Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 29, 2009

INHOFE'S NEW CONSPIRACY.... On Fox News this morning, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) insisted the Environmental Protection Agency was given evidence that undermines global warming, so the agency hid it to advance "probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

Inhofe said the EPA "absolutely" buried evidence undermining policy on global warming after a researcher's report claimed that carbon dioxide has had little effect on the environment.

"They've been cooking that science since 1998," Inhofe said during an interview on Fox News.

Inhofe argued that there should be a criminal investigation into the EPA report, as well.

"I don't know whether there would be or not," he said. "There could be, and there probably should be."

In our reality, the EPA has an employee -- an economist, not a climate scientist -- named Alan Carlin who apparently doesn't believe in global warming. In fact, he insists that global temperatures are "not going up, and if anything they're going down." He submitted a "report" arguing that the government shouldn't worry about regulating carbon emission, relying on familiar conservative arguments.

Not surprisingly, the EPA saw the "report" but did not take Carlin's concerns seriously.

"Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted. [...]

"The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue."

Nevertheless, Fox News is awfully excited about this; the right-wing Competitive Enterprise Institute is trying to rally support for Carlin; Inhofe is talking about a criminal investigation of the EPA; and House Republicans are waving Carlin's report around as evidence of ... something.

Our policy discourse can be very frustrating.

Steve Benen 2:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (55)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

congressional hearings work for me. then let the guy defend his position in front of a congressional committee under oath. call their bluff.

they got nothin'.

eric

Posted by: eric on June 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, there's probably less here than meets the eye. But it's still frustrating. Signs are that the EPA guy in charge handled this poorly and gave ammo to people whose interest is stirring up "controversy" and denying the existence of global climate change. He didn't make anyone's job easier.

Posted by: Bernard Gilroy on June 29, 2009 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

OK, I'll bite. Why does the EPA have an economist?

Posted by: Danp on June 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Score one for the Bush Administration's sleeper agent. Is this guy also from that part of the country where inbreeding explains Republicanism?

Posted by: TCinLA on June 29, 2009 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

OK, I'll bite. Why does the EPA have an economist?

To perform Congressionally-mandated cost-benefit analysis.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on June 29, 2009 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

A lot of environmental laws require that regulations be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. I'm sure the EPA uses economists to help them run those analyses, as well as to develop and use economic models for things like the impacts of climate change or renewable energy standards.

Posted by: BP in MN on June 29, 2009 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Incidentally, the report is nothing short of ridiculous. Rather than citing peer-reviewed research, It cites a series of blog posts as evidence that key evidence is being ignored (the peer-reviewed research shows that most of the evidence is not significant.)

But it really comes down to this: we've gotten richer, lifespans have increased, and it all happened during a time when CO2 levels are increasing. Ergo, correlation implies causation: rising CO2 levels are economically beneficial, and will always continue to be. Ugh.

Posted by: The Washington Monthly Cleaning Staff on June 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Ok I'll bite...why does congress have an idiot like Inhoffe and why are only conservatives on FOX.

Most people agreeing with FOX on anything are under 12 or highly paid or whose mentality never got past 12.

Posted by: bjobotts on June 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

It's a pity that Republicans do not believe in the existence of intelligent life.

Posted by: Jon on June 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

The actual "climate change conspiracy" is the conspiracy by ExxonMobil, and its bought-and-paid-for liars like Inhofe, to deceive the public about the scientific reality of anthropogenic global warming so as to thwart, obstruct and delay efforts to reduce GHG emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, which would reduce consumption of their products.

As Paul Krugman notes in his column on the House "debate" over the Waxman-Markey bill, the Republican denialists are guilty of treason, not only against the USA, and not only against the human species, but against all life on Earth.

As to Carlin's memo, anyone who knows anything about the science of climate change would recognize that Alan Carlin's memo is nothing but pseudoscientific drivel and fossil fuel industry-funded denialist bunk jumbled together by an ignorant crank. He is an embarrassment to the EPA. If, in fact, the EPA was reluctant to publicize Carlin's memo, it was probably to prevent him from publicly damaging his own reputation and the reputation of the agency by humiliating himself as a fool in public.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 29, 2009 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

bjbotts -
I'm guessing that the "12" of which you speak is relative IQ points about political issues.
Commenting as the father of a 12 year old boy, no tween of average or above level intelligence would accept the BS of Fox "news" unless they were indoctrinated into it.

Posted by: BuzzMon on June 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

This is the kind of thing that makes you wonder how the U.S. ever achieved eminence in science.

What does it say about the state of American education when (a) people like Inhofe can get elected and (b) they get listened to?

Posted by: PowerOfX on June 29, 2009 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

So if someone in the defense dept. who has no background in weapons systems or the effectiveness of them writes a report sayin poison gas isn't harmfull then we should all start sniffing it right?

Posted by: Gandalf on June 29, 2009 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals say GWB and Co. "lied" about the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, even though Clinton, Gore, Albright and other noted Democratic and liberal politician also believed this intelligence. Looking past this, and the fact that almost all Democrats in Congress voted to use force against Iraq, liberals searched and analyzed any piece of information that would prove the prevailing belief system wrong.

Now that someone is trying to show that the intelligence behind global warming might be flawed, they are castigating the messenger. Long gone are the days when liberals would listen to the dissenting voice. The science, they say, is settled.

Liberals note that big oil companies are funding this anti-global warming conspiracy; however, they fail to see the big companies that will benefit if laws hampering fossil fuel production and consumption are enacted. GE would just love it if they could take some of ExxonMobil's energy market share not through the free market, but through politics. GE's wind farms will reap the benefit, even though those wind farms are a nuisance to the people and animals around them.

But for many, Global Warming is now beyond the scope of science. It is a religion and they are the zealots, willing to do anything and everything to ensure their mindset is the only one with a voice in the political and economic playing fields.

Congress knows this and is larding their climate bills with all sorts of goodies, knowing liberals won't care as long as something, anything, is passed that will supposedly lower CO2 outputs.

Thankfully, people like Carlin have the guts to stand up to these zealots, who will do anything and everything to silence him.

Posted by: The Shrub on June 29, 2009 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

In our country's contest to find the wingnuttiest wingnut, I'll match your Inhofe and raise you a Bachmann & a Pence!

Take that - you sane people!

Posted by: AmusedOldVet on June 29, 2009 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, what one schmuck said ten years ago is infinitely more reliable than what MIT said two months ago.

Posted by: Virginia on June 29, 2009 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

The political right is projecting again.

Posted by: CJ on June 29, 2009 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Sigh. You good liberals continue to labor under the misapprehension that we live in a sane, rational society. WE DON'T.

Posted by: Sartre on June 29, 2009 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

bjobotts :
"and why are only conservatives on FOX"
I was wondering the same thing about NBC when I turned on Meet the Press and there was the tag team of Lindsay Graham professional douchebag and Ol' Mittens Romney the perpetual presidential candidate offering us their educated discourse on the current political situation.
Ya know when Dems were out of power I don't recall the MSM giving them a whole lot of air time. Now they get even less and when they do it is refered to by the Repugs as an infomertial
Dammned LIBRUL press

Posted by: john r on June 29, 2009 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

Our policy discourse can be very frustrating.

Because Republicans need to lie their asses off, since their policies are unpopular failures. Duh.


Posted by: Gregory on June 29, 2009 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

@the Shrub,

Google the votes on the war resolution. Most Dems did NOT vote for it. Ya need to fact-check your post, buddy.

Also. The people you cited thought some of the intel pushed by the administration was correct. By no means all of it. None of the people you listed, for example, thought Hussein was an imminent threat to us, or that he had nukes.

Remember that "mushroom cloud" nonsense? No major Dem leader bought into that fearmongering.

And even WITHIN the intel community, there was tremendous dissent about WMDs. That was a case where dissent was crushed. Legitimate dissent that proved to be correct.

Alan Carlin's dissent? A conservative economist doesn't want us to spend money on cleaning up the environment. Wow. What a spectacular revelation!! We should give the guy a medal for being UNIQUELY anti-Environment for a righty.

Major eye-roll.

Posted by: Cuchulain on June 29, 2009 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

...for example, see "The Shrub" @ 3:02 pm.

Posted by: Gregory on June 29, 2009 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

The Shrub wrote: "Liberals say ..."

The fact that you think anthropogenic global warming is a "liberal" vs. "conservative" issue demonstrates that you are a weak-minded, ignorant dupe.

The scientific reality of anthropogenic global warming has nothing to do with ideology. It is simply a reality.

The Shrub wrote: "The science, they say, is settled."

The science is settled.

FACT: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It causes the Earth's atmosphere to retain more of the Sun's energy than it otherwise would. Higher concentrations of CO2 cause the atmosphere to retain more of the Sun's energy.

FACT: Human activities, principally the burning of fossil fuels, have been releasing large quantities of previously sequestered "fossil" carbon into the atmosphere as CO2, increasing the concentration of that gas.

FACT: The anthropogenic increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is causing the Earth system to heat up. Because some CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, the oceans are also becoming more acidic.

FACT: The anthropogenic heating of the Earth system and acidification of the oceans are already having severe effects on the Earth's climate, hydrosphere and biosphere, which will become far worse if we continue to add more CO2 to the atmosphere.

These are empirical facts, not theories or hypotheses. There is NO legitimate scientific debate about them. None.

The Carlin memo is ignorant garbage -- little more than a summary of inane, long-debunked lies and irrelevancies harvested from "right wing" websites. The only scandal about it is the scandalous ignorance of the author, and the scandalous deceit by tools of the fossil fuel industry who are trying to pretend that it represents a legitimate challenge to our scientific knowledge of climate change.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 29, 2009 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

But for many, Global Warming is now beyond the scope of science. It is a religion and they are the zealots, willing to do anything and everything...

Seems you've described Carlin perfectly.

Posted by: ckelly on June 29, 2009 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Shrub:
Don't give yourself a stroke.
The guy is an economist, not a scientist, like Bjorn whats his name, another darling of the deniers. His report does not present any new evidence, it is just an in house review, not written by a specialist in the field. He could also write a report on poodle grooming or flower arranging with equal weight.

Posted by: Jason on June 29, 2009 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

The guy is an economist, not a scientist, like Bjorn whats his name, another darling of the deniers.

Bjorn Lomborg's PhD is in political science, as a matter of fact, though his studies were concentrated in economics and math.

Posted by: Danp on June 29, 2009 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

What is coming through loud and clear for me is the utter contempt which the republican party has for the American people. The specific examples, like Carlin's, don't concern me overmuch, but the manner in which his bullshit is spread by the republican operatives in the congress without the slightest sense of shame makes me think that it might just be over for our great experiment in democratic government. These people don't give a shit about any of us. Time to wake up. It's all really a game, and the nature of the game hasn't really changed for the past 5000 years.

Posted by: rbe1 on June 29, 2009 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Shrub,

Enjoy your time in the ideological wilderness. There's a reason that the voters banished the Republican freakazoids to places like Oklahoma. Your crazed arguments were heard and regarded as the delusions of the crazed Rush-loving fanatics that they area. America hates you and your stupid Republican talking points. It's why they voted against those politicians and why your friends and relatives regard you as "that crazy guy" whom they let come for thanksgiving because it would be cruel to force you to spend the holiday alone. They'd appreciate you more if you simply stopped screaming stupidities about politics, though.

Posted by: Tyro on June 29, 2009 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

This Republican BS will be the "lipstick on a pig" event in the climate bill debate.
The report itself is crap and this is obvious to anyone with even a high school science background. This will not stop the Reponoise. The machine is oiled and ready and facts are irrelevant.
Just like the circus the Repos ginned up around Obama's innocent offhand remark about lipstick, this will be used to distract the media from the real issues because these are accusations that the media can understand and play for ratings.
Buzz words like "suppressed report" and "hidden evidence" will ricochet for as long as the disinfo crowd can keep them alive.
oldswede

Posted by: oldswede on June 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

This Republican BS will be the "lipstick on a pig" event in the climate bill debate.

Let's hope it's just as effective...

Posted by: Redshift on June 29, 2009 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Someone in my office doesn't believe in global warming either. He has a BS in biology so maybe Fox wants to interview him and Inhofe wants to quote him. He thinks of himself as quite an expert. That should be good enough, right?

Posted by: mlm on June 29, 2009 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Secular Animus:

"These are empirical facts, not theories or hypotheses. There is NO legitimate scientific debate about them. None."

Untruths spoken like a true zealot.

Have global temperatures warmed over the past decade? No.

Has the upper 700m of the oceans warmed since 2003? No, it has slightly cooled.

Is the Sun's activity the quietest it's been in a century? Yes.

Is global ice extent shrinking? No.

Are atmospheric CO2 levels continuing to rise? Yes.

Does the Sun only influence global temperature change by about 10%, as per the IPCC? No, the Sun influences temperature change by up to 69% (Scafetta and West, 2008)

In 2009, have many northern hemispheric regions experienced winter-like conditions extending through Spring and into early Summer, affecting crop production? Yes.

In 2009, have many southern hemispheric regions experienced early and extreme winter-like conditions in what is their late Fall? Yes.

Do IPCC climate models arrive at catastrophic temperature increase predictions by doubling the amount of CO2 and then multiplying it by 3.0 to 4.5, even though a large body of scientists believe that multiplier should be 1.0 or less? Yes.

Posted by: Matt on June 29, 2009 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Who cares what those stupid liberal wimps at MIT say. After all, one guy said something different ten years ago!

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

Posted by: Virginia on June 29, 2009 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

@The Shrub: To start at the top, you seem to believe that the fact that some people believed lies is an argument against the idea that they were lies, and especially that if some of the same group believed the lies, then their accusations that they were lies cannot be valid. Why exactly would they lie, if not if they intended to be believed?

Here in the real world, people who have been lied to are frequently vehement about exposing the lies once they find out about them, usually more so than those who never believed the lies in the first place.

It is one of the many tragedies of the Iraq War that the Bush Administration played on their ability to claim access to intelligence information that no one else had, and the good-hearted belief of many of our country's citizens that their government would not do something as monstrous as fabricate and misrepresent intelligence to start a war against a country that was no threat to us.

Posted by: Redshift on June 29, 2009 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Buzz words like "suppressed report" and "hidden evidence" will ricochet for as long as the disinfo crowd can keep them alive.

Rhetoric as Inhofe's is typical of the sort of boilerplate you read from your average crackpot or perpetual-motion-machine-promoting huckster, and about as credible.

Posted by: Tyro on June 29, 2009 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

James Inhofe is a dick.

Posted by: David Bailey on June 29, 2009 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Carlin simply demonstrated in his draft paper (far from perfect, as he only had a week or less to respond to the EPA finding) that the finding was based on outdated and/or refuted IPCC data from 2005/6, ignoring more recent, significant developments.

EPA: no want see nor hear.

Posted by: Matt on June 29, 2009 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

read more about it here

Watt's page also has comments on the multiple linear regression analysis of 20th century temperature change, and links to many rich data sets and graphs, including NOAA/GISS -- if you crawl around on the links a while.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on June 29, 2009 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

I thought folks around these parts appreciated a scientific debate on the merits.

Guess not.

Posted by: Matt on June 29, 2009 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

Matt: I thought folks around these parts appreciated a scientific debate on the merits.

It's hard to tell sometimes.

Some folks have their Rapture and some folks have their Global Warming; if you quibble incessantly over details, you obviously don't share the faith: you must either be of "bad faith", greedy and in the pay of corporate interests, or seduced by Satan.

But there are also people who follow the hot links, and there are informed disputants.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on June 29, 2009 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: rbe1 on June 29, 2009 at 3:59 PM

"the manner in which his bullshit is spread by the republican operatives in the congress without the slightest sense of shame makes me think that it might just be over for our great experiment in democratic government."

I think that great experiment has only just begun...

Posted by: Science Experiments are cool on June 29, 2009 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, that old Inhofe quote: "(global warming is...) probably the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

I know where he came up with that one -- combing his hair one morning. You know, looking in the mirror.

Posted by: Big Jim Slade on June 29, 2009 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

This is new, it seems.

With winter extending into summer in the Northern Hemisphere, crop planting is delayed causing lower yields, and temperatures too cold for migrating birds to mate.

In the Southern hemisphere, besides early and record snowfalls, now people in South Africa are freezing to death.

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_South%20Africa&set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20090626193803483C969460


moral of the story: get a job, deadbeat, so you don't freeze to death.

Posted by: Matt on June 29, 2009 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

cause if you had a job, deadbeat, then maybe you could buy a paper and know that global warming is really happening and then maybe your ass wouldn't literally, y'know, freeze.

Posted by: Matt on June 29, 2009 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

The deniers are working overtime, I see.

The truth will become obvious to everyone soon enough, no more then 5 years.

Just like smoking and cancer, which was quite the manufactured controversy during the first 30 years of my life.

Waste of time, guys. You're going to lose.

Posted by: Joey Giraud on June 30, 2009 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

frickin deadbeat.

increased global warming just by breathin'.

(repeatedly kicks frozen corpse laboriously off concrete stairs -- it lands on the frozen dirt with empty, awkward thud. proceeds up now unobstructed stairs to welcome warmth of building.)

Posted by: Matt on June 30, 2009 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

Realclimate is on the case, with a nice rebuttal:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

Posted by: jhm on June 30, 2009 at 6:35 AM | PERMALINK

Why is it so easy for these people to believe that a guy and his family built a wooden ship large enough to house and feed two of every animal in the world when the entire earth flooded — two claims for which there is absolutely no evidence — and yet so difficult for them to believe in basic, provable scientific facts?

In the last two weeks I've:

1] been told that God won't let us ever run out of oil;

2] been told God won't let the earth's climate change drastically;

3] been told that God wants us all to be as rich and comfortable as we can be;

4] seen a Cadillac Escalade idling in a parking lot for 45 minutes, with no one inside it!, while the driver [its only passenger] was shopping.

Global warming deniers typically delight in consuming fossil fuels. It's a sign of their "independence." Consumption is "American." They'll latch onto any syllable the Right can throw them to keep it that way.

Mark these words: Taking away these people's ability to blindly consume energy is going to be harder than taking away their semi-automatic weapons.

Posted by: chrenson on June 30, 2009 at 7:09 AM | PERMALINK

Marler wrote: Some folks have their Rapture and some folks have their Global Warming

False comparison. The Rapture is an article of religious faith among a subset of Christians. Global warming is an established scientific fact.

Now, I'd grant that global warming denial is based on faith (in the veracity of entrenched interests) and not science, but that clearly wasn't your implication.

if you quibble incessantly over details, you obviously don't share the faith: you must either be of "bad faith"

You aren't of "bad faith" because you quibble over the details, Marler, you're of bad faith because you've been arguing in bad faith her for years -- and still are, as with your false equivalence. You don't get to indulge in dishonest water carrying for the Republicans who deliver those sweet, sweet tax cuts and then pretend to be an "informed disputant." Everyone who's familiar with you knows you have no credibility and your word isn't worth a bucket of piss.

And worst of all, you keep on proving it. Shame on you, Marler.

Posted by: Gregory on June 30, 2009 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

His point is you can't be bothered to argue the scientific merits. Global warming is an article of faith with you.

Posted by: Matt on June 30, 2009 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Ahhh ... global warming deniers.

I love how they can't tell the difference between weather and climate, are willing to take the word of economists and radio hosts over scientists who study the issue, and show no regard whatsoever about the world they will leave future generations.

And that last part is what stuns me.

Say we find a clean, renewable fuel to power our cars, homes and workplaces. Say we grow our food in more environmentally-responsible ways. Say we reduce industrial waste (by far the most) by 80% through technology, recycling, and mitigation. Say we build our cities around mass transit and sustainable communities.

Say we do all that and global warming does, in fact, wind up being not true.

SO EFFING WHAT?

We would have created millions of new jobs in a new energy sector, reduced or even eliminated our dependence on foreign energy, have a cleaner world, less expensive energy, and sustainable society.

These are bad things ... why, exactly?

I don't know why conservatives take such a short-term view of the world, nor why they fight progress and change so often (see: civil rights, gay rights, etc.). But those--and much other clinical stupidity--do explain why they're on their way to being irrelevant.

And the sooner they become irrelevant and are replaced by those with an actual connection to reality, the better. Our Earth can't wait for them to catch up with the rest of us.

Posted by: Mark D on June 30, 2009 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK
His point is you can't be bothered to argue the scientific merits.

Um ... there are no "merits" on the denier side. Just meaningless babble from people who think quoting rightwing Web sites counts as "evidence."

Global warming is an article of faith with you.

Posted by: Matt

No, global warming (actually, "climate change" is a better name for it) is a matter of scientific fact that's passed the rigors of peer-review and testing. The deniers rarely share their methodology because it fails to stand up to scrutiny.

But hey, keep believing a bunch of economists, radio and TV hosts, and think tanks funded by ExxonMobil.

The rest of us will start ensuring our kids have a habitable planet when they grow up.

Posted by: Mark D on June 30, 2009 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Those are laudable goals and your intentions are noble.

But you're not going to get to the Promised Land by rewarding (subsidizing)less dependable, unproven producers of more expensive energy, while at the same time punishing dependable, proven producers of less expensive energy. Success and growth in a market economy demands increased efficiency. Intentionally decreasing efficiency is asking for economic failure. Ask and you shall receive.

Obama 08: "Under my Cap and Trade plan, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket."

Also the King Juan Carlos University study recapping the economic results of the Spanish green jobs effort is instructive. Because of the inefficiencies introduced to the economy by the program, for every green job created at least two were destroyed.

I'm not bothered by the prospect of future pain for those who are asking for it. I'm bothered by all those whose lives will be distorted by the economic pain they never asked for.

Posted by: Matt, on June 30, 2009 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Why did the Communist economic model fail?

Because it was inefficient.

Posted by: Matt on June 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Perfect work!

Posted by: tramadol dog on July 31, 2009 at 5:25 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly