walter russell mead peter berger lilia shevtsova adam garfinkle andrew a. michta
Feed
Features
Reviews
Podcast
You have read 1 out of 3 free articles this month. A quality publication is not cheap to produce.
Subscribe today and support The American Interest—only $2.99/month!
Already a subscriber? Log in to make this banner go away.
Published on: February 9, 2010
NY Times Swings, Misses At IPCC Story: Readers Still In Dark

Readers of The New York Times learned something this morning that millions of people in the UK have known for some time, not to mention of the millions of Americans following the story on the web.  But they didn’t learn much about it, or learn enough to begin to think through the consequences for American […]

Readers of The New York Times learned something this morning that millions of people in the UK have known for some time, not to mention of the millions of Americans following the story on the web.  But they didn’t learn much about it, or learn enough to begin to think through the consequences for American politics and global policy.

A page one story by Elisabeth Rosenthal under the headline “U.N. Climate Panel and Its Chief Face a Siege on Their Credibility” gently informed the sensitive readers of The New York Times that all is not well in the world of the climate change movement. The IPCC and its chair, we learn are now under “intense scrutiny” from “climate skeptics, right-wing leaning politicians and even some mainstream scientists.”  She could have added that some of that scrutiny also comes from prominent environmentalists, like the head of UK Greenpeace, quoted in this February 4 article in the London Times as expressing the view that Pachauri and the IPCC have made serious mistakes.  Rosenthal identified the press critics as the ‘right-leaning’ Times and Daily Telegraph; she omitted to note that the center-left, environmentalist Guardian has also been publishing serious criticism of the IPCC.

Most of the article is devoted to the controversy over allegations about Dr. Pachauri’s ties to various business groups.  These have always struck me as the least important elements in the controversy, and I tend to agree with the views expressed by New York Times reporter John Tierney on his blog that the quality of the science matters a lot more than any potential or perceived conflicts of interest of the scientist.

More to the point, these allegations have only a limited bearing on the big story going on here.  Allegations that Dr. Pachauri has shown poor judgment in his business dealings at worst discredit Dr. Pachauri.  Allegations that the IPCC climate change report is rife with high profile errors and that Pachauri has handled his portfolio there matter much more.

On the science, the Times piece is really quite poor.  It mentions only two alleged errors: the ‘glaciergate’ claim that the Himalayan ice pack would disappear by 2035 and an estimate of the financial damage associated with extreme weather between 1970 and 2005.  The first error, as just about everyone with an interest in the subject now knows, has been acknowledged by the IPCC.  The second was trivial; as Rosenthal notes, the allegation wasn’t that the damage estimates were wrong, but that the source wasn’t peer-reviewed.  It has been peer reviewed since.  The total score: one acknowledged and embarrassing error; one trivial slip.

This is limp reportage and does a grave disservice to the Times readership.  In the first place, a number of additional allegations have surfaced — some trivial, some more substantial.  Rosenthal’s readers come away from this piece with no understanding of why the Guardian ran a commentary headlined “The Case for Climate Change Must Be Remade From the Ground Upwards” or another entitled “The IPCC’s Problems Have Been Exacerbated By Its Imperious Attitude“.  They will not understand why in this Guardian report of Monday February 8 (“Climate Scientists Hit Out at ‘Sloppy’ Glacier Error“) climate scientists who worked on the IPCC report are said to be calling on Pachauri to step down.

In case any New York Times readers are reading this post, here’s a quick summary of what the real story is and what it means–and remember, anyone who follows the British press either directly or through the blogs has known this for some time.

1.  A series of embarrassing allegations about high profile errors in the IPCC report have recently emerged.  The most notorious is the prediction that the Himalayan ice pack would disappear by 2035.  There are others — that, for example, food production in North Africa could fall by 50 percent within the next ten years.  The errors are not only troubling in themselves; they raise questions about the care and intent behind the IPCC report — lending credence to critics who say that the report’s authors intentionally went beyond the science to scare up support for their policy agenda.

2.  The two errors mentioned above were not just small errors in a long report.  Dr. Pachauri in particular has made use of both ‘factoids’ in his speeches, and critics charge, the 2035 glacier claim features prominently in the fundraising and publicity of the climate institute in India which he leads.  Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has also used the North African food claim in a speech advocating action against climate change.  This suggests to say the least a sloppy culture of fact checking around these leaders, and it is bound to reduce public confidence in their other statements.

3.  Dr. Pachauri long defended the bogus glacier claim, denouncing a prominent Indian glacier scientist as a practitioner of voodoo science when he cast doubt on the claim.  It was not an isolated error that somehow slipped into a long report: it was an important component of Pachauri’s own advocacy and work.  Yet it had no scientific basis and no serious glacier scientists accepts it.  What was his basis for defending the claim and attacking the scientists who criticized it?  Pachauri’s close association with the bogus claim dramatically undercuts his credibility when he claims that the error was an insignificant if regrettable slip in a long report and indeed undermines his credibility as a spokesperson for climate science and as the leader of its most visible international organization.

4.  During the same period that these charges came out, the British government determined that the climate researchers at East Anglia University had indeed broken the relevant British freedom of information law.

5.  All this in combination with the shift in American politics since the Massachusetts Senate election means that climate skeptics now have the ability to stop cap and trade legislation in Congress this year.  Think of what Fox News, the tea parties and the talk radio hosts can do with the material unearthed in the last few weeks.  Dr. Pachauri and the East Anglia scientists have given the climate skeptics all the ammunition they need to win the contest for American public opinion.  With Democrats now expected to lose seats in November, it seems unlikely that any serious legislation will pass the US Congress during President Obama’s first term.  If so, the prospect for an effective and binding global treaty on climate change before 2013 now seems dim indeed.

6.  All this means that the ‘climate change community’ urgently needs to begin debating what to do next.  If Plan A has failed, what would Plan B look like?

The dwindling band who depend on The New York Times for their news don’t know that their world has changed in some important ways.  They deserve to know and they need to know; I hope that the paper will find a way to tell them.

show comments
  • Pingback: Rebellion News()

  • Dan

    On the other hand, at least they’ve discovered Roger Pielke Jr. as a source. (Don’t they know he’s one of the alarmists’ bete noire?)

  • Walter Sobchak

    The NYTimes effort was heroic compared to the Wall Street Journal article which was on p A17 on Monday.

  • Daniel

    I’m glad that some major new portal is at least beginning to report on the IPCC. Personally I have always been sceptical as I’m old enough to have experienced the climate and lifestyle scares since the 1970’s. Specifically the “return of the Ice Age” in the 70’s & 80’s; acid rain in the 80’s & 90’s; coconut oil in movie popcorn; saturated fat; now non-saturated fat (i.e. Trans-Fat); etc etc etc….

    Not be cynical, but does it seem that every new “crisis” enables a new round of emergency government funding?

  • sbourg

    Excellent — truly well-done article! But no, the NYT won’t back-track and start telling the entire story, because Sulzberger, Keller, et al, have done such a thorough job of hiring Leftists to write stories. They’re not inclined to shed light on the now-known Mann-made global warming hoax. If they WERE, they’d start by accurately and easily ripping apart Michael Mann’s now infamous ‘hockey-stick’ graph of world temperatures. No, they’ll just shift gears to another hoax. What’s next for the Leftists?

  • Paul

    I can remember being impressed ( 60-70’s ) by the New York Times. It seemed so august.

    Now? Worse than a waste of time.

    Its only value. A dark glass into the psyche of the lefty Eloi.

  • Claude Hopper

    I was in Dubai the last two weeks of January and read several issues of the International Herald Tribune (NYT for Europe). There were a number of articles on climate change, but nothing about the AGW controversies. The issues were totally out of touch with reality.

  • kcom

    “If so, the prospect for an effective and binding global treaty on climate change before 2013 now seems dim indeed.”

    Would you take one out of two? A treaty might very well be binding, but it will hardly be effective. All it will do is reward the countries that cheat and tie the hands of the countries that don’t. We’ve been through that sucker’s arrangement before.

  • http://borepatch.blogspot.com Borepatch

    Actually, it’s worse than that. You say that the exaggeration of hurricane damage was a minor error “because it wasn’t peer-reviewed”. It was peer-reviewed, and the peer-reviewed paper said it wasn’t happening.

    This was a paper by the same Roger Pielke, Jr quoted in the NYT article. The IPCC AR4 report changed his conclusions 180 degrees, from “it doesn’t effect hurricane damage” to “ZOMG Oh Noes!!!”

    One of the IPCC reviewers actually asked “What does Pielke think” of the section of the IPCC report, and another reviewer made up a reply for Pielke.

    That’s some powerful peer-review process, right there.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-does-pielke-think-about-this.html

  • http://www.twitter.com/cyberwar Stiennon

    Plan B is already in evidence. It showed up in the State of the Union Address. Basically the new argument goes like this: “It does not matter whether there is global warming or not. Reducing carbon consumption and emissions is still a good thing.”

  • http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/ vulgar moralist

    Since the December fiasco at Copenhagen, the NYT has dedicated far more space to the writing on Sarah Palin’s hands than to the collapse of both the science and the once-powerful politics of global warming.

    Literally. Do the search. See “Global warming and the NYT”:

    http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/global-warming-and-the-new-york-times/

  • Jack

    From what I’ve seen in the media, the IPCC’s plan B is to double down. “Nothing to see here, a few mistakes that have no impact on the science. Just a few shoddy pieces of work, easily corrected.”

    It’s like the Monty Python sketch, with the IPCC playing the part of the parrot salesman.

    Mead, however, is worried about what “Fox News, the tea parties and the talk radio hosts can do with the material unearthed in the last few weeks.”

    Well, hopefully and unlike the NYT, they will report on it honestly. Or maybe, rather than base public policy on a fraud, the tea parties will do something to counter the EPA’s decision to designate CO2 as a pollutant.

    Certainly talk radio will be, unlike the NYT, spreading the news far and wide. Like this is a bad thing? Perhaps they will juxtapose the latest IPCC failings with the various pronouncements by Al Gore claiming that the “debate is over, the science is settled, and its a proven fact. Oh, and don’t listen to the deniers.”

    Me, I would be satisfied if Washington simply stopped spending money on this idiocy. Sadly, this is not the case; President Obama is starting a new federal agency to investigate the risks of “climate change”. (Mr. President, perhaps you might ask if the Federal govt already has agencies that do this. You might be surprised.)

    The IPCC’s conclusions about AGW have been sold to us with all the integrity of a boiler room selling penny stocks and the moral vacuity of a used car salesman. And Mead wants a plan B? As though they’ve lied, denied, and lied about it again, but we’ve got to forget all that, and let them try again.

    Mr. Mead, the IPCC scientists CAN”T open their books for one very good reason: their data, methodology and conclusions won’t stand up under an audit. So that’s right out.

    Thus the double down approach mentioned at the beginning of this post. The IPCC will use any and all of the PR cosmetics at their disposal, but they won’t be releasing any data or code.

    None of it will re-animate this dead parrot.

  • http://www.peeniewallie.com Rob Kiser

    “Obama’s ‘first term’?” Surely you jest. That makes me want to regurgitate. Obama will be a “One Term President”, in the footsteps of Hoover and Carter. That is all.
    http://www.peeniewallie.com/2010/02/obamas-first-te.html

  • Lee Peters

    Related parody: Kermit the Frog Sings “It’s Not Easy Being Green” Amidst Climategate Headlines: http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/02/its-not-easy-being-green.html

  • Norm

    I would second Jack’s opinion on the “Plan B” of the international or transnational climate movement. However, we’ve already seen a very mature “Plan B” in the domestic politics of western nations to subsidize alternative energy sources in name of reducing carbon emissions. That these energy sources would otherwise be economically uncompetitive means the businesses involved are existentially dependent on continued subsidies to exist. They lobby heavily for their preferred solutions.

    The other side of this Plan B is aggressive regulation of existing energ production and economic activity on environmental grounds. For example, the current US budget forecasts dramatically lower revenue from off-shore oil & gas leases because this administration’s actions will aimed at restricting exploitation of this fossil fuel source. The EPA finding on carbon dioxide is another page from this book.

    However, the regulatory approach to Plan B is inherently political. The EPA’s regulations will be fought in court and the IPCC “science” will be litigated. Congressional and presidential elections may well bring candidates to power who oppose and reverse these moves.

    Such a change in the tide can already be seen in US polls of public opinion.

    Plan C, I would offer, is that scientists need to develop a falsifiable theory of climate change (that repeatibly withstands its tests) or a sufficient robust descriptive model of climate that one could have a publicly available body of computer code that would allow scientists (including skeptics) to enter initial historical conditions from virtually any year and get reasonably close to historical results over a period of decades. Such model would have better credence for believing what changes, if any, me might expect in 50 or 100 years.

  • Jonathan W.

    A different perspective might be that readers of the NY Times prefer to be shielded from harsh reality. All the news that is fit to print, compressed and edited, may actually be tailored for thosee ‘sophisticated’ minds which cannot be bothered with mundane details and effluvious mintutia.

  • http://www.cosmicconservative.com/weblog CosmicConservative

    Nice, you finally mentioned that Jones and his cronies broke the law. Good for you. Now you might want to mention that the head of the IPCC profited personally and diverted millions of government dollars to a company he was part owner of based on the fraudulent glacier melting reported in the “Nobel Prize Winning” IPCC report.

    If you keep on this track, you might actually one day look into where Algore is making all his money.

  • Walter Sobchak

    The WSJ struck back today with a hard hitting regurgitation of IPCC spin on p A10.

    Money Quote:

    “Scientists and other experts involved in the IPCC say most of the information assembled and reported by the organization is valid.”

    Most of it is valid. Wow, that is comforting.

  • Jeff

    LOL my mother in law lives by the NYT and I do have to admit she’s clueless to what is going on in the world. She is politically biased in a dangerous way the reaks of having your head totally burried in the sand. Funny how this article fits those liberal freaks that read it to perfection…cause i’ve seen it first hand

  • JohnR22

    Does anyone doubt the NYT is nothing but a propaganda sheet designed to advance the cause of world socialism? The most outrageous stories are given credence…as long as they advance the cause. Stories that might retard the cause are ignored, or if the story is too big to ignore the NYT denigrates it. This isn’t just a case of a biased rag that prefers the democrat party…the NYT goes much further than that.

  • Pingback: Maggie's Farm()

  • Dean

    Jack: Excellent analogy with the “dead parrot” skit. I would go further (much too far, actually) and suggest that Sulzberger, Keller, and others of the Main Stream Muck like Olberman and Chris Mathews with his remarkable leg, Ting-a-ling, have been committing journalistic pederasty, raping the truth for years and threatening it to keep its mouth shut. But truth is growing and finding it has allies after all, and is beginning to fight back. Perhaps one day soon, Sulzberger and his fellow travelers will find themselves facing their abused victim, backed by angry mobs bent on ripping down the dank ruins of journalism and casting the fiends into the pit. At least, it’s pretty to think so.
    Say,… ranting is fun.

  • Kevin N

    I always used to slam the NYTimes, but as I consider the economic slide of newspapers in general and the NYTimes in particular, perhaps rounds of layoffs and cutting salaries are affecting quality? Surely, I’m just posited a biased opinion, but now I’m reminding myself that this publication is (so I’m told) trying to stay afloat. If it can’t cover all of its bases as well as it used to… Being an academic, I can’t ignore even the NYTimes’s current contributions in literature, etc. What I’m saying is, if slip-ups like this continue, it won’t be just right-wingers who will cry foul. Perhaps the paper needs a new vision, because I’m just not convinced by its current one.

  • bill S

    I lived in Toronto for two years now.

    For what’s it’s worth, Canadian papers Globe and Mail and National Post have been talking about the current global warming debacle.

    Toronto Star on the other hand as been silent and searching through their online site reveals 0 hits on IPCC or CRU.

    Even BBC had to address the scandal.

    I do want Climate Science to be more reliable. For example, if scientists could really understand the science better, we could have better prediction, and someday in the future, even control or avoid the worst that weather can throw at us.

    It would be unfortunate if as a result of the misdeeds of a few high priests in the AGW movement, funding for such critical research were to dry up, or if scientists abandon the field out of the stigma of being associated with these clowns.

    The intention of getting people to live more responsible lives with the environent was good, the way some have chosen to do this is not.

    The science was bad only because it got displaced by the politics Much of the science is still good, but that’s only possible after thy clean house and let these people retire to write their memoirs or steamy novels or whatever.

    Just… Just go away and let other people do what needs to be done.

  • stansvonhorch

    they didn’t “swing and miss” – more like threw the game.

  • http://drudge mike

    The AP said that the lies about the Amazon, Himalayans, N. Africa etc were “embarrassing but small!!” These liberal [word omitted]kissers have an endless supply of nonsense.

  • Pingback: [Forbes & WSJ]Snowstorm delays Global Warming Conference... - Page 7 - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net()

  • bill

    the new york times does a pretty good job — no paper on earth tries to do as much, at a time when newspapers have so little in resources.

    That said, it certainly doesn’t get every story right or catch the obvious angle to every story. i find this critique on point. but the idea that one reporter and his/her editor’s failure to flesh out a single story = the downfall or increased irrelevance of the world’s most widely read newspaper seems overdone. to me.

  • trafamadore

    Right. and it’s all the sudden not getting warmer?
    Wrong.

    What will happen is that all the terrible little mistakes will be removed and then the pesky deniers will have to find other errors which will be removed and then the pesky deniers will have to find other errors which will be removed.

    But the main deal–the big deal–is that it’s getting warmer and it is caused by more stuff in the air than there should be. A whether the glaciers are gone in 35 years or 70 years, they will be gone. and whether the area around the Sahara becomes too dry to grow food in 20 years or 50, it will get drier.

    Meanwhile, we are on track for a record low ice in the winter in the Arctic this year, and, despite all the “cold” weather inthe states this winter, we are still below the normal number of HDDs, at least in the Midwest…

  • Luke

    “Most of the article is devoted to the controversy over allegations about Dr. Pachauri’s ties to various business groups. These have always struck me as the least important elements in the controversy, and I tend to agree with the views expressed by New York Times reporter John Tierney on his blog that the quality of the science matters a lot more than any potential or perceived conflicts of interest of the scientist.”

    On this point, I must disagree vehemently. Pachauri’s conflicts are reflected in the bad science. Critical thinking requires that we always ask “Who benefits?”

  • john

    The evidence of fraud is much worse than the ones reported and there is much more.

    For example, there used to be data from 6000 thermometers included in global temperatures but since about 1990 only 1000 has been used — and you guessed it — the data from the colder thermometers were excluded. They stopped using the data from temps in colder latitudes and mountains on purpose.

    This is teh worst fraud ever and crimes against humanity. NYT and rest of media is complicit in the censorship and people are dying as a result of the food shortages.

    This is no longer cutesy.

    Dr. Bill

  • alicia

    its interesting to read the british papers for the last few months and know in your hearth its not just the right leaning critics exposing the inconsistencies of the global warming movement. The issue from the start should have been preparing the world to live in a cleaner environment. This approach is more tangible than computer models of minute temp. changes in a world with dramatic needs such as wealth building and combatting poverty, disease.

    We now know Europe had two growing periods prior to the mini ice age. Temperatures change with and without cars, fluorocarbons,carbon, etc…..

    This blog is great. Just discovered it. Am looking forward to it being a new source of information. Excellent writer Mr. Mead

  • Pingback: Further reading | Clive Crook's blog | FT.com()

  • Lloyd

    trafamadore: The entire point of the error on the glaciers is that they are NOT melting; period. Not 20 years, nor 35, not 70 … not within the foreseeable future. And the area around the Sahara is getting wetter, not drier. See the UN’s own figures on supra and sub-Saharan rainfalls over the last 20 years. And, just for a giggle, re-read the climate projections from the GCM’s re: more CO2 –> more water vapor. That means more rain. Arctic ice doesn’t matter for sea levels; even if it were melting it’s already floating on the waters of the Arctic Ocean therefore melting it won’t raise sea level.

    The big shots in AGW gave it away when they said that even if “natural effects” were “masking” AGW, it’s still there. The hypothesis requires unrelenting, unmaskable warming caused by this imagined CO2 –> water vapor mechanism. A failure to find continued warming = hypothesis disproven by the data.

    Don’t forget all of the various temperature data which has been changed in an upward direction, both by East Anglia – ooops, we lost our original temperature data! – and in the GISS by the esteemed Dr. Hansen.

    Not only will that dog not hunt, it’s quite dead!

  • Freedom Fan

    “The dwindling band who depend on The New York Times for their news don’t know that their world has changed in some important ways. They deserve to know and they need to know; I hope that the paper will find a way to tell them.”
    -Walter Russell Mead

    Mr. Mead, why do you take the NY Times so seriously? Most Americans consider NYT to be a nearly bankrupt, propaganda appendage of the Obama regime.

    Your article is just another illustration why Pinch Sulzberger’s yellow rag, propped up by Carlos Slim, is read by “a dwindling band” of goofy socialists and elitists.

    Any reader, who does not dare venture beyond the formerly MSM, is just choosing to be willfully ignorant of the world.

    As further evidence:

    “NEW YORK, Feb 10 (Reuters) – The New York Times Co (NYT.N) warned on Wednesday that print newspaper advertising will continue to decline, sending shares down nearly 9 percent, even as the company slashed costs…”

  • Chris

    It’s been getting warmer ever since the Little Ice Age, big deal. The only reliable temp record is satellite, all else is hocus pocus. Sat. data is only 30 yrs old. Warming trend? About 1 degree per century, which could go flat if it stays cool for the next 10 years (as predicted by some).

  • sub

    the NYT is a discredited rag, at this point. the “journalists” working there, taught by “activist” professors of journalism, seem to think that a news story is an opportunity for their inexperienced opinion to shine. it’s vile, lame, and an assault on reasonable standards. who would ever have thought that the NYT would one day define the bottom of the barrel….

  • yert

    NYT = credibility gone, I saw what you did re Obama, and climate change. Not quite all the news that’s fit to print I’d say. No more dollars from me thou subtle, urbane liars.

  • Jim A

    Did Bagdad Bob take over the job of Editor at the NYT?

  • Letscheck

    Global warming dumped three feet of snow in my NJ neighborhood. NY got a dusting of several inches of snow. Philadelphia and Washington DC were buried also.

    NYT reminds me of the old joke that people watching the weather forecast on television would do better by looking out the window.

    Global warming has been a money making enterprise from the start. Obama doesn’t care about the planet. He cares about taking over the U.S. and using issues to confiscate power and money.

    It’s just an old Chicago trick and it’s too bad that so many Americans who voted in 2008 did not take into account that a man from the Chicago Machine might have a money making agenda behind his wish to be President.

  • freezing

    The Times account goes to great lengths to paint Dr Pachauri as a saint of decidedly low income for someone so prominent— wages of only forty-some thousand dollars.

    The elephant in that room is that the “modest” income included, apparently to the Times’ non-interest, $16,000 in interest income. That’s a lot of interest. What kind of wealth is this pinnacle of “modest” means holding that throws off that kind of taxable income? Some enterprising journo ought to dig further.

  • Never Read NYT Anyway

    Is it any wonder why the NY Times has constantly diminishing readership? It is a self fulfilling prophecy. Soon there will be no NYT.

  • trafamadore

    “The entire point of the error on the glaciers is that they are NOT melting; period. Not 20 years, nor 35, not 70 … not within the foreseeable future. And the area around the Sahara is getting wetter, not drier. See the UN’s own figures on supra and sub-Saharan rainfalls over the last 20 years.”

    Not true.

    Glaciers/deserts are getting more snow/rain. That does not make them snowier/wetter because both are getting more heat which increases their melting/evaporation. You are getting your “data” from the internet.

  • Pingback: What type of lumber should I use to build a backyard swing set/play house for my kids? | Lumberjakk()

  • Pingback: Breaking News – Climategate « Da Mook()

  • Pingback: afarrago» Blog Archive » including saving on paper()

  • http://FinalRacKoonsAgainBlog.blogtownhall.com Glenn Koons

    Jones recanted again today. The Times or WAPO or MSNBC or any lefty outlet will never really treat this climate , GW, myth as just that. They are tied together with the leftist socialist pacifists in the WH and their minions in the Dem Congress. Cap and Trade, climate baloney means more taxing and spending for the statists. They live for it. Time for all of them to be retired…Nov. cannot come too soon. And BTW, why would anyone nowadays depend on the Globe, Times on both coasts, WAPO or the MSNBC dolts for real news???

  • Pingback: This Week in News: Volume 3 | The Lehigh Patriot()

  • Paul

    I can’t believe anyone still reads the NYT…or maybe they are just buying it to line the botto of bird cages!

  • Pingback: Cooler Heads Digest 12 February 2010 | GlobalWarming.org()

  • Cary Stoutenger

    Great stuff ici.

  • Pingback: This Week in News: Volume 3 | A Moment with Mumma()

  • http://www.videojug.com/user/josephmadden923/profile Tesha Coomer

    Hi, i think that i saw you visited my weblog so i came to “return the favor”.I am trying to find things to improve my web site!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2014 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service