Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Friday, August 3, 2012
Will The Debate On Global Warming/Climate Change Ever Be Over?
So many people have a vested interest in maintaining the big public scare about global warming and/or climate change, the debate will go on forever. Many people's careers, in fact entire university science departments depend upon government funding for continual, "ad infinitum" research on climate. With that understood, in order to justify this spending to the tax-paying public, these "researchers" absolutely must keep up with the scare tactics. They must just love heat waves, floods, tornados, hurricanes, blizzards, and all the other usual weather phenomena. The more destructive and headline-making these things are, the better. It is all rather shameless, and in my opinion, much of it is despicable.
Peter
Announcement
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this week held its first hearing on climate science since 2009. Politico incorrectly claimed that no star witnesses testified. In fact, University of Alabama-Huntsville Professor John Christy, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, provided outstanding testimony. Professor Christy’s written testimony is available here, and video of his opening statement is available here.
Among the alarmist witnesses, Stanford Professor Chris Field’s testimony was convincingly refuted in this response by University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Only Thing Really Heating Up Is The Global Warming Debate
The following is an excellent article. We really need to open up the debate of global warming, or climate change and its causes. This is incredibly serious business, made even more so because of our global economic recession and some of the draconian proposals coming from the Obama Administration.
Peter
Environmental debate heats up; validity of global warming questioned
Written by JAMES H. SHOTT, Bluefield Daily Telegraph
Tuesday, 07 April 2009
Proponents of man-made global warming say that burning fossil fuels to produce electricity, power manufacturing processes and fuel motor vehicles is seriously harming the environment. However recent evidence shows that to be a flawed theory.
Data shows that the earth cooled last year rather than warmed, following a trend that began in 2000, and in light of this evidence much of the doomsday talk has quieted down. However, while activists still cling to their flawed theory, they have replaced the term “global warming” with “climate change,” using the same theory to now account for any change that occurs, warming or cooling.
Scientists do not speak with one voice on this issue. Ivar Giaever is a Nobel Laureate in physics, and is one of 650 dissenting scientists who argued against this theory at the United Nations global warming conference in Poland last December. “I am a skeptic,” he said. “Global warming has become a new religion.”
Other opponents have made similar comments, like former NASA official, atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, who declared, “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... As a scientist I remain skeptical.”
Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires, commented that, “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”
Colorado State University hurricane expert William Gray was more direct, calling global warming “a big scam.”
Whether or not man causes atmospheric changes is no mere peripheral argument; a lot hangs in the balance. We must know beyond any reasonable doubt that human activities are actually harming the environment before we take the drastic actions that environmental activists tell us we need to take. We do not know beyond a reasonable doubt that man-made “climate change” is real, and as time passes the evidence that it isn’t real continues to mount.
Studies show that cutting greenhouse gas emissions would be extremely costly and would produce an insignificant affect on global temperatures. The Congressional Budget Office reports that a 15 percent cut in emissions would increase average household energy costs by $1,300 annually. That’s a lot of money.
But is there any reason to increase household energy costs even $1 per year in the absence of overwhelming evidence that burning fossil fuels seriously damages the environment? No.
What we need is a sensible energy policy. We must continue the development of solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative and renewable energy sources, but we also must not rush their development and implementation, forcing these technologies into use before they are ready. When they are efficient, effective and economical, they will thrive of their own accord, without the use of scare tactics or government edicts.
In the meantime, let’s open known or highly likely areas of oil and natural gas supplies to responsible development by energy companies. Let’s refuse to increase, and in fact scale back punitive taxation and regulations on coal, oil and natural gas so the price of these energy sources does not further escalate.
And let’s get past the irrational fear we have of nuclear power, and take fuller advantage of this safe and inexpensive energy source. In more than 12,700 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries there have been only two noteworthy accidents: Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, and Chernobyl, Ukraine.
Our fear of nuclear power is based largely upon a gross exaggeration of the problems caused by the radiation released at Three Mile Island 30 years ago. In an analysis for the Heritage Foundation, Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris tell us that, “the steam leakage released a radiation dose equivalent to that of a chest X-ray scan, about one-third of the radiation humans absorb in one year from naturally occurring background radiation. No damage to any person, animal, or plant was ever found.”
The far more serious accident at Chernobyl seven years later was the result of human error, a poorly designed system, and technology that was far less well developed than that of the United States at that time. While there was an increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer in the region after the accident, nothing remotely close to the number of deaths the World Health Organization said might result from the radiation release have occurred in the 23 years since the accident.
What has passed for “discussion” of these critical issues is something far removed from what is needed. Like fossil fuels, the use of which we have been told is going to kill the planet, nuclear power has been the victim of a concerted effort to create fear among the citizenry. As Spencer and Loris wrote, “the propagation of ignorance by anti-nuclear activists has caused more harm to the affected populations than has the radioactive fallout from the actual accident.”
The American people deserve a free, honest and balanced discussion of energy issues that will produce an energy policy based upon facts, and free of ideological bias. Fear-mongering and demagoguery have no place in this discussion, but that may be beyond the abilities of the politicians and the media.
Source
Peter
Environmental debate heats up; validity of global warming questioned
Written by JAMES H. SHOTT, Bluefield Daily Telegraph
Tuesday, 07 April 2009
Proponents of man-made global warming say that burning fossil fuels to produce electricity, power manufacturing processes and fuel motor vehicles is seriously harming the environment. However recent evidence shows that to be a flawed theory.
Data shows that the earth cooled last year rather than warmed, following a trend that began in 2000, and in light of this evidence much of the doomsday talk has quieted down. However, while activists still cling to their flawed theory, they have replaced the term “global warming” with “climate change,” using the same theory to now account for any change that occurs, warming or cooling.
Scientists do not speak with one voice on this issue. Ivar Giaever is a Nobel Laureate in physics, and is one of 650 dissenting scientists who argued against this theory at the United Nations global warming conference in Poland last December. “I am a skeptic,” he said. “Global warming has become a new religion.”
Other opponents have made similar comments, like former NASA official, atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, who declared, “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... As a scientist I remain skeptical.”
Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires, commented that, “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”
Colorado State University hurricane expert William Gray was more direct, calling global warming “a big scam.”
Whether or not man causes atmospheric changes is no mere peripheral argument; a lot hangs in the balance. We must know beyond any reasonable doubt that human activities are actually harming the environment before we take the drastic actions that environmental activists tell us we need to take. We do not know beyond a reasonable doubt that man-made “climate change” is real, and as time passes the evidence that it isn’t real continues to mount.
Studies show that cutting greenhouse gas emissions would be extremely costly and would produce an insignificant affect on global temperatures. The Congressional Budget Office reports that a 15 percent cut in emissions would increase average household energy costs by $1,300 annually. That’s a lot of money.
But is there any reason to increase household energy costs even $1 per year in the absence of overwhelming evidence that burning fossil fuels seriously damages the environment? No.
What we need is a sensible energy policy. We must continue the development of solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative and renewable energy sources, but we also must not rush their development and implementation, forcing these technologies into use before they are ready. When they are efficient, effective and economical, they will thrive of their own accord, without the use of scare tactics or government edicts.
In the meantime, let’s open known or highly likely areas of oil and natural gas supplies to responsible development by energy companies. Let’s refuse to increase, and in fact scale back punitive taxation and regulations on coal, oil and natural gas so the price of these energy sources does not further escalate.
And let’s get past the irrational fear we have of nuclear power, and take fuller advantage of this safe and inexpensive energy source. In more than 12,700 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries there have been only two noteworthy accidents: Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, and Chernobyl, Ukraine.
Our fear of nuclear power is based largely upon a gross exaggeration of the problems caused by the radiation released at Three Mile Island 30 years ago. In an analysis for the Heritage Foundation, Jack Spencer and Nicolas Loris tell us that, “the steam leakage released a radiation dose equivalent to that of a chest X-ray scan, about one-third of the radiation humans absorb in one year from naturally occurring background radiation. No damage to any person, animal, or plant was ever found.”
The far more serious accident at Chernobyl seven years later was the result of human error, a poorly designed system, and technology that was far less well developed than that of the United States at that time. While there was an increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer in the region after the accident, nothing remotely close to the number of deaths the World Health Organization said might result from the radiation release have occurred in the 23 years since the accident.
What has passed for “discussion” of these critical issues is something far removed from what is needed. Like fossil fuels, the use of which we have been told is going to kill the planet, nuclear power has been the victim of a concerted effort to create fear among the citizenry. As Spencer and Loris wrote, “the propagation of ignorance by anti-nuclear activists has caused more harm to the affected populations than has the radioactive fallout from the actual accident.”
The American people deserve a free, honest and balanced discussion of energy issues that will produce an energy policy based upon facts, and free of ideological bias. Fear-mongering and demagoguery have no place in this discussion, but that may be beyond the abilities of the politicians and the media.
Source
FINALLY, A Televised Debate On Man-Caused Global Warming And Energy
The guests on this show, which I've never seen before, touch on most of the basic issues surrounding the debate about man-caused global warming, what if anything can be done about it, and perhaps most-importantly, this country, (America) and this Administration's (Obama) proposed solutions. The video takes a long time to load, at least it did for me, but it is well worth watching.
Peter
Climate Depot’s Morano debates Global Warming with former Clinton Admin. Official Romm
Thursday, 09 April 2009 (source)
Green Politics - Part 1
Part II
Peter
Climate Depot’s Morano debates Global Warming with former Clinton Admin. Official Romm
Thursday, 09 April 2009 (source)
Green Politics - Part 1
Part II
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Another Open Debate On Global Warming
Here is another debate on global warming, conducted in March, 2007. The idea is to educate as many people as possible about the absurdity of trying to stop global warming.
Peter
Last March, the prestigious New York debating society Intelligence Squared sponsored a debate on global warming, which may be viewed at http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=agsqgfcab.0.kh6qgfcab.rc5nt5bab.9902&ts=S0287&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligencesquaredus.org%2FEvent.aspx%3FEvent%3D12. A pre-debate poll indicated that, by 2-to-1 (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided), the audience believed that manmade global warming was a crisis. But in the post-debate poll, the audience reversed its pre-debate views - the ranks of the skeptics swelled to 46 percent, the believers plummeted to 42 percent and the undecided declined slightly to 12 percent."That's the power of debate," said Milloy. "Though Al Gore aggressively promotes global warming alarmism, he unfortunately seems to lack confidence in his ability to debating climate change against others. But Al Gore's curious reluctance will hardly stop the public from being able to see how his points stack up against that of climate experts," Milloy concluded.
Peter
Last March, the prestigious New York debating society Intelligence Squared sponsored a debate on global warming, which may be viewed at http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=agsqgfcab.0.kh6qgfcab.rc5nt5bab.9902&ts=S0287&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligencesquaredus.org%2FEvent.aspx%3FEvent%3D12. A pre-debate poll indicated that, by 2-to-1 (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided), the audience believed that manmade global warming was a crisis. But in the post-debate poll, the audience reversed its pre-debate views - the ranks of the skeptics swelled to 46 percent, the believers plummeted to 42 percent and the undecided declined slightly to 12 percent."That's the power of debate," said Milloy. "Though Al Gore aggressively promotes global warming alarmism, he unfortunately seems to lack confidence in his ability to debating climate change against others. But Al Gore's curious reluctance will hardly stop the public from being able to see how his points stack up against that of climate experts," Milloy concluded.
Al Gore "Debates" Climatologists About The Role Of CO2 in Global Warming
GeoPete
Message #1 - 10/04/07 12:43 PM
Here is another good video summarizing the main reason man is not causing global warming, and hence climate change. Atmospheric carbon dioxide just does not cause warming. This brings the entire global warming house of cards down. Have a look and listen.
Peter
Al Gore 'Debates' Global Warming for the First Time in YouTube Video; 'We Debate, You Decide' environmental education video series launched by DemandDebate.com
Washington, DC (October 4, 2007) ─ Since former vice president and global warming activist Al Gore has so far refused to debate global warming skeptics, the debate has been brought to him. The public may now watch Al Gore make his case head-to-head against expert climatologists in the first episode of the new environmental education video series, "We Debate, You Decide," launched by DemandDebate.com.
The "Al Gore Debates Global Warming" video is posted on YouTube (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=agsqgfcab.0.jh6qgfcab.rc5nt5bab.9902&ts=S0287&p=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXDI2NVTYRXU).
"Al Gore has refused multiple invitations to debate in-person about global warming," said Steve Milloy, executive director of DemandDebate.com. "So we've decided to let video of his previous remarks do the talking for him," Milloy explained.
In the first installment of DemandDebate's "We Debate, You Decide" series, Al Gore 'debates' expert climatologists on the central issue of whether carbon dioxide drives global warming.
Al Gore says in the video that we're witnessing an unprecedented level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is driving global temperatures higher. But expert climatologists ─ including Syun-ichi Akasofu, Tim Ball, Ian Clark, Piers Corbyn, Patrick Michaels, Nir Shaviv and Frederick Singer ─ say there is no evidence carbon dioxide drives global temperature change."
"We'll see what the public thinks after both sides make their case on a specific and narrow point," said Milloy. "Global warming alarmists didn't fare so well last time that happened," he added.
Message #1 - 10/04/07 12:43 PM
Here is another good video summarizing the main reason man is not causing global warming, and hence climate change. Atmospheric carbon dioxide just does not cause warming. This brings the entire global warming house of cards down. Have a look and listen.
Peter
Al Gore 'Debates' Global Warming for the First Time in YouTube Video; 'We Debate, You Decide' environmental education video series launched by DemandDebate.com
Washington, DC (October 4, 2007) ─ Since former vice president and global warming activist Al Gore has so far refused to debate global warming skeptics, the debate has been brought to him. The public may now watch Al Gore make his case head-to-head against expert climatologists in the first episode of the new environmental education video series, "We Debate, You Decide," launched by DemandDebate.com.
The "Al Gore Debates Global Warming" video is posted on YouTube (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=agsqgfcab.0.jh6qgfcab.rc5nt5bab.9902&ts=S0287&p=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXDI2NVTYRXU).
"Al Gore has refused multiple invitations to debate in-person about global warming," said Steve Milloy, executive director of DemandDebate.com. "So we've decided to let video of his previous remarks do the talking for him," Milloy explained.
In the first installment of DemandDebate's "We Debate, You Decide" series, Al Gore 'debates' expert climatologists on the central issue of whether carbon dioxide drives global warming.
Al Gore says in the video that we're witnessing an unprecedented level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is driving global temperatures higher. But expert climatologists ─ including Syun-ichi Akasofu, Tim Ball, Ian Clark, Piers Corbyn, Patrick Michaels, Nir Shaviv and Frederick Singer ─ say there is no evidence carbon dioxide drives global temperature change."
"We'll see what the public thinks after both sides make their case on a specific and narrow point," said Milloy. "Global warming alarmists didn't fare so well last time that happened," he added.
Monday, April 23, 2007
A Friendly Debate On MSNBC "Climate Change"
Here is a somewhat typical exhange in a discussion forum hosted by MSNBC called "Climate Change". I'm "GeoPete"
Go here to see more: http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/board.aspx?BoardID=946
SlucarelliMessage #87
04/23/07 12:12 PM You can think what you want, we are all entitled to our own opinions. I have looked at petes website and there are numerous area's in it where he leaves out certain information to encourage people to believe in his views. Not giving the public all the facts is a poor way to claim your views as truth.
ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options
ChitownMattMessage #88
04/23/07 12:22 PM GeoPete,
Was it not the conclusion of the Vostok ice core data that we should currently be in a period of cooling?
Also, that silly web site you directed me to seems to be much more politically driven than factual. There were more things written about how Kerry and Gore are hypocritical liars than about data on the environment. And what data was presented was only in support of the idea that global warming is a myth with absolutely no counter-point. The articles written on that page are anything, but "emotionally unattached from the results."
That goes right back to my point that many of the posters here seem to be grasping at anything that will support their position as fact and dismissing anything that contradicts as "liberal media bias."
ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options
geoPeterMessage #89
04/23/07 01:00 PM ChitownMatt,
Find something factual that supports man-induced global warming, and post it here. I'm seeking logical and reasonable debate. Leave a comment, direct me and others to something scientific that supports your beliefs.
What I have seen in the mainstream media, (especially our host MSNBC) is totally alarmist and sensational in their reporting. It seems impossible to have a rational discussion. People "believe" in global warming passionately, they "feel" certain in their "cause". This is not science. It is politics, and many people have equated environmentalism with a new religion. I agree it has many similar characteristics.
I am a scientist, a geologist for 34 years now. I've travelled, and worked in many environments. I've seen many of the proven and obvious indicators of climate change. I mean things like glaciers, beach terraces, surface and subsurface sedimentary rocks or rock layering. These are facts, science works. Scientists have to utilize measurements, facts, data and theories that are reproducible. But what I see in the arguments for man-caused global warming is not facts and not science, only theorizing, modeling, unproven.
I recognize hype, hysteria, scare tactics, and just plain old BS when I see it and hear it. If you have something rational to show me or tell me, I'm all for it. I'm certainly not going to be very impressed by the likes of Al Gore and now John Kerry, and the travelling global warming carnival of Crowe and David. They're nothing but a joke.
ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options
geoPeterMessage #90
04/23/07 01:05 PM Slucarelli,
Of course I'm trying to convince others of my view on the subject of global warming. I'm upfront about that. I struggle to remain polite and I don't publish everything I see or read. There is way to much "stuff" out there to do that. I'm trying to use my experience and judgment to post relevant material. Look here again and you'll find far more logical and rational material than you will most other places.
Peter
ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options
Go here to see more: http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/board.aspx?BoardID=946
SlucarelliMessage #87
04/23/07 12:12 PM You can think what you want, we are all entitled to our own opinions. I have looked at petes website and there are numerous area's in it where he leaves out certain information to encourage people to believe in his views. Not giving the public all the facts is a poor way to claim your views as truth.
ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options
ChitownMattMessage #88
04/23/07 12:22 PM GeoPete,
Was it not the conclusion of the Vostok ice core data that we should currently be in a period of cooling?
Also, that silly web site you directed me to seems to be much more politically driven than factual. There were more things written about how Kerry and Gore are hypocritical liars than about data on the environment. And what data was presented was only in support of the idea that global warming is a myth with absolutely no counter-point. The articles written on that page are anything, but "emotionally unattached from the results."
That goes right back to my point that many of the posters here seem to be grasping at anything that will support their position as fact and dismissing anything that contradicts as "liberal media bias."
ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options
geoPeterMessage #89
04/23/07 01:00 PM ChitownMatt,
Find something factual that supports man-induced global warming, and post it here. I'm seeking logical and reasonable debate. Leave a comment, direct me and others to something scientific that supports your beliefs.
What I have seen in the mainstream media, (especially our host MSNBC) is totally alarmist and sensational in their reporting. It seems impossible to have a rational discussion. People "believe" in global warming passionately, they "feel" certain in their "cause". This is not science. It is politics, and many people have equated environmentalism with a new religion. I agree it has many similar characteristics.
I am a scientist, a geologist for 34 years now. I've travelled, and worked in many environments. I've seen many of the proven and obvious indicators of climate change. I mean things like glaciers, beach terraces, surface and subsurface sedimentary rocks or rock layering. These are facts, science works. Scientists have to utilize measurements, facts, data and theories that are reproducible. But what I see in the arguments for man-caused global warming is not facts and not science, only theorizing, modeling, unproven.
I recognize hype, hysteria, scare tactics, and just plain old BS when I see it and hear it. If you have something rational to show me or tell me, I'm all for it. I'm certainly not going to be very impressed by the likes of Al Gore and now John Kerry, and the travelling global warming carnival of Crowe and David. They're nothing but a joke.
ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options
geoPeterMessage #90
04/23/07 01:05 PM Slucarelli,
Of course I'm trying to convince others of my view on the subject of global warming. I'm upfront about that. I struggle to remain polite and I don't publish everything I see or read. There is way to much "stuff" out there to do that. I'm trying to use my experience and judgment to post relevant material. Look here again and you'll find far more logical and rational material than you will most other places.
Peter
ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options
Thursday, April 5, 2007
BRIT CHALLENGES GORE TO DEBATE
In a challenge unlikely to be met,
"A British skeptic of global warming "alarmism" on Tuesday challenged climate change activist and former Vice President Al Gore to a debate on the issue."Global warming is not a crisis," Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley declared in an ad published in the Washington Post Tuesday. The ad, also scheduled to run in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, directs readers to a website in which Monckton challenges Gore to a debate in Oxford, England at a date of the American's choosing."
"Al Gore has become the world's most recognized advocate of the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions are altering the world's climate and could cause catastrophic damage if not arrested and reduced," Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast said in a statement. "But Al Gore refuses to debate those who say global warming is not a crisis."
"In a recent statement, Monckton declared, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw [a fuss over a matter of little importance] of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."
I haven't heard that word in a while, "FOOFARAW", but it fits Al Gore's Global Warming Crusade perfectly. Wouldn't you love to see such a debate, televised and broadcast around the world? Gore won't take the bait. At this point he would have nothing to gain and everything to lose. He has public opinion on his side and he's not going to let science, reason and logic get in his way.
Any ideas for how we can get Gore, or any human-induced global warming advocates to have an open and honest debate? I don't know how it is possible.
Peter
To read the entire article, go here.
"A British skeptic of global warming "alarmism" on Tuesday challenged climate change activist and former Vice President Al Gore to a debate on the issue."Global warming is not a crisis," Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley declared in an ad published in the Washington Post Tuesday. The ad, also scheduled to run in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, directs readers to a website in which Monckton challenges Gore to a debate in Oxford, England at a date of the American's choosing."
"Al Gore has become the world's most recognized advocate of the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions are altering the world's climate and could cause catastrophic damage if not arrested and reduced," Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast said in a statement. "But Al Gore refuses to debate those who say global warming is not a crisis."
"In a recent statement, Monckton declared, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw [a fuss over a matter of little importance] of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."
I haven't heard that word in a while, "FOOFARAW", but it fits Al Gore's Global Warming Crusade perfectly. Wouldn't you love to see such a debate, televised and broadcast around the world? Gore won't take the bait. At this point he would have nothing to gain and everything to lose. He has public opinion on his side and he's not going to let science, reason and logic get in his way.
Any ideas for how we can get Gore, or any human-induced global warming advocates to have an open and honest debate? I don't know how it is possible.
Peter
To read the entire article, go here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)