over the other? If it’s possible, and indeed practical to merely observe and produce scientifically valid conclusions why put experimental science over observation science?

     The answer I would say is that experimental sciences allow us control and a deeper ability to prod and deal with a system, and thus is easy to think that it lords over observational science, which misses entirely the fact that observational science is still just as possible of being as scientific as experimental science. And then there’s prodding merrily at the the justifications for the criteria used to judge one as better…

     But to the point, it’s a bet easier to side step (Nick is hungry, plus needs sleep) it for the moment, and note that what experimental science allows us to do is further refine and look at the hypothesises we’ve formed from observational data, but that it’s not a necessary thing for something to be considered “science”. Which in terms of your argument brings up the lulzy note that climate science is primarily observational, particularly for gaining information about past climate and how the atmosphere and surface indicators are reacting, which is then used to generate models which are tested against new data as it comes in. The actual experimental stuff is mostly small and doesn’t cover a hell of a lot, which makes the whole thrust of your post rather contradictory in terms of evolution vs creationism vs climate change.

     Also, we can observe evolution directly (google talk.origins), although it doesn’t take much thinking to realise the ahistorical nature of science*, i.e. science deals with the patterns events leave on the world around us, aka evidence (like time series stuff in high school physics, or patterns of geological units that indicate a fault), this whole “direct observation” meme is the result of human stupidity and rhetorical bullsh*t. In that it ignores completely how we go about observing, but also that we’re typically directly observing past patterns, whether they be fossils or gene trees, and thus we should be able to directly observe the patterns creationism should have left. Which we don’t see any evidence of for the claims of young earth creationism, let alone (un)Intelligent design claims when it comes to stuff like frontloading or Dembski’s fail-tastic No Free Lunch theorem because they don’t exist. As the a priori assumptions guiding them are fractally wrong, but will never be thrown out because their tied to a belief system that’s fundamentally delusional.

     …it is the interpretation of it that is disagreed upon.

     lolwut?

     You’re ignoring the lovely, widespread tendency of creo-bots to ignore anything that’s inconveniently in the way of their conclusions and merrily cherry pick the available evidence. Which if you tried to pull off during while doing a MSc or above, would get thee metaphorically lynched….

     Just bear in mind that evolution, even though it’s part of the modern scientific framework we have been taught, is still a theory. Scientists have every right to question its methods in the search for truth.

     /facepalm

     Evolution is as much a fact as gravity is, all the theory is about is the about how evolution occurs, much like how the theory of gravity describes how gravity works….

     And I’m too tired to finish this off, so I’ll leave it to further cluebatting tomorrow, since there’s a good deal of stuff to talk about or link to on the fact/theory stuff, which people seem to universally suck at understanding. Actually, I still have a post from 08 on this one, might just post it right here since it was a good one.
     ___________________________
     *…and this is one thing I need to rifle through a pile of philosophy/history of science papers/notes for. Or write a blog-thing post on, when ever it is I finally get it up and running.
   • NickS 5.2

     12 April 2010 at 7:59 pm

     Me sick, but on the fact vs theory account, here’s a somewhat lucid post* I wrote last year when another creo-bot brought this up, see the first part:
     In which a Dolt is mocked and philosophy of science cluebat is deployed…

     And I’ll chuck in the requisite wikipedia link:
     Evolution as Theory and Fact
     Which links to other discussions, if anyone wants a bit more to read.

     Also, while by brain’s running on milo:

     Scientists have every right to question its methods in the search for truth.

     Nice, but the problem is that in order to first question something, generally in science you have a set of interesting observations that can be built into a solid argument that indicates a given theory, hypothesis, law and or accepted methodology is wrong. The road though is generally “fun” fun as in the British definition which involves “character building” and messiness, although you might get lucky and find a gaping hole in the literature to use and attack from.

     Generally though, the stuff your building your argument from needs to be scientifically valid, which generally means avoiding informal/formal argumentative fallacies and importantly fitting in with the rest of the network of scientific knowledge, bar that which you’re challenging. Of course, with creationism, particularly the young earth and intelligent design varieties, there’s typically keystone fallacies associated with them, and then there’s the massive clashes with very well established lines of scientific knowledge, all of which is based off religious truth claims, rather than empirical evidence, per the standard examples.

     Which makes the general thrust of your concluding point rather f*cking hilarious. Not that I’m expecting you to reply though, since you seem to think PB is easier to deal with
   • NickS 5.3

     12 April 2010 at 8:02 pm

     Lets try this again, and apologies to Iprent if it double posts…

     Me sick, but on the fact vs theory account, here’s a somewhat lucid post* I wrote last year when another creo-bot brought this up, see the first part:
     In which a Dolt is mocked and philosophy of science cluebat is deployed…

     And I’ll chuck in the requisite wikipedia link:
     Evolution as Theory and Fact
     Which links to other discussions, if anyone wants a bit more to read.

     Also, while by brain’s running on milo:

     Scientists have every right to question its methods in the search for truth.

     Nice, but the problem is that in order to first question something, generally in science you have a set of interesting observations that can be built into a solid argument that indicates a given theory, hypothesis, law and or accepted methodology is wrong. The road though is generally “fun” fun as in the British definition which involves “character building” and messiness, although you might get lucky and find a gaping hole in the literature to use and attack from.

     Generally though, the stuff your building your argument from needs to be scientifically valid, which generally means avoiding informal/formal argumentative fallacies and importantly fitting in with the rest of the network of scientific knowledge, bar that which you’re challenging. Of course, with creationism, particularly the young earth and intelligent design varieties, there’s typically keystone fallacies associated with them, and then there’s the massive clashes with very well established lines of scientific knowledge, all of which is based off religious truth claims, rather than empirical evidence, per the standard examples.

     Which makes the general thrust of your concluding point rather f*cking hilarious. Not that I’m expecting you to reply though, since you seem to think PB is easier to deal with
6. Minami 6

   11 April 2010 at 7:04 pm

   “creationism’ is a broad church. Some believe in theistic evolution, with the creator merely kicking the whole thing off, and setting the scene, as it were, for the universe to unfold with us in it. Others like some so called ‘biblical literalists’, believe in ‘special creation’ with humans being created by God in our current form.

   This is entirely correct, and it illustrates the fact that humans have fallible theories. Just because there are many versions, this doesn’t mean that one isn’t closer to the truth. Creationism has a biblical basis that addresses the origin of life and from that, critiques evolution. Evolution addresses the process, but cannot point to any origin.

   “the article is a good example of the sorts of things both AGW and evolutionary deniers write, ignoring the screeds of evidence to focus on an argument from incredulity”
   The evidence is always the same, it’s the interpretation of such evidence that is disagreed upon.

   Debating creationism vs. evolution will never be solved in this manner, as is evident by the number of academic papers out there both supporting and denouncing evolution and creationism.
   You have addressed a very small part of the debate which I think you well know, will not convince any current creationists out there, it’s best to agree to disagree at this point in time.
7. Pascal's bookie 7

   11 April 2010 at 8:39 pm

   I certainly agree that creationists aren’t likely to be swayed by anything I say. But that’s not really the point. Creationism is not scientific. For creationists who are biblically based (and this is by no means all of them, eg Vedic Creationism is based on the Hindu creation myths), their belief is one based on a ‘revelation’ that they believe to be true.

   I have no particular interest in changing their religious view, but you cannot argue that biblical creationists who base their views on a revelatory theory of truth are being scientific about it. They simply are not. They interpret the evidence first and foremost to fit into what they already believe to be true, if it doesn’t fit it is either ignored or denied. What is known is that what they believe to be true (the revelation) will remain what they believe to be true.

   As an example of the type of thing ‘special creation’ type creationists ignore, I’ve never seen one address some of the things we see when we compare human chromosomes to those of other apes.
   This will again be rough and ready, but I’m pretty sure the guts of it is correct.

   Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, the other apes have 24. This causes no problems for creationists of course, because their theory doesn’t predict anything. Whatever we find is what God created.

   For evolutionary theory however this difference in number requires an explanation. As the theory says we share a common ancestor, then the difference must be accounted for. This accounting allows for predictions about what we might find when we look.

   If we share an ancestor with the other apes then humans have either shed a chromosome pair, two chromosome pairs have fused, or the other apes have gained a pair. of the three options the middle one is most likely and is so the best place to start looking. (This is because losing all the info in a pair of chromosomes would likely be catastrophic, and the chances of all the other apes gaining a pair seems like a less fruitful avenue for research.)

   Lo and behold, when we look at our chromosomes there is a pair that is formed out of the fusion of two other pairs. This can be seen because the ends of chromosomes have distinctive patterns that serve as marking points, and they have central patterns that mark where the pair are joined. These (now redundant) markers for the old pairs of chromosomes can still be seen in the new fused chromosome pair. Further, when you look at what the old pairs would have looked like, they correspond to those of the other apes, just as the theory would predict.*

   In a further ‘coincidence’ there are sometimes replication errors that have little or no effect. A large chunk of ‘data’ might be transcribed backwards, as it were, with all the info still present but just put down in reverse order. In humans there is a particular bunch of several thousand base pairs that has been replicated this way at some time in our history. the info does appear in the other apes, but in us it is in reverse order.

   That’s no big deal, but what is a big deal is that the exact some bunch of info has also been affected the same way in chimps. The same random but ineffectual transcription error, in the same place on the genome is present in chimps as in humans, but not in other apes. just the sort of thing you wold expect to see if we had common ancestors with the apes, and if we shared a more recent ancestor with chimps than we do with orang’s.

   Creationism doesn’t have much to say on this, it’s just irrelevant to their concerns. As you say, we can agree to disagree, but to pretend that both sides are just interpreting the evidence in scientific ways but getting different results is nonsense.

   None of this is about whether or not God exists by the way.

   *Creationism has no explanation for why these redundant markers exist. It doesn’t need one. If they didn’t exist, their theory can say that’s how god made us, as they do exist, they can say so what? There was a fusion. The point is that with evolutionary theory if those markers didn’t exist, the theory would be in deep shit, as there would be no viable explanation for why we have 23 pairs as opposed to 24. One side makes robust predictions that can disprove their theory, the other just points to a revelation and forces reality into it.
   • Minami 7.1

     11 April 2010 at 10:21 pm

     It’s interesting that you mention how it is unscientific to interpret evidence based on previous knowledge – such as the bible. However observational science – working out events that happened in the past – assumed the use of previous knowledge, namely the scientific paradigm of Darwinism – when interpreting the same evidence.
     In addressing the similarities between the ape and human genome, I’d like to point to some of the arguments in “The Answers Book” – written by Ken Ham,Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland.
     Edited by Don Batten. (All prominent academics, honours in BSc or Phds) It’s important to point out that this is one of the many views being articulated, as there are many other theories out there.
     You are wrong to say that creationists aren’t concerned with the views that you hold. Christian apologetics societies exist so that we have answers for these sorts of issues.
     Just because a view differs from yours, it doesn’t mean that it’s unscientific. Just like Clipbox pointed to the credibility of great scientists, it’s important to see we don’t have all the information. Other people do the research and summarise it for us. We don’t know the complete process and therefore cannot deem it scientific. This is true for both creationist research and conventional scientific research.
     I’d like to recognise that you’re obviously very well-read on the subject, and that if you put out a book one day on the subject, I’d very much love to read it, and provide my own views countering yours. Active debate and discussion is the way by which science and knowledge progresses in out search for truth.
     • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1

       11 April 2010 at 11:57 pm

       and provide my own views countering yours.

       You’ve just proved that there’s no point in you reading anything. As far as you’re concerned you already have all the answers.

       BTW, there’s no such thing as “creationist research”.
       • Minami 7.1.1.1

         12 April 2010 at 2:48 pm

         “You’ve just proved that there’s no point in you reading anything. As far as you’re concerned you already have all the answers.”

         I’ve proven no such thing. I’ve simply expressed that I will differ in opinion, not that I, or anyone, are correct. It’s arrogant to assume that any individual has all the answers.
         • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1.1.1

           12 April 2010 at 3:24 pm

           “It’s arrogant to assume that any individual has all the answers.”

           Not sure who was doing that, I’ll look back…

           ” “The Answers Book’ written by Ken Ham,Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland.”

           You were saying?

           “If you disagree with what I’m going to say, please do not give me your opinion, because I’m not interested,” he begins. “I want to know what the Bible says.”

           Ken Ham

           http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/creation.html

           Ken Ham sure seems to think that the bible gives him all the answers.

           The Bible—the “history book of the universe’—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence’ confirms the biblical account

           http://www.answersingenesis.org/about

           Which is exactly what I was talking about when I said this:

           I have no particular interest in changing their religious view, but you cannot argue that biblical creationists who base their views on a revelatory theory of truth are being scientific about it. They simply are not. They interpret the evidence first and foremost to fit into what they already believe to be true, if it doesn’t fit it is either ignored or denied. What is known is that what they believe to be true (the revelation) will remain what they believe to be true.

           Ken Ham goes so far as to deny that the earth is more than a few thousand years old. It’s blief, but it’s not based on science. That’s ok, no one says you have to believe what science tells us.

           It’s interesting that you mention apologetics, which is what these guys are doing. Apologetics is not about discovery of truth, but rather about the defence of an idea. Why ideas would need such things as apologetics to defend them (rather than just normal good old fashioned evidence) is a question I’ll leave you to think on.

Links to post

1. Fox News – driven by conservative bullshit « The Standard: posted on 11 April 2010 at 4:02 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS