| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fred Stone" |
| Date: |
06 Dec 2007 03:18:14 PM |
| Object: |
IPCC's Global Warming Sea-level fraud |
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics
department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-
2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution,
and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been
studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35
years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR.
EIR: I would like to start with a little bit about your background, and
some of the commissions and research groups you've worked on.
Mörner: I am a sea-level specialist. There are many good sea-level people
in the world, but let's put it this way: There's no one who's beaten me.
I took my thesis in 1969, devoted to a large extent to the sea-level
problem. From then on, I have launched most of the new theories, in the
'70s, '80s, and '90s.
I was the one who understood the problem of the gravitational potential
surface, the theory that it changes with time. I'm the one who studied
the rotation of the Earth, how it affected the redistribu-tion of the
oceans' masses. And so on. And then I was president of INQUA, an
international frater-nal association, their Commission on Sea-Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, from 1999 to 2003. And in order to do
something intelligent there, we launched a special international sea-
level research project in the Maldives, because that's the hottest spot
on Earth for—there are so many variables interacting there, so it was
interesting, and also people had claimed that the Maldives—about 1,200
small islands—were doomed to disappear in 50 years, or at most, 100
years. So that was a very important target.
Then I have had my own research institute at Stockholm University, which
was devoted to some-thing called paleogeophysics and geodynamics. It's
primarily a research institute, but lots of stu-dents came, and I have
several PhD theses at my institute, and lots of visiting professors and
research scientists came to learn about sea level. Working in this field,
I don't think there's a spot on the Earth I haven't been in! In the
northmost, Greenland; and in Antarctica; and all around the Earth, and
very much at the coasts. So I have primary data from so many places, that
when I'm speaking, I don't do it out of ignorance, but on the contrary, I
know what I'm talking about.
And I have interaction with other scientific branches, because it's very
important to see the pro-blems not just from one eye, but from many
different aspects. Sometimes you dig up some very important thing in some
geodesic paper which no other geologist would read. And you must have the
time and the courage to go into the big questions, and I think I have
done that. The last ten years or so, of course, everything has been the
discussion on sea level, which they say is drowning us; in the early
'90s, I was in Washington giving a paper on how the sea level is not
rising, as they said. That had some echoes around the world.
EIR: What is the real state of the sea-level rising?
Mörner: You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. That is what
I have done in a lot of different papers, so we can confine ourselves to
the short story here. One way is to look at the global picture, to try to
find the essence of what is going on. And then we can see that the sea
level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise
had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the
exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area;
it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the
last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one
solution, and it will be this figure.
That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we
can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to
satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that:
There's another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth
increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth's rate
of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it
in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the
body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms,
they stop by themsel-ves. So you can look at the rotation and the same
comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It
could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth,
but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it's a matter
of physics.
So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it
by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but
there's no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again.
There's no trend, absolutely no trend.
Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide
gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for
wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geo-logy when we
interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC
[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has
six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm
per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a
subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record
which you shouldn't use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland
would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.
And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for
a thing like that. So tide gau-ges, you have to treat very, very
carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not
just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by
satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight
line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend
whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in
half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a
sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications,
in their website, was a strai-ght line—suddenly it changed, and showed a
very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide
gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had
recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the
original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a
“correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a
measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of
this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced
factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is
measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And
they ans-wered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have
gotten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data
set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point:
They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer.
Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all
this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer
modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!
I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year.
The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it
had 22 authors, but none of them— none—were sea-level specialists. They
were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing.
Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The
metereological community works with compu-ters, simple computers.
Geologists don't do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we
can try to make a model with computerization; but it's not the first
thing.
So there we are. Then we went to the Maldives. I traced a drop in sea
level in the 1970s, and the fishermen told me, “Yes, you are correct,
because we remember”—things in their sailing routes have changed, things
in their harbor have changed. I worked in the lagoon, I drilled in the
sea, I drilled in lakes, I looked at the shore morphology—so many
different environments.
Always the same thing: In about 1970, the sea fell about 20 cm, for
reasons involving probably evaporation or something. Not a change in
volume or something like that—it was a rapid thing. The new level, which
has been stable, has not changed in the last 35 years. You can trace it
so very, very carefully. No rise at all is the answer there.
Another famous place is the Tuvalu Islands, which are supposed to soon
disappear because they've put out too much carbon dioxide. There we have
a tide gauge record, a variograph record, from 1978, so it's 30 years.
And again, if you look there, absolutely no trend, no rise.
So, from where do they get this rise in the Tuvalu Islands?
Then we know that there was a Japanese pineapple industry which
subtracted too much fresh water from the inland, and those islands have
very little fresh water available from precipitation, rain. So, if you
take out too much, you destroy the water magazine, and you bring sea
water into the magazine, which is not nice. So they took out too much
fresh water and in came salt water. And of course the local people were
upset. But then it was much easier to say, “No, no! It's the global sea
level rising! It has nothing to do with our subtraction of fresh water.”
So there you have it. This is a local industry which doesn't pay.
You have Vanuatu, and also in the Pacific, north of New Zealand and Fiji—
there is the island Tegua. They said they had to evacuate it, because the
sea level was rising. But again, you look at the tide-gauge record: There
is absolutely no signal that the sea level is rising. If anything, you
could say that maybe the tide is lowering a little bit, but absolutely no
rising.
And again, where do they get it from? They get it from their inspiration,
their hopes, their compu-ter models, but not from observation. Which is
terrible. We have Venice. Venice is well known, because that area is
techtonically, because of the delta, slowly subsiding.
The rate has been constant over time. A rising sea level would
immediately accelerate the flooding. And it would be so simple to record
it. And if you look at that 300-year record: In the 20th Century it was
going up and down, around the subsidence rate. In 1970, you should have
an acceleration, but instead, the rise almost finished. So it was the
opposite.
If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere. But they need the
rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat. They say
there is nothing good to come from a sea-level rise, only problems,
coastal problems. If you have a temperature rise, if it's a problem in
one area, it's bene-ficial in another area. But sea level is the real
“bad guy,” and therefore they have talked very much about it. But the
real thing is, that it doesn't exist in observational data, only in
computer modeling.
EIR: I watched the documentary, “Doomsday Called Off,” that you were part
of. And you were showing the physical tides in the Maldives, the tree
that was there; and if there had been a sea-level rise, that tree would
have been gone. And how the coral was built up on the beach in two
different levels, showing two different levels of rise. The way you
presented it was how geologists do a site survey to put their findings
into context.
Mörner: I'll tell you another thing: When I came to the Maldives, to our
enormous surprise, one morning we were on an island, and I said, “This is
something strange, the storm level has gone down; it has not gone up, it
has gone down.” And then I started to check the level all around, and I
asked the others in the group, “Do you see anything here on the beach?”
And after awhile they found it too. And we had investigated, and we were
sure, I said we cannot leave the Maldives and go home and say the sea
level is not rising, it's not respectful to the people. I have to say it
to Maldive television. So we made a very nice program for Maldive
television, but it was forbidden by the government! Because they thought
that they would lose money. They accuse the West for putting out carbon
dioxide, and therefore we have to pay for our damage and the floo-ding.
So they wanted the flooding scenario to go on.
This tree, which I showed in the documentary, is interesting. This is a
prison island, and when peo-ple left the island, from the '50s, it was a
marker for them, when they saw this tree alone out there, they said, “Ah,
freedom!” They were allowed back. And there have been writings and talks
about this. I knew that this tree was in that terrible position already
in the 1950s. So the slightest rise, and it would have been gone. I used
it in my writings and for television. You know what happened? There came
an Australian sea-level team, which was for the IPCC and against me. Then
the stu-dents pulled down the tree by hand! They destroyed the evidence.
What kind of people are those? And we came to launch this film, “Doomsday
Called Off,” right after, and the tree was still green. And I heard from
the locals that they had seen the people who had pulled it down. So I put
it up again, by hand, and made my TV program. I haven't told anybody
else, but this was the story.
A famous tree in the Maldives shows no evidence of having been swept
away by rising sea levels, as would be predicted by the global warming
swindlers. A group of Australian global-warming advocates came along and
pulled the tree down, destroy-ing the evidence that their “theory” was
false.
They call themselves scientists, and they're destroying evidence! A
scientist should always be open for reinterpretation, but you can never
destroy evidence. And they were being watched, thinking they were clever.
EIR: How does the IPCC get these small island nations so worked up about
worrying that they're going to be flooded tomorrow?
Mörner: Because they get support, they get money, so their idea is to
attract money from the industrial countries. And they believe that if the
story is not sustained, they will lose it. So, they love this story. But
the local people in the Maldives— it would be terrible to raise
children—why should they go to school, if in 50 years everything will be
gone? The only thing you should do, is learn how to swim.
EIR: To take your example of Tuvalu, it seems to be more of a case of how
the water manage-ment is going on, rather than the sea level rising.
Mörner: Yes, and it's much better to blame something else. Then they can
wash their hands and say, “It's not our fault. It's the U.S., they're
putting out too much carbon dioxide.”
EIR: Which is laughable, this idea that CO2 is driving global warming.
Mörner: Precisely, that's another thing. And like this State of Fear, by
Michael Crichton, when he talks about ice. Where is ice melting? Some
Alpine glaciers are melting, others are advancing. An-tarctic ice is
certainly not melting; all the Antarctic records show expansion of ice.
Greenland is the dark horse here for sure; the Arctic may be melting, but
it doesn't matter, because they're already floating, and it has no
effect. A glacier like Kilimanjaro, which is important, on the Equator,
is only melting because of deforestation. At the foot of the Kilimanjaro,
there was a rain forest; from the rain forest came moisture, from that
came snow, and snow became ice. Now, they have cut down the rain forest,
and instead of moisture, there comes heat; heat melts the ice, and
there's no more snow to generate the ice. So it's a simple thing, but has
nothing to do with temperature.
It's the misbehavior of the people around the mountain. So again, it's
like Tuvalu: We should say this deforestation, that's the thing. But
instead they say, “No, no, it's the global warming!”
EIR: Here, over the last few days, there was a grouping that sent out a
power-point presenta-tion on melting glaciers, and how this is going to
raise sea level and create all kinds of problems.
Mörner: The only place that has that potential is Greenland, and
Greenland east is not melting; Greenland west, the Disco Bay is melting,
but it has been melting for 200 years, at least, and the rate of melting
decreased in the last 50-100 years. So, that's another falsification.
But more important, in 5,000 years, the whole of the Northern Hemisphere
experienced warming, the Holocene Warm Optimum, and it was 2.5 degrees
warmer than today. And still, no problem with Antarctica, or with
Greenland; still, no higher sea level.
EIR: These scare stories are being used for political purposes.
Mörner: Yes. Again, this is for me, the line of demarcation between the
meteorological community and us: They work with computers; we geologists
work with observations, and the observations do not fit with these
scenarios. So what should you change? We cannot change observations, so
we have to change the scenarios!
Instead of doing this, they give an endless amount of money to the side
which agrees with the IPCC. The European Community, which has gone far in
this thing: If you want a grant for a research pro-ject in climatology,
it is written into the document that there must be a focus on global
warming. All the rest of us, we can never get a coin there, because we
are not fulfilling the basic obligations. That is really bad, because
then you start asking for the answer you want to get. That's what
dictator-ships did, autocracies. They demanded that scientists produce
what they wanted.
EIR: Increasingly science is going in this direction, including in the
nuclear industry—it's like playing computer games. It's like the design
of the Audi, which was done by computer, but not tested in reality, and
it flipped over. They didn't care about physical principles.
Mörner: You frighten a lot of scientists. If they say that climate is not
changing, they lose their research grants. And some people cannot afford
that; they become silent, or a few of us speak up, because we think that
it's for the honesty of science, that we have to do it.
EIR: In one of your papers, you mentioned how the expansion of sea level
changed the Earth's rotation into different modes—that was quite an eye-
opener.
Mörner: Yes, but it is exceptionally hard to get these papers published
also. The publishers com-pare it to IPCC's modeling, and say, “Oh, this
isn't the IPCC.” Well, luckily it's not! But you cannot say that.
EIR: What were you telling me the other day, about 22 authors being from
Austria?
Mörner: Three of them were from Austria, where there is not even a coast!
The others were not specialists. So that's why, when I became president
of the INQUA Commission on Sea-Level Chan-ge and Coastal Evolution, we
made a research project, and we had this up for discussion at five
international meetings. And all the true sea level specialists agreed on
this figure, that in 100 years, we might have a rise of 10 cm, with an
uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm—that's not very much.
And in recent years, I even improved it, by considering also that we're
going into a cold phase in 40 years. That gives 5 cm rise, plus or minus
a few centimeters. That's our best estimate. But that's very, very
different from the IPCC statement. Ours is just a continuation of the
pattern of sea level going back in time. Then you have absolutely maximum
figures, like when we had all the ice in the vanishing ice caps that
happened to be too far south in latitude after the Ice Age.
You couldn't have more melting than after the Ice Age. You reach up to 10
mm per year—that was the super-maximum: 1 meter in 100 years. Hudson Bay,
in a very short period, melted away: it came up to 12 mm per year. But
these are so exceptionally large, that we cannot be anywhere near it; but
still people have been saying, 1 meter, 3 meters. It's not feasible!
These are figures which are so large, that only when the ice caps were
vanishing, did we have those types of rates.
They are absolutely extreme. This frame is set by the maximum-maximum
rate, and we have to be far, far lower. We are basing ourselves on the
observations—in the past, in the present, and then predicting it into the
future, with the best of the “feet on the ground” data that we can get,
not from the computer.
EIR: Isn't some of what people are talking about just shoreline erosion,
as opposed to sea-level rise?
Mörner: Yes, and I have very nice pictures of it. If you have a coast,
with some stability of the sea level, the waves make a kind of
equilibrium profile—what they are transporting into the sea and what they
are transporting onshore. If the sea rises a little, yes, it attacks, but
the attack is not so vigorous. On the other hand, if the sea goes down,
it is eating away at the old equilibrium level. There is a much larger
redistribution of sand.
We had an island, where there was heavy erosion, everything was falling
into the sea, trees and so on. But if you looked at what happened: The
sand which disappeared there, if the sea level had gone up, that sand
would have been placed higher, on top of the previous land. But it is
being placed below the previous beach. We can see the previous beach, and
it is 20-30 cm above the current beach. So this is erosion because the
sea level fell, not because the sea level rose. And it is more common
that erosion is caused by falling sea level, than by rising sea level.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
If you go into Sudan today
Your heart will fill with dread
If you go into Sudan today
You might just lose your head
Because on the sands
With blood on their hands
Every nut that ever was
Will be there because
.
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: IPCC's Global Warming Sea-level fraud |
07 Dec 2007 02:05:14 PM |
|
|
On 06 Dec 2007 21:18:14 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99FEA5DCCC193freddybear@216.151.153.66> wrote:
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics
department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-
2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution,
and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been
studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35
years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR.
If I were Fred Stone I would point out that Nils-Axel Mörner was
quoted in a LaRouche publication and use that, via guilt by
assocation, to discredit him. But that is a clearly fallacious
argument.
EIR: I would like to start with a little bit about your background, and
some of the commissions and research groups you've worked on.
Mörner: I am a sea-level specialist. There are many good sea-level people
in the world, but let's put it this way: There's no one who's beaten me.
I took my thesis in 1969, devoted to a large extent to the sea-level
problem. From then on, I have launched most of the new theories, in the
'70s, '80s, and '90s.
I was the one who understood the problem of the gravitational potential
surface, the theory that it changes with time. I'm the one who studied
the rotation of the Earth, how it affected the redistribu-tion of the
oceans' masses. And so on. And then I was president of INQUA, an
international frater-nal association, their Commission on Sea-Level
Changes and Coastal Evolution, from 1999 to 2003. And in order to do
something intelligent there, we launched a special international sea-
level research project in the Maldives, because that's the hottest spot
on Earth for—there are so many variables interacting there, so it was
interesting, and also people had claimed that the Maldives—about 1,200
small islands—were doomed to disappear in 50 years, or at most, 100
years. So that was a very important target.
Then I have had my own research institute at Stockholm University, which
was devoted to some-thing called paleogeophysics and geodynamics. It's
primarily a research institute, but lots of stu-dents came, and I have
several PhD theses at my institute, and lots of visiting professors and
research scientists came to learn about sea level. Working in this field,
I don't think there's a spot on the Earth I haven't been in! In the
northmost, Greenland; and in Antarctica; and all around the Earth, and
very much at the coasts. So I have primary data from so many places, that
when I'm speaking, I don't do it out of ignorance, but on the contrary, I
know what I'm talking about.
And I have interaction with other scientific branches, because it's very
important to see the pro-blems not just from one eye, but from many
different aspects. Sometimes you dig up some very important thing in some
geodesic paper which no other geologist would read. And you must have the
time and the courage to go into the big questions, and I think I have
done that. The last ten years or so, of course, everything has been the
discussion on sea level, which they say is drowning us; in the early
'90s, I was in Washington giving a paper on how the sea level is not
rising, as they said. That had some echoes around the world.
EIR: What is the real state of the sea-level rising?
Mörner: You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. That is what
I have done in a lot of different papers, so we can confine ourselves to
the short story here. One way is to look at the global picture, to try to
find the essence of what is going on. And then we can see that the sea
level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise
had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the
exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area;
it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the
last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one
solution, and it will be this figure.
That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we
can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to
satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that:
There's another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth
increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth's rate
of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right?
Well, no. It depends on what causes the sea level rise. if it is from
ocean warming that is different than if it is from glacial melting.
Neither the degree of the change nor the direction is obvious.
You have it
in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the
body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms,
they stop by themsel-ves. So you can look at the rotation and the same
comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It
could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth,
but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it's a matter
of physics.
That is more arm waving and attempt at argument from authority (of
"physics") than actual science.
[snip]
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications,
in their website, was a strai-ght line—suddenly it changed, and showed a
very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide
gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had
recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the
original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a
“correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a
measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of
this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced
factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is
measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And
they ans-wered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have
gotten any trend!
So he disagrees with the people who did the research. Not exactly
uncommon in science, but neither does it mean that he is right.
[snip]
So there we are. Then we went to the Maldives. I traced a drop in sea
level in the 1970s, and the fishermen told me, “Yes, you are correct,
because we remember”—things in their sailing routes have changed, things
in their harbor have changed. I worked in the lagoon, I drilled in the
sea, I drilled in lakes, I looked at the shore morphology—so many
different environments.
And, yet, the Maldives are disappearing under the ocean. Pretty neat
for a sea level drop.
[snip]
If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere.
And, yet, there is warming in the ocean and melting of glaciers. I
wonder where the extra volume is going.
[snip]
EIR: Which is laughable, this idea that CO2 is driving global warming.
Mörner: Precisely, that's another thing. And like this State of Fear, by
Michael Crichton, when he talks about ice.
Because, after all, fiction writers are the second best experts on
science.
[snip]
Mörner: Yes, but it is exceptionally hard to get these papers published
also. The publishers com-pare it to IPCC's modeling, and say, “Oh, this
isn't the IPCC.” Well, luckily it's not! But you cannot say that.
EIR: What were you telling me the other day, about 22 authors being from
Austria?
Mörner: Three of them were from Austria, where there is not even a coast!
And if they were born in a country without a coast how can they know
anything about the sea?
[snip]
You couldn't have more melting than after the Ice Age. You reach up to 10
mm per year—that was the super-maximum: 1 meter in 100 years. Hudson Bay,
in a very short period, melted away: it came up to 12 mm per year. But
these are so exceptionally large, that we cannot be anywhere near it; but
still people have been saying, 1 meter, 3 meters. It's not feasible!
These are figures which are so large, that only when the ice caps were
vanishing, did we have those types of rates.
Most of Antarctica land is below sea level. If the ice melts and gets
back that far then there will be a catastrophic lifting of the ice.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
