Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Responsible reform | Main | Beijing reveals its true colors »

Thursday, February 22, 2007

That old time green religion

I just can't get enough of the global-warming issue. It's the subject of my latest debate in the Tri-City News. Here's my side of the debate, and here's Mary Woo Sims'.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 22, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference That old time green religion:


Your argument is about questioning the interpretations of the scientific data and her argument is about......um....not sure really, but she did manage to get in a gratuitous shot at Bush.

Posted by: Anon | 2007-02-22 9:56:39 AM

Ms. Woo attributes Bush's and Howard's "conversion" to stormy weather (i.e. hurricanes). This is incorrect. It was stormy polling data that triggered the change in their public positions. Privately, I doubt very much they have changed their minds.

So, if Ms. Woo thinks that the stampede of public opinion is somehow 'proof' that global warming is happening and that is caused by anthropogenic CO2 production, then clearly she has never taken a course in logic.

Posted by: Gord Tulk | 2007-02-22 10:09:23 AM

You know, when an issue is TRULY undecided, you have two sides where each claim they are right. For example, some say privatizing health care would improve the system, some say it would not. But with some issues you don't get that. You get one side saying the facts are decisive while the other strongly argues for "undecided". That is the sure measure that the debate is over. Some examples of "debates" at this stage:

1. Global warming
2. Evolution vs intelligent design
3. The Holocaust

Just like when the tobacco companies tried to say the science was not yet in on smoking causing cancer. You can either pretend there is a debate or you can be a serious person. Your choice.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2007-02-22 10:23:19 AM

Nice try, Mark Logan. Throw in the Holocaust and equate it with the other two issues. BALONEY!

Globull warming may exist, but it's not necessarily caused by man. The sun is a more likely culprit, as seen by the warming of the planet Mars - where I believe SUV's have been outlawed for some time now.

And tobacco CAN cause cancer, but does not do so every time. Only about one third of smokers contract the disease. Churchill smoked and drank heavily his entire life - and lived to the age of 90.

Posted by: obc | 2007-02-22 10:52:23 AM

Jeez I always wanted to be a serious person -is one
required to answer skill testing questions like is it warmer in New Brunswick Canada in July that February? now that I'm on the way to being serious
reflect for a minutes on the bureaucrats who created
the term "Global Warming" why they do that? they do that to be taken seriously in Koyoto Japan (a city primarily heated in February each year by burning
coal) - I guess they are serious about keeping warm in their Kimono's MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-02-22 11:01:16 AM

I would not say that global warming is the religion of the Left, but I would say that it is the most recent and most popular tenet of the godless church of the Left. It is their most recent tool to attack business and industry, to raise taxes and fine the productive workers and it increases the size of nanny-state government while pushing for a one-world totalitarian government. Any doubts? Just consider their concerted effort to outlaw the denial of their propaganda.

Of course it is not limited simply to ideology because it translates into big money for many. The "global warming caused by man" crowd of scientists have been paid huge amounts of money by the same governments that their crowd is attacking, including the American government. Being funded so generously, they have a vested interest in keeping it that way. So they will do everything possible to silence scientists who do not accept their theory. The same thing applies to the theory of evolution by the way.

What spices it up and makes it attractive for the general public is the human penchant to fear allegedly forthcoming disasters - thus the chicken little crowd. Anyone remember the comet threat , the population explosion, world wide famine, or the coming ice-age, and there have been others. Some even push this penchant to believing every so often that the world is ending.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-02-22 11:36:43 AM

I always love the broad stroke of the threat of floods and droughts that the GW advocates always bring up.
I wonder how long these earthly wonders have been around?
Oh yea, it's right here.

"And the seven years of plenteousness, that was in the land of Egypt was ended. And the seven years of dearth began to come, according as Joseph had said: and the dearth was in all lands...." -Genesis 41:53

It's amazing how much the world has changed over the last 3 or 4 thousand years, eh? Or not?
Gee, I wonder if there is a CYCLE to these weather changes on earth?

The use of the hurricanes as conclusive proof of GW is particularly ironic. Everybody was predicting an monster INCREASE for the 2006 season and they were as dead wrong as they could be.
Which shows that they are still missing a huge piece of the weather puzzle for even year to year predictions.
And they want us to believe they can project our climate out 100 years?
Get serious.

Posted by: rockyt | 2007-02-22 11:58:50 AM

Evolution is not a theory but a religion for secular atheists. One can view fossils very differently depending on his initial assumptions and worldview.

When one study fossils with the Christian worldview, everything falls nicely into place. Science is great when an experiment can be repeated with the same results. Otherwise, it is only speculation.

Only one was present when the beginning of our world happened: God. So we should take His Word as truth and study His creation with a biblical worldview.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-02-22 12:08:01 PM

I am for global warming. I think our planet is far too cold as it is. We will have more areas of earth that can support plant life which will then capture and hold the additional moisture that melts from the polar areas.

If this process sheds a couple of billion humans over this century, then that will be nature's way of saying there are too many of us.

The religion around this issue is scary and stupid. The left can 'feel' they know all about this warming phenomenon, but feelings are not reality.

Ms. Woo is a woman and women are less likely to consider the science behind this issue and more likely to 'feel' that this is a good opportunity to push the socialist cause.

A few years from now, when this issue is less in the news, people will wonder how it got so out of hand and how we nearly trashed our great capitalist society on the whims of a few Chicken Littles and their gullible followers.

Enjoy the cool aid folks.

A few truism for you.

The holocaust did happen

Islam is backward and evil

America is our best friend

Liberalism is a mental disorder

Common sense and money will prevail

The mainstream media is dying

Multiculturalism has destroyed Canadian culture

Bilingualism in Canada is a waste of money and human capital

The metric system is still not and will not be used because our entire infrastructure is in imperial units. You still buy 2x4s don't you?

Nuff for now.

Posted by: Duke | 2007-02-22 1:48:32 PM

Hell, not even Kyoto (Japan) can meets their Kyoto target. They are apperently 8% above 1990 levels of CO2 emmissions and will need to cut back 14% by 2012 to meet the 6% below 1990 level.

Link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580391,00.html (Kyoto, Heal Thyself)

Posted by: foobert | 2007-02-22 3:07:51 PM

Mark Logan,

I am impressed. One short expressive post and the proof leaps out.

I agree with your statement that:

"You get one side saying the facts are decisive while the other strongly argues for "undecided"."

I raise you this, that those who argue constantly for "undecided" while ignoring the facts, tend to be more aggressive, when they cannot display the facts within their own arguement. Typically, somewhere in there, there is a threat of some kind or another, that is not obvious to the reader.

In relation to:

1. Global warming: It is usually that which is associated with C02 production, as in the threat to the economy or threat to personal livlihood and economic ruin. Things of that nature.

2. Evolution vs intelligent design: This one is deeper as it is associated with the deepest sentiments of the human and human soul.

3. The Holocaust: This matter goes along slightly with the above, except that it is a matter of freedom, proof positive that it is good for everyone, and submission, proof positive that it is not good for everyone, and the power seekers, those who are in positions of losing power, should the powers that are behind submission, lose and vice versa. In neither case, is there any form of equality, as freedom respects human life, whereas submission values death.

When you look at it this way, the latter one stands out clear in the mind.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-22 3:40:04 PM

That's your 3rd driveby post where you equate global warming denier to holocaust denier.

I could stand your arguement on its head.

Those who have no doubts about a novel scientific theory based on incomplete computer models that invert mother nature's power as now subservient to mankind are perhaps ideologues. For them, the debate never even started.

Those who ruminate on complex issues and consider the data and history of a subject and announce "I am unsure" are often considered mature because they admit their limitations. For them, the debate is only beginning.

Just curious. Where do you stand on string theory? The peopling of the Americas? Are these settled?

What relevance do these questions have to the global warming debate? Well, none actually. Just like tobacco, evolution, and the holocaust.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-22 5:12:22 PM

I find it ironic that most of you try to link environmental concerns with the left, when in fact, the conservation movement in Canada itself was started by wealthy conservatives.

I'm still not convinced that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will kill the economy. I am convinced though, if Canada's economy doesn't evolve it will suffer. Hanging onto an intensive carbon-based past is akin to being a Luddite trying to preserve an inefficient way of production.

The only reason most are so reluctant to change (both individuals and corporations) is that we've enjoyed enormous government subsidies for energy.

These subsidies have distorted the market, caused environmental problems and made Canada's economy inefficient.

Efficiency equals money. Do you not like money?

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-02-22 6:14:52 PM

"I find it ironic that most of you try to link environmental concerns with the left, when in fact, the conservation movement in Canada itself was started by wealthy conservatives."


"I am convinced though, if Canada's economy doesn't evolve it will suffer. "

Evolution is for political positions and parties as well.

Anti-discrimination became affirmative discrimination, er, I mean action.

Equal rights to employment became pay equity.

AIDS became a national security issue.


environmental issues became a club to batter capitalism. (apple pie and motherhood)

If you don't like the association, please tell us how you intend to make sure that the Green agenda isn't hijacked by closet marxists.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-22 7:12:37 PM


Yous aid: "The only reason most are so reluctant to change (both individuals and corporations) is that we've enjoyed enormous government subsidies for energy."

I don't believe it is real resistancfe to change, but rather the lack of economic capacity to change, that is the issue.

When you look at the cold hard facts in reference to the expense, great expense might I add, to change the current technology to one that is greener, and then meet the targets as well, you see the issue as one of economic in the first place, and not economics in the last place.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-22 9:00:48 PM


"Just curious. Where do you stand on string theory?"

My theory is that I can never find any string when I need it because the cat steals it.

"The peopling of the Americas?"

I believer that there ARE people in the Americas.

"Are these settled?"

The Americas? Yeah. I think the people here are pretty well settled.

Posted by: Mark Logan | 2007-02-22 10:01:03 PM

This is a reprint (sorry I don't have the url) of a great piece by Neil Reynolds. It says it all.

Who needs Kyoto while China pollutes?

"Were Canada to eliminate all of its GHG emissions, China's increases would replace them - every last ounce - in 18 months. Were Canada to eliminate 10 per cent of its emissions, China's increases would replace them all in 60 days. As noble as self-sacrifice can occasionally be, it must have - somewhere - a rational purpose."

PUBLICATION: New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal
DATE: 2007.02.22

BYLINE: Neil ReynoldsContrary minded
COPYRIGHT: 2007 Telegraph-Journal (New Brunswick)

Who needs Kyoto while China pollutes?
China pollutes deliberately, strategically. The World Health Organization says that seven of the 10 most polluted big cities in the world are in China.

Beijing's ambient air holds 360 micrograms of particulate pollutants per cubic metre - compared with zero readings (for all practical purposes) in London and Los Angeles. Two-thirds of China's 350 biggest cities pump sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere in vast quantities in routine violation of China's clean-air laws. (The Americans have tracked these mobile pollutants 16,000 kilometres away, at the Donner Summit near Lake Tahoe, as they pass by.) China's biggest lakes are all seriously polluted. So vast are the diversions of water from it, the Yellow River runs dry every year, failing to reach the ocean in one instance (1997) for 226 days.

China's own environmental protection agency reported last year that pollution costs the country 10 per cent of its US$2.2 trillion economy - $200 billion a year. The World Bank has gone further, calculating the cost of the premature deaths of thousands of Chinese killed each year by pollution. Economic losses from pollution-induced mortality and morbidity, the bank found, equals as much as three per cent of China's gross dometic product - $60 billion a year. By contrast, the country spends roughly one per cent of its GDP to fix environmental messes which, according once again to China's EPA, have multiplied - on average - by 250 significant environmental "accidents" a year for the last decade.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are another thing altogether. China reportedly builds a coal-fired power plant every week, and expects to maintain this pace for years. Few of these plants are equipped with pollution-control technology. Not that it matters. Writing last year in Foreign Affairs magazine on the limitations of the Kyoto Protocol, U.S. environmental bureaucrat Ruth Greenspan Bell says that pollution-cutting technology often goes unused in China - even when provided to the country free. "Evidence from China demonstrates," she writes, "that plants equipped with superior pollution equipment do not run these controls when doing so proves inconvenient." When might it prove inconvenient? Whenever, Ms Bell suggests, no one is watching.

Ms Bell held management positions in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 20 years and is now a resident scholar with Resources for the Future, a Washington-based think tank. She supports reductions in GHG emissions but warns people not to expect too much from Kyoto. "There are 900 environmental treaties on the books," she observes. "Unfortunately, few have achieved any reduction in pollution." This cautionary note reflects the judgment of another Kyoto scepto-enthusiast, British Prime Minister Tony Blair: "The truth is that no country is going to cut its growth or consumption [to deal with] a long-term environmental problem." Ms Bell says this impediment will be even greater in China than elsewhere - because the government owns or controls so many industries that environment enforcers find themselves working "with hopelessly divided allegiances." These enforcers, she says, have no capacity for independent regulatory action.
Implicit in these observations is the fact that environmental advances occur when rich countries, acting unilaterally and independently, invest large amounts of money, privately and publicly, either to preserve environmental legacies or to restore them. China will turn environmentalist, too - someday.

Economists have calculated that countries begin to clamp down on sulfur dioxide when per-capita GDP reaches $9,000 a year, on particulate pollution when per-capita GDP reaches $15,000 a year - a variation on the "Kuznets Curve" which holds that you have to get dirty before you get rich and you have to get rich before you get clean. China will get much dirtier. Its per-capita GDP reached $1,000 last year.
The producer of 18 per cent of the world's GHG emissions, China is gaining fast on Europe (22 per cent) and the United States (21 per cent). The International Energy Agency says that China will expand GHG emissions by 120 per cent in the next 20 years, averaging six per cent a year, far surpassing Europe and the U.S.

For a small-population country such as Canada, with two per cent of global emissions, the awkward question that compels awkward answers is this: Why bother with Kyoto? What difference will it make?

Canada produces 160 million tons a year of the world's eight billions tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Were Canada to eliminate all of its GHG emissions, China's increases would replace them - every last ounce - in 18 months. Were Canada to eliminate 10 per cent of its emissions, China's increases would replace them all in 60 days. As noble as self-sacrifice can occasionally be, it must have - somewhere - a rational purpose.

Neil Reynolds, a former editor-in-chief of the Telegraph-Journal, is the Ottawa-based national affairs columnist for the Globe and Mail's Report on Business. He can be reached by email at [email protected]

Posted by: Makina | 2007-02-22 10:05:04 PM

Right as rain Lady

Let's say I was an urban developer in perhaps Vancouver or where ever and was approached to steer a massive development proposal.

I have a meeting scheduled with potential investors etc. and at that meeting when asked just what the project will cost my only reply is "Well I'm not sure but it will be costly; but what the heck,it's going to benefit the downtown core and besides we really need it."

I wonder just how many of those shakers and movers would still be in the room 5 minutes after I drop that one on them.

My point being that: Let's see a detailed cost analysis and effectivness submission on this Kyoto proposal.Then let's make our decisions based on sound thinking.

Canada is in effect a business...a corporation with the Cdn. taxpayer as the major shareholder,not to mention stakeholder too!

It is high time both the gov't and the taxpayer became a little more responsive to this fact and used it as a beacon to further enhance this once great country.

I have a hard time swallowing the doom/gloom crowds emotionally charged diatribes on issues such as this when in fact they haven't a clue as to what they say nor propose as a remedy.

I have seen too much of this "just say yes":the unsaid part being ("because it feels good") or "it's the right thing to do" verbal spew from the 'progressive' crowd with no real thought as to financial and practical consequence for far to long.

Its time for the proponents of climate change and their backers to put some hard figures down on paper and present them to the gov't in a professional manner and let the chips fall where they will.

Posted by: Simon | 2007-02-22 11:09:18 PM

H20 - How to avoid the environmental issue being hijacked by the left? Act now and use market means to do it.

Lady - it is relectance to change, as citizens and corporations have been on the government dole getting highly subsidized energy for decades.

It's time to stop this socialist meddling in the economy and make people pay the true cost of their consumption. Our adaptation will only make us more competitive.

I thought you people didn't want the government intervening in the market?

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-02-23 4:54:39 AM

Chris Rickett:
What are "you people" doing doing in a place like this?

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-23 5:25:28 AM

I welcome Chris' participation even if I don't suscribe to his remedies.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-23 5:48:02 AM

Am I to assume from your lack of seriousness that you are unwilling to redress your assumptions regarding the equating of holocaust and AGW deniers?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-02-23 5:49:45 AM

Liz - my point was simple - I thought the Western Standard was a place where like-minded individuals wanted to embrace the free market.

Yet, I don't see you arguing that the government should discontinue subsidizing the energy industry.

If the subsidies stopped we wouldn't even me talking about Kyoto, because we'd be well on our way to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and a more efficient and prosperous economy.

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-02-23 5:57:28 AM

I was referring to the use of the term "you people". It is rather condescending, not congenial at all.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-23 6:31:52 AM

Chris Rickett, I like your ideas. I don't know about other provinces, but Ontario has gotten rid of some of the government monopoly on electricity generation. That is one big step toward using market forces. For decades, the Ontario government would not increase the hydro rates, and we now have a debt retirement on our hydro bills. Progress is being made in this area. It will take time to ween people off the subsidization completely.

There are other impediments. The factories that want to replace old equipment with cleaner technologies are unwilling to do so until the old equipments depreciates to zero. Current laws only allow a small percentage to be written off each year. Perhaps there is a good reason for this, but it is still a barrier to upgrading.

The USA has been upgrading its coal fired electricity generation plants. They are using market forces to make a difference to their pollution levels. We must look at what impediments we have here that are holding us back. I will submit one more. Canadians consider it to be a government responsibility, whereas Americans are more willing to take personal responsibility.

I doubt many here would be upset over reducing pollution for the good of the air we breathe and water we drink. The main problem is that Kyoto is not achievable now, if it ever was. It's goal is wrong too. As Kevin pointed out, "we don’t know that a slightly warmer globe is actually better or worse for humanity than a cooler one." People pushing Kyoto are on the wrong bandwagon.

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2007-02-23 8:26:44 AM

Oh I'm sorry Liz ... then again, the anti-east venom on this site is not too congenial at all either.

My point again - tax dollars are being used to subsidize corporations, encourage pollution and inefficient markets; and, unfortunately, the Green Party is the only one willing to stop the madness and embrace a free market.

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-02-23 8:27:42 AM

John - you're right let's move to remove barriers and realize the true cost of energy production in the consumer price. Only then will there be an incentive to alter habits and become more efficient.

While I disagree that Kyoto is not achievable, I do agree that it's the wrong bandwagon to be on - the bandwagon we should all be on is embracing efficiency, evolving our markets and saving money at the same time as cleaning our environment.

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-02-23 8:41:41 AM

Global (S)warming
By Stephen Gray

The noise pollution created by all the “jolly green giants” of global swarming was a constant buzz. Everybody that was anybody was getting in on the latest “manufactured emergency” called global (s)warming. Swarms of politicians were stepping up to the microphones and cameras and declaring they would spend billions of the peoples’ taxes on their latest green crusade. They knew this was a “green heaven” sent chance to tax and control those suckers called taxpayers. What an opportunity this was for fleecing the people. In fact, one little political “leader” was reported as making his fiefdom the “most green friendly place” in the country. And just to prove their “greenness” it was reported his government was set to impose a taxing green “surcharge” on the peoples energy bills. This “little green man” of politics had seized this “green opportunity” as an excuse for more taxes. Enviro-politics was the new slogan.

After all, who could be more knowledgeable than those who make a living from “enviro-politics?” Hot air was in the air and the political environment was registering an overload of B.S. on the sound waves of silliness. The “earth charter” was back in vogue and little political green men of the spaced out political variety were seeing an opportunity to “save” the world from the people and tax them at the same time.

The taxed to the max people were in shock at what might happen to them. Your SUV may have to go. Those car factories could be shut down. Close down those farms with those gas emitting, air polluting farm yard animals. The “green” political animals and the “green farmers” were now going to “grow” a “new economy.” There was so much political dung in the air and on the airwaves that some people were starting to choke and gasp for air when they heard the word green. Still, there was a political “leader” who was a “soothsayer” and he declared we will "…cut megatonnes of emissions, but we will also make megatonnes of money,…" Some people on hearing his remarks thought: “You political dimwits are making ‘megatonnes of money’ off our taxes, and the only way to cut ‘megatonnes of emissions,’ would be to put all you politicians into quarantine and impose silence upon you all. We would call this a real ‘clean air act.’ This would also be an instant green solution and truly would be: ‘an inconvenient truth.’”

Still, the “truth” was: a “green revolution” was in motion, and most of the media were propagandists for the takeover. If you were not green, then you were the enemy. The battle was on for greening the people. There were rumors that eco-police units would be formed to ensure that the green revolution would be enshrined in “law.” It was rumored a “green charter” was in the works and just like that other “charter” the people would not get a vote on it. This “green charter” would likely be imposed by those who “knew best.” Committees would be formed of “eminent green persons” who would ensure the “green charter” was accorded “green respectability.” They would be appropriately remunerated from the peoples taxes for helping usher the “green charter” into being. The “green” elites knew best what was “good” for the country and the world.

The world was now under a big green attack, its green guerrillas were everywhere. Go green was the battle cry. The green machine was on overdrive and mowing down anything and anybody that stood in its way. People were being Gore(d ) into submission. If you were not green you were obscene, and soon “green human rights tribunals” might be proposed to help “re-educate” those who were not in tune with “green behavior.” Those dissidents could be called: “ Anti-Kyoto Kriminals.” Or AKK’s. To be an AKK was to be shunned, laughed at, called a “denier” and other epithets, and this was how the “green agenda” was being imposed. Global (s)warming was on its way to obtaining its objective.

Stephen Gray
February 23, 2007.
[email protected] website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo

Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2007-02-23 12:00:58 PM

Chris Rickett, thinking about the subsidies, we are now paying more than the full price for electricity. We are paying through the energy bills, the debt repayment, and through taxes. It would be nice if it was more transparent, but we all still paying. We are even paying for some of the products and services that our parents received, including electricity, plus interest. It would be nice if the bills were more transparent though instead of having to decypher the ministry of finance's reports that almost detail where our tax dollars go.

When it comes to the environment, we are all paying. Perhaps not enough monitarily, but through having to live with pollution. Perhaps our pollution is not as bad as China's, but it is still has a negative effect on us.

And Kyoto is not achievable. There is no way we can meet the 2012 targets. It is too simply too late. There is not enough time for research and development. And Canada's share is just too small. Any gains we make with respect to Kyoto targets will be a moot point globally since China and others are still ramping up production. It is not necessary for us to go to such extremes for no global gain. That idealism is not achievable. It is best to stick with what is possible. A continued reduction in Canadian pollution is possible.

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2007-02-23 2:11:52 PM

John - Kyoto doesn't start until 2008. That's when final emitter status was scheduled to take effect before it was cut by the Conservatives.

As to your comments about energy, we are not paying the full cost for electricty at today's rates. Yes, we are paying for year's of debt and mismanagement (because we weren't paying nearly the cost in the past) and we still don't pay directly for the costs of pollution from electricity generation.

Until this happens, there's hardly an incentive for people to embrace efficiency. We were well on our way when Harris degregulated the market; however, the Conservatives got skittish and shut it down, only to create so much uncertianty that the Ontario generation market is still trying to adjust.

As to comments about China - yes they produce lots of GHGs. However, 1 Canadian creates the same amount of GHGs as 400 Chinese. It's hard to lecture other people when we're so wasteful of energy in the first place.

And, when it really comes down to it, it's in Canada's interest to reduce its energy dependence - it means more money in the consumers pocket.

Posted by: Chris Rickett | 2007-02-25 5:41:36 PM

We were getting off topic, so I moved this last section to my own site:




They are the same link, but the first may require cutting and pasting. The posting mostly questions Chris' 400:1 ratio.

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2007-02-26 11:25:33 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.