« University Officials: "Support The Troops" Elsewhere | Main | The 10 Spot - Girls Gone Wild Edition »

Countdown to Global Catastrophe (Ominous Music Here)

I clipped more of this than I usually would, but read the whole excerpt and as you read it, count on you fingers all the ways we are going to die:

Countdown to global catastrophe

Climate change: report warns point of no return may be reached in 10 years, leading to droughts, agricultural failure and water shortages

The global warming danger threshold for the world is clearly marked [it is? who marked it?] for the first time in an international report to be published tomorrow - and the bad news is, the world has nearly reached it already.

The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world - and it is remarkably brief. In as little as 10 years, or even less, their report indicates, the point of no return with global warming may have been reached.

The report, Meeting The Climate Challenge, is aimed at policymakers in every country, from national leaders down. It has been timed to coincide with Tony Blair's promised efforts to advance climate change policy in 2005 as chairman of both the G8 group of rich countries and the European Union. [This paragraph says all you need to know about this "science" paper.]

And it breaks new ground by putting a figure - for the first time in such a high-level document - on the danger point of global warming, that is, the temperature rise beyond which the world would be irretrievably committed to disastrous changes. These could include widespread agricultural failure, water shortages and major droughts, increased disease, sea-level rise and the death of forests - with the added possibility of abrupt catastrophic events such as "runaway" global warming, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, or the switching-off of the Gulf Stream.

The report says this point will be two degrees centigrade above the average world temperature prevailing in 1750 before the industrial revolution, when human activities - mainly the production of waste gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which retain the sun's heat in the atmosphere - first started to affect the climate. But it points out that global average temperature has already risen by 0.8 degrees since then, with more rises already in the pipeline - so the world has little more than a single degree of temperature latitude before the crucial point is reached.

More ominously still, it assesses the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere after which the two-degree rise will become inevitable, and says it will be 400 parts per million by volume (ppm) of CO2.

The current level is 379ppm, and rising by more than 2ppm annually - so it is likely that the vital 400ppm threshold will be crossed in just 10 years' time, or even less (although the two-degree temperature rise might take longer to come into effect).

Taken at face value, this paper is a breathtaking example of the hubris of man. As if a few numbers on a gauge we created can determine when we all die. It is all the more laughable because they assume we have to return to 1750 levels. That makes the fundamentally misguided assumption that the earth must remain static. If there is anything that we KNOW as scientists is is that the earth constantly changes. Expecting it to remain in the same parameters it was when we first invented ways to measure it is unimaginably egotistical.

But this is NOT a scientific paper so none of that matters.

This paper is just an environmentalist manifesto dressed up as science. Ted Kaczynski without the bombs but with a few letters behind his name. The environmental movement has a problem they did not expect to have when it started. A deadline.

To fully understand this report, you have to first understand that the environmental movement is not about science, it is about policy. Be they socialists, luddites or whatever their motivation, the aim is to affect policy. Therein lies the problem.

Policy makers will not pass the draconian legislation the environmental movement wants because there is no pressing need to ruin the lives of millions of people on the whacky theory of the week. So the environmentalists have now created an artificial deadline to motivate policy makers. The news report even says that is why this paper was written!

They actually did it last year when they said that up to 20% of the land mass would be flooded if we didn't do something in 5 years. That was laughed at, so now, like a kid trying to extend their bed time, the environmentalist are going back to the policymakers and saying "Ok, 10 years?"

I for one welcome the deadline-- and I liked the 5 year deadline. Then we can get this goofball, chicken little theory behind us.

Remember this post. When you ring in 2015 and there was no "Global Catastrophy," tell the person you're sharing the champagne with, "You know, that guy on the internet was right."

And please spare me links to people who swear this hoax is true. You will only prove you are gullible. The environmental movement has about a 0-150 record in their predictions of doom and gloom. I'm not buying it.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Countdown to Global Catastrophe (Ominous Music Here):

» Right Wingnuthouse linked with CHICKEN LITTLE AND THE GREENIES

» Hold The Mayo linked with Chasing the Unicorn

» Synthstuff - music, photography and more... linked with Chicken Little Environmentalism

Comments (41)

As seen on Instapundit, her... (Below threshold)
BigFire:

As seen on Instapundit, here's another study on human activity & global ice age. Yep, if not for humanity, much of Canada would be under ice right now.

I've emailed Robert at econ... (Below threshold)

I've emailed Robert at econot.com to see what he has to say. He eats sixteen-penny nails for breakfast just before he tears stuff like this up. Check out his site if you get a chance.

Where's the clock? What's a... (Below threshold)
julie:

Where's the clock? What's a Doomsday prediction without a Big DoomsdayClock? Hey, these guys aren't doing it right!

That's funny BF. A... (Below threshold)
Paul:

That's funny BF.

A decade or more ago, I was arguing with my whckjob sister and I asked:

20 years ago the scientists all "knew" we were going to have another ice age because of all the pollution blocking the sunlight, now many of those same scientists are saying we will have global warming because of pollution causing the ozone hole. Since they were wrong the first time when they predicted global cooling, how can we trust them on global warming?

Her reply changed my life... Realizing she was trapped, she thought for a minute and said:

"No, they were right both times... if it weren't for the ozone hole, the earth would have chilled. The effects have cancelled each other out."

It was at that very moment I knew that for many, the environmental movement was a religion.

Yum, yumyum, this Soylent G... (Below threshold)
Jack Tanner:

Yum, yumyum, this Soylent Green sure is good. Lucky because of all the starvation from The Population Bomb in The Coming Ice Age.

I think we should try to ge... (Below threshold)
Justin B:

I think we should try to get back to 1750. You know, average lifespan is 35 years. Majority of the world does not have enough food. No phones, cars, TV... But perfect weather...

WTF. That is all I have to say. As long as the earth can sustain all of us living here, who gives a damn if there are some minor climactic changes? We are able to adapt. Fuck the spotted owls or any other creature not smart enough to move to higher ground when "THE WORLD FLOODS". The world ain't gonna flood, even if the "polar icecaps melt".

This reminds me of a movie ... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

This reminds me of a movie they showed me when I was in middle school in the 1980's. I don't remember the name, but it was full of doom and gloom, and according to that movie we should all be starving right now, and in an environmental disaster area.

I don't think a single thing from that movie has come to pass.

While I think we as humans have a resonsibility to act environmentally sensible-I think we overestimate our importance when it comes to things like global warming or the ushering in of a new ice age.

I am SICK TO DEATH of these... (Below threshold)
Rob Hackney:

I am SICK TO DEATH of these BULLSHIT Liberal tree huggers trying to scare us all into submition and LOWER OUR STANDARDS OF LIVING for mere ideology.

Humanity, if it runs into problems, has always managed to figure a way out. Yes,, we destroy, but we also create.

Think about that, Activist EnironMORONS

Just you wait. Soon a group... (Below threshold)

Just you wait. Soon a group will come along that will attempt the same thing as was presented in the book "Rainbow Six" By Tom Clancy.

For those of you who have not read the novel (its a fiction piece), Rainbow Six is an umbrella (multi-national) counter-terrorist organization that participated in downing terrorist ops around the world. I don't want to get into too much detail, but the terrorist ops were just a ruse, to get the world nuts about security, so that the enviornmentalist group (main plot), which manufactured a strain of the ebola virus that could be spread through an aerosol, could administer the virus to a majority of the worlds population (I won't tell you how, you have to read it yourself).

Basically , the group was willing to sacrifice the world's population (excluding themselves of course) for the "good of the earth. I won't tell you how the final issue gets resolved, but I find the solution fits rather nicely (for those that have read it).

Besides, I bet you that the... (Below threshold)

Besides, I bet you that the majority of the world's pollution comes from natural sources, Volcanos and cows

The majority of oil flowing into the ocean comes from natural sources as well(seepage from natural deposits and such), than it ever has from man-made casualties. The ocean has its own bacteria that breaks up the oil. Cleanup efforts like the world saw after the Exxon VALDEZ, destroyed the bacteria, which made it so horrible (blame the evil corporations in the first place!).

I am already feeling hot an... (Below threshold)
McCain:

I am already feeling hot and bothered. Must I wait 10 years?

Michael Crichton's "State o... (Below threshold)
leelu:

Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" is an excellend read (imho) *and* has a killer bibliography on the information he used as background for the book. (Both sides - he noting if not thorough.)

Global warming? Ain't happening. Rise in sea levels? Ditto.

heh...true i would love to ... (Below threshold)
iggimarco:

heh...true i would love to see some ice in miami...
---
the deadline was a bad idea, they are jus trying to make us worry that it wil happen while we are living so that we start doing somthing about it...because if the say 50 or 100 nobody would care.
Give tham a break...i guess all they are trying to do is help. the point here is that in 100 or 1000 years if we continue like this, it will happen.

It was a lot warmer 1000 ye... (Below threshold)
andrei:

It was a lot warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. England actually exported wine! Cattle and sheep were grazing in Greenland where today it is permafrost desert and nothing lives .

After 1300 the world entered a period known as the Little Ice Age a much harder time than today, a time of famine and disease, why would anyone want to go back to that? It is generally agreed that the Little Ice Age ended about 1850, a time conveniently close to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution for wackos to blame industrialization for the warming of the world.

Apparently <a href="http://... (Below threshold)
Donny:

Apparently Bill INDC has appointed himself the rational center of the Republican Party, and has a few choice words for Paul:

Taken at face value, Paul's post is a "breathtaking example" of starting from a point of political distaste and maligning something with no specific supporting evidence for your argument. Is it "a breathtaking example of the hubris of man" for scientists to try and project climate changes that could affect the survival of the human race? By those standards, I certainly hope thet Paul lives in a log cabin and pisses in a chamber pot. Can "a few numbers on a gauge we created ... determine when we all die[?]" I'm not sure, though a seismograph, tide gauge and communications system sure would have saved about 200,000 people in December.

I'm getting sick of these RINOs always wanting to compromise with the liberals, and casting judgment on the rest of us.

If you read environmentalis... (Below threshold)

If you read environmentalist papers from the 1960s and 1970s, they said back then we'd all be dead by now.

Finally, it's all going to ... (Below threshold)
Rick13:

Finally, it's all going to end! Lucky for me that I am being confirmed on Feb. 6th. Just in Time!!!

lol... (Below threshold)
iggimarco:

lol

TallDave, we are all dead. ... (Below threshold)
julie:

TallDave, we are all dead.

It's a breathtaking example... (Below threshold)
julie:

It's a breathtaking example of the hubris of BILL INDC for him to take Paul's words out of context.

Donny -I have no i... (Below threshold)

Donny -

I have no idea what my argument has to do with being a "RINO." It's about marshalling facts instead of politics or feelings to make compelling scientific arguments. And I'd dare say that calling for the use of facts is a Hell of a lot more "Republican" than you seem to be. In fact, you sound like an emotional leftist to me. You know the type; the one that pines for Communism because it feels right. And because all his friends are Communists.

Julie -

How exactly am I taking Paul's words out of context? Can you explain it? Doubtful, or you would have specifically done so in your comment.

If more righties that base personal self-worth on political affiliation could take a five minute breather from the ideological and self-affirming mental masturbation of calling liberals dumbasses, no matter what the issue, you might be able to construct a solid, constructive argument that convinces someone of something ... rather than merely getting an amen from the choir.

The case can be made that man-made global warming is a doubtful or equivocal scientific theory; it's just not being made here. The fact that Donny is enough of an idiot to think that my criticism of this post constitutes "compromis(ing) with liberals" is a testament to how deep ideologically driven stupidity can run.

Bill proposes an absurd sta... (Below threshold)

Bill proposes an absurd standard. "The case can be made that man-made global warming is a doubtful or equivocal scientific theory; it's just not being made here."

I seldom see folks from the left side of the blogosphere bothering to explain the scientific basis for evolution over creationism; they just snicker that the creationists are morons (not that Bill is a lefty, just pointing out that both sides do it). Perhaps we should hold our own side to a higher standard, but the point remains that the science doesn't have to be rehashed every time.

A lot of people whom I respect have looked at GW and concluded it's a lot of bunkum. I don't have the time or expertise to challenge that opinion. Most of the folks who do accept global warming appear to me to have another agenda entirely.

Bill you took me DRAMATICAL... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Bill you took me DRAMATICALLY out of context. You harped on the first paragraph of which I said:

"But this is NOT a scientific paper so none of that matters."

My post was not about the relative merits of the report.. That's why I did not refute it. My post was about the new tactics employed by the environmental crowd. (you know.. the deadline)

You completely ignored the point of the post!

---

Do me a favor consider my point before I have to expand on my point... With all due respect, and I've linked you in a complimentary fashion many time, I think you are off base on this one.

P

No, Bill, I didn't think it... (Below threshold)
julie:

No, Bill, I didn't think it was necessary in that people can read Paul's article and your quote, and compare the two for themselves. Maybe, you should try it yourself.

The case can be made that man-made global warming is a doubtful or equivocal scientific theory; it's just not being made here.

Why would it have to be? Almost everyone here is a college grad, well read, and has heard it all before. This isn't some startling yet undiscovered scientific evidence that proves what everyone but, as you call them, "the righties," have known all along, which is that we're all going to diiieeee!!

The problem with these disc... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

The problem with these discussions is that the "global warming, we are all gonna die" crowd seems to keep moving the goal posts, when their dire predictions don't come to play.

Like I said I remember this really stupid movie they showed us in middle school, all about how we were going to run out of natural resouces, all the farm land would be paved over or used up, how everything would be polluted, and we would all be dead sometime around 2000.

That film was pretty much a bunch of hoohaw. The film used all kinds of science to back up the claims. But since the dire predictions didn't play out on the original time table, they just move the goal posts, and set up a whole new one.

Henry, I read Rainbow Six, ... (Below threshold)
John:

Henry, I read Rainbow Six, and found the ending very fitting. I won't give it away either.

Paul makes a great point, w... (Below threshold)
Jesse:

Paul makes a great point, which is worth repeating yet again:

"This is NOT a scientific paper so none of that matters."

That should be the standard. Now, I challenge those of you who have made sweeping generalizations of what "scientists have said" to come up with ONE peer-reviewed scientific paper which said anything of the sort:

"20 years ago the scientists all 'knew' we were going to have another ice age because of all the pollution blocking the sunlight" (Paul)

"the majority of the world's pollution comes from natural sources, Volcanos and cows" (Henry)

"If you read environmentalist papers from the 1960s and 1970s, they said back then we'd all be dead by now." (Tall Dave)

Such broad claims, if they are true, probably have tens to hundreds of papers to back them up. But a single bibliographic reference will suffice. (By the way, novels by Michael Chricton and Tom Clancy don't count.)

Well, Jesse, when I was in ... (Below threshold)
julie:

Well, Jesse, when I was in college the "we're all heading for another ice-age and going to die " scientific school was in vogue (hence my wooly mammoth fantasies). Two of my Biology Professors (and we are talking about full profressors) and all my bio T.A.'s talked about it. So, I do believe such papers exist. But, since they pre-date the internet and I really have no interest in what you think, I won't waste my time looking.

Hi Julie: What kin... (Below threshold)
Jesse:

Hi Julie:

What kind words. In any case, as you know, the vast majority of scientific journals have gone back and posted most of their old papers on the internet; so if those papers exist, you should have no trouble finding them. But since you don't care what I (or apparently any other scientists) think, you're right, you shouldn't bother.

By the way, statements like "my biology profs said this about climate change" are akin to "my podiatrist said this about my migraines." What did your geoscience profs say?

In any case, as you know... (Below threshold)
julie:

In any case, as you know, the vast majority of scientific journals have gone back and posted most of their old papers on the internet;

No, I don't know.

so if those papers exist, you should have no trouble finding them.

And if what you say is true, neither will you.

But since you don't care what I (or apparently any other scientists) think, you're right, you shouldn't bother.

I definitely don't care what you think. But, I never said "[I ] don't care what . . . any other scientists think." Nice try at attributing to me words I never wrote. Another good reason why not to care what you think.

By the way, statements like "my biology profs said this about climate change" are akin to "my podiatrist said this about my migraines."

Well, maybe if they were of the caliber of the profs who taught you . . . but they weren't.

What did your geoscience profs say?

Hey, I was a member of the Cyclotherm Club! Frankly, I no longer remember with any certainty how much they stressed theory vs. environmental gospel.

You're getting kinda emotio... (Below threshold)
Donny:

You're getting kinda emotional yourself, there, aren't you Bill? You're saying I'm like a Communist because I said you're a RINO? Is that like "I know you are but what am I?" It also occurs to me that when emotional people start criticizing others for being too emotional while ranting emotionally about "objective facts", we have a word for those people: hypocrites.

This is fun! To hit the co... (Below threshold)
Jesse:

This is fun! To hit the comments one-by-one,

No, I don't know.
Well, they do. So now you know.

And if what you say is true, neither will you.
Huh? My point is that those papers don't exist! How can I find them if they don't exist?!? You're not asking me to prove a negative, are you?

I definitely don't care what you think. But, I never said "[I ] don't care what . . . any other scientists think." Nice try at attributing to me words I never wrote. Another good reason why not to care what you think.
Frankly, I really don't mind that you don't care what I think. But if you're unwilling to look back at what scientists have written over the years (and you've admitted that to be the case), it's perfectly fair to say you don't care what they think either.

Well, maybe if they were of the caliber of the profs who taught you . . . but they weren't.
Wow. First you say you had profs who spewed BS about climate change which was based on no real science, and now you're saying they're really great? So, which is it?

How can I find them if t... (Below threshold)
julie:

How can I find them if they don't exist?!?

How do you know they don't exist if you haven't looked?

You're not asking me to prove a negative, are you?

I'm not asking you to prove anything. You are the one who came here and demanded people prove things to you.

Frankly, I really don't mind that you don't care what I think.

Good, because what you do or don't mind will never matter to me.

But if you're unwilling to look back at what scientists have written over the years
(and you've admitted that to be the case),

My God, twice in a row you made false attributions to me. Are you always so blatant a liar?

it's perfectly fair to say you don't care what they think either.

Well, since I never wrote what you said I wrote, no it would not be perfectly fair. In fact it would be your third lie.

First you say you had profs who spewed BS about climate change which was based on no real science, and now you're saying they're really great? So, which is it?

A fourth lie? You set an all time record! So, ethically challenged that jesse!

Sorry, jesse, four strikes and you're out. I have no use for liars.

Here's a pretty well docume... (Below threshold)

Here's a pretty well documented deconstructing of the idea that Scientist's were predicting another ice age in the 70's.

Certainly surprised me, but that just goes to show you the power of myth. From now on, that meme is out of my arsenal. Unless someone actually comes up with solid evidence.

More accurately though, I think it goes to show the power of a non-critical press. Newsweek? Say it ain't so!

Score one for Jesse.

But I still side with the non-GW crowd on this subject, based on the hard data I have reveiewed countering the GW chicken-littles.

Just as a follow up, <a hre... (Below threshold)

Just as a follow up, this article by John Daly really details the problems with the GW crowd's data and analysis of mean temperatures.

Look, I'm sorry if I've bee... (Below threshold)
Jesse:

Look, I'm sorry if I've been falsely attributing things to you -- it's got to be a misunderstanding, and I apologize. You said "So, I do believe such papers exist. But, since...I really have no interest in what you think, I won't waste my time looking."

My point is simply that it's not about "what (I) think". What should be the issue here is what scientists over the last few decades have said. Do we agree about that? Now, if you "won't waste (your) time looking" for what they wrote, then how can someone be sure you really care what they think? Asking for a little evidence doesn't seem to be that big a deal. [Yes, it was harsh (though not a lie) for me to say you "don't care", and for that apologize.]

I have in fact looked at many past papers -- however I'm not going to call you a "liar" for implying I didn't. There were, for example, a bunch of papers in Science magazine, starting largely in the mid-70's, about how humans could influence climate, and even under some circumstances make it colder. But I couldn't find anything about predictions of an "ice age" (as Paul asserted)*. I'm simply asking for a little evidence.

----

*apparently the media at the time picked up on some of this research, with an article in Fortune and a PBS special; I wouldn't be surprised if they exaggerated the implications of the science. But don't blame the scientists for that.

Thanks Krakatoa -- I'd neve... (Below threshold)
Jesse:

Thanks Krakatoa -- I'd never seen that particular page. (In fact, I guess I'm way behind the times because I'd never heard of the ice age myth until today.)

Jesse, I spent a couple of ... (Below threshold)

Jesse, I spent a couple of minutes and I haven't found peer-reviewed papers yet, but I have found all sorts of information (that might be peer-reviewed, it doesn't quite say) that backs up both topics. Its wrong to ask for peer-reviewed journals from one side of the fence without asking for it on the other side. Just like was written here by other people, scientists tend to "go along" with whatever is the current "fad theory" of the time. Peer reviewed doesn't mean that it holds water, it just means that its grammatically correct and is written scientifically enough.

Remember recently that there was a professor that put forth an article in a professional journal about the theory of intelligent design? The fact that it was published in the journal means it was peer-reviewed.
We have articles about evolutionary theory, and now there is an article about intelligent design.

I could probably find one linking genital warts to toads (might take a while though...)

Let's just end it by saying that you won this one by default, only 'cause I don't have a few days/weeks with which I can spend searching through tons of educational/professional journals/publications.

Henry,Actually, yo... (Below threshold)

Henry,

Actually, you are incorrect about what "peer review" means.

You are correct in your thinking that publishing generally means it has gone through a review process, or at least it used to mean that. We live in a 24x7 news cycle though. Peer review prior to publication definitely ain't what it used to be.

Witness Rathergate.

The first step in peer review these days, yes, is publishing. This is probably the most sphincter-tightening part of the process, but really is the least important.

The important phase is where other independent laboratories and scientists take your work, check your numbers, recreate your experiments and verify the data they get matches the data you got.

Remember the cold-fusion craze back in '89? Pons & Fleischman rushed to publication (press conference). Peer review over the next 6 months demonstrated that whatever they thought they had, cold fusion it most definitely was not.

So yes, some scientists published a few articles on global cooling in the 70's. The one I spent any time looking at was Stephen Schneider's in Science. Under the peer review process, it was found that he had miscalculated one key part of his data.

Schneider later became one of the leading advocates in the Global Warming craze. Personally, I find his previous work a poor recommendation for credibility in his current.

This is the importance of peer review, and why Jesse is right in asking for those sorts of references.

I'm having a hard time finding anything approaching a consensus of scientists claiming an ice age was imminent.

By all means, if you find there was indeed widespread support, let us know. But honestly, I think this is just a diversion from the real debate: Are global temperatures affected by man. If so, what are the effects, and what, if anything, should be done about it.

Just to do a little absurdl... (Below threshold)

Just to do a little absurdly egotistical self-advertising, I look at this paper over at Techcentralstation.com today.
There’s one reason the whole exercise of this Taskforce is jumk, pure and simple. In 40 pages of talking about low- and no-carbon technologies, they do not mention nuclear (except in a footnote to point out that they do not mention nuclear).
You can argue either side of the nuclear case, as you wish, but to not mention it is absurd.
Simply not being serious and unworthy of our time and attention.

I just want to remind you a... (Below threshold)
Rohan Miller:

I just want to remind you all that just becuase scientists may have been wrong 35 years ago doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong now -new techniques, more advanced modelling etc will at least mean we can be more sure than we were back then. the fact is, i don't think we can say one way or another if global warming is going to be an issue. you have to ask yourself, what could have triggered global waming/cooling in the past... is it inconvievable that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for a hundred years could have some effect on climate? the fact is, most of you could read a hundred papers claiming that humans have impacted on climate/global warming and still say its all bullshit. Im not saying i believe in it all, at least not the the extent that's been claimed, but it is monumentally irresponisble to fob it all off as myth and say its ok to keep going as we always have been. its typical of humanity to not take responsibilty for its actions, easier to keep going rather than to change. im not saying it will, but one day it might bite us back on the ass, and id prefer not to take the chance.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy