Brit Doc: Thatcher Started Global Warming Craze

March 10, 2007

I was able to view the British documentary The Great Global Warming Scandal which, interesting enough, contained more science in debunking Global Warming than I have yet to see produced by the Global Warming crowd. I’ll bullet point the arguments against the Global Warming craze in a later post, but the most amazing revelation was that, indeed, in great part we do have Margaret Thatcher to thank for today’s Global Warming theory.

The original theory was from a fringe scientist and when it surfaced nearly all mainstream scientists found it laughable. Man’s contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is so small when compared to the contributions from volcanoes, plants and especially the oceans, it’s doubtful man could effect anything, let alone climate, by producing CO2. But Thatcher had a problem and a plan.

The previous government had been brought down by a devastating and violent coal mine strike and another strike came along as she was in office. Being determined to break the cycle of labor, a large part of it being coal miners, reeking such havoc and ultimately dictating terms to the government, she was determined to move the country away from coal as a power source.

Not trusting Middle Eastern oil as a power source that would produce stability , she wanted to move Britain toward nuclear energy in a major way. The strongest selling point was that nuclear energy was clean and she seized upon the CO2 theory, reasoning that if she could increase concern over coal, she’d be able to implement plans to begin building nuclear reactors.

Millions of government dollars were placed on the table at Britain’s National Academy of Science to produce specific science that heightened concerns over CO2 as a serious health and environmental concern. The meme, if you will, and the dollars available to scientists for such work grew, in Britain and across Europe and even in the US. It was the seed of the Global Warming industry we see today.

The film, relying upon several credible scientists, pretty much destroyed the current theory of Global Warming, including Gore’s film, repeatedly citing specific science from MIT to the National Academy that conflicts with the theory and demonstrates how science is being manipulated to support the GW movement today.

Talk about the law of unintended consequences.

Update: Irony – from today’s headlines:

Europe agrees to embrace nuclear option in battle to save the planet

AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
  1. BeingThere says:

    “The film, relying upon several credible scientists,…”
    Hey, if several credible scientists say it then it must be true. Screw what the other 99% of scientists say.

  2. Jeff says:

    “Screw what the other 99% of scientists say.”
    I heard it’s more around 60% +/- 39%; who’s counting?
    But seriously, it would be interesting to find out how many climatologists believe in human caused global warming… Rush Limbaugh said it’s around 60% (if I remember right).
    I guess if you are going to quote statistics, it would be nice to be prepared to cite them.

  3. Rob Kaufman says:

    LOL @ Mr Mensa, you think Rush is a source of facts?? My you truly are a Kool-aid drinking loon. But it doesn’t surprise me that you are a loyal listening dittohead.

  4. Jeff says:

    like I said… someone find the facts, because I can’t find them for the life of me… he actually cited a newspaper, but I can’t remember which.
    And LOL, if you don’t know this yet, I don’t really care about what happens here, its the internet. What you say is inconsequential. Your wasting you time, 90% of people don’t read the comments… at least Dan has a couple hundred thousand reading what he says… which is far more than you can say for you or me.

  5. The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Dan Riehl thinks it’s the most science-packed and effective debunking of the theoenvironmental theory of Global Warming, ever. From Channel 4 in Britain, which I imagine is a BBC channel. (Could be wrong, of course.) You can see the whole…

  6. Rob Kaufman says:

    Another winner from Mr Mensa, “Your wasting you time”, should be “You’re wasting your time”. You would think someone who claims to be a Mensa member would know the difference between your and you’re.

  7. Buzzy says:

    Haven’t listened to Rush in a long while but I do know that the main factor in “global warming” isn’t CO2, it’s water vapor. Of course water vapor is followed by CO2 and methane. Without this “greenhouse effect” the temperature outside would be below 0 degrees fahrenheit.
    I’m also aware that most of the scientists who are now screaming about man made global warming were predicting a man made ice age only a few decades ago. A large number of the scientists who debunked the ice age we were supposed to be suffering right now are the same ones who are debunking the global warming catastrophe they’re screaming about now.
    Remember exactly where you stood on this issue in 10 years, or 5, maybe only 3 years down the road when these same scientists are screaming about the next new scientificly proven global doom and man made global warming is as sad and forgotten as the “new ice age” of the 1970’s.

  8. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Fiction: $250 Billion Scam?

    Wanton profiteering appears to be at the very heart of “carbon offsets.” Put simply, a wide range of respected scientists, environmentalists, researchers, agriculturalists, and activists believe that carbon offsets are a “scam”, “fantasy”, “fiction”,…

  9. Mr Civility says:

    Look carefully at the comments from the Left. EVERY SINGLE ONE will contain NO facts whatsoever. The comments will include :
    *Laughs or smirks
    *Expressions disbelief
    *Changes of subject
    *Sites of phony statistics
    *Sites of irrelevant info
    *Sites of bad things Bush did

  10. benrand says:

    All these liberal scientists posting comments about how “the science is settled”.
    Flatearthers is what they are…
    In other words, imbecilic kooks.
    the video is very persuasive and it uses actual data from actual scientists to show that Al’s movie is a complete and utter lie.
    BTW, why didn’t Al distribute that movie over the web? Was he being a little bit greedy? Why wasn’t it free? Why did he feel the need to sell product made out of plastic?
    Anyone care to explain that one? Why did he force people to drive teir cars to the theater to see that movie? Placing it on the web and allowing free downloads would have been the more earth-conscious decision.
    That doesn’t buy carbon offsets for the new entertainment room in Al’s mansion however.

  11. Ashley Pomeroy says:

    “coal miners, reeking”
    Now that’s unfair. I’m sure after a day in the coal mines anybody would be a bit whiffy.

  12. The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Enrage your brainwashed friends and family and send them the link to this video. I doubt the makers will be feted in Hollywood, but who cares when you have the truth on your side?

  13. Dogstar says:

    Lol, Ashley!

  14. Sunny says:

    The Great Global Warming Swindle

    This has to be the best debunking of the global warming movement I have ever seen. If you want to see how it started, why Al Gore is wrong, the truth behind the UN report, the actual science, and the death sentance proposed for Africa, watch this p

  15. TomB says:

    More science “consensus” throughout history:
    flat earth
    earth-centered universe
    cholera, malaria caused by “bad air”
    flight unable to exceed speed of sound
    and my favorite:
    Science is not decided by “consensus”. It is determined by facts.
    The very fact that the IPCC summary has been written, signed and distributed PRIOR to the data being completely analized and released should raise a red flag with anybody who has any basis in science.

  16. TomB says:

    BTW, can someone give me a list of climatologists who have stated unequivocally that AGW is occurring?

  17. GorePowerCompany says:

    A partial list of AGW skeptics:
    Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
    Claude Allègre, French geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
    Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University
    David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
    Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences
    Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
    Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station
    Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
    George V. Chilingar, professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California
    William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State University (now at NOAA)
    Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw
    Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin
    Tim Patterson , paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada
    Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences
    Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
    Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
    Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
    Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa
    Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
    Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
    Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility, and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
    Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.
    Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa.
    Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards.
    Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.
    Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario.
    Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.
    Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology.
    Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member, and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa.
    Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
    Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta.
    Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
    Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.
    Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
    Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta.
    Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Virginia, and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.
    Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
    Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary.
    Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.
    Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
    Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey.
    Mr. George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists.
    Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia.
    Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
    Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review.
    Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
    Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand.
    Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California.
    Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota.
    Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
    Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health).
    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland.
    Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy and Environment.
    Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change.
    Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey.
    Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway.
    Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.
    Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC, and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change 2001,” Wellington, N.Z.
    Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut.
    Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
    Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
    Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
    Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society.
    Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University.
    Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
    Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland.
    Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany.
    Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland.
    Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden.
    Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant.
    Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon.
    Dr. Arthur Rörsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food, and public health.
    Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist.
    Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
    Note: there may be some repeats. I got the names from more than one source. Also, some may have recanted their position under pressure.

  18. Global warming… NOT!!

    (I guess it’s really just an Ace kind of day….) Ace points to Dan Riehl’s review of a British documentary

  19. templar knight says:

    Wow, a real Gore stopper there, GPC. Sweet!

  20. Mike says:

    Does anyone think Gore is a source of facts? Or the U.N.? I think it’s a waste of time trying to convince these people who made up their minds in the 1960s – about everything! They’ve been trying to save mankind from democracy and capitalism for decades. Like the ozone layer, this will get lost in another one of their narcissistic causes to save the world. When the sixties crowd grow so old that they can no longer hold up their placards of dissent (about everything), that’s the time the world will breathe a sigh of relief – like the couple that finally leaves the party when the party was over hours ago; the host shuts the door behind them and says, “Thank God!”

  21. Sean says:

    Encourage people to see the video “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.
    Here is an easy URL to remember to see the program. Pass it along to friends and family.

  22. Wanderlust says:

    I occasionally post on Newsbusters and I also check your site from time to time. So when I read what you wrote about Maggie Thatcher, coal strikes, and global warming, it jogged a memory about something I had read a year ago in a New Zealand right-leaning news magazine, Investigate.
    The article was posted on Investgate’s group blog, The Briefing Room. Here is the link:
    Specifically, Ian Wishart alleges that “Global Warming” as such got its kick in the pants from Ken Lay of Enron, who was looking for a trading scheme to eclipse GHWB 41’s pollution credit trading scheme birthed in Bush Sr’s revisions to the Clean Air Act 1990. Enron was sitting on a huge natural gas infrastructure, but made far more profits as a trader than as a natural gas distribution company and electrical utility operator. Wishart’s article alleges that Enron spread research $$$ to “prove” CO2 caused global warming so that a carbon credit trading scheme could be created and make Enron fantastically rich. Enron would also benefit as utilities were forced to retire coal-fired power stations and commission natural gas ones instead (recall that by the late 1980’s, nuclear power plants were dinosaurs in the US, thanks to the DOE).
    Food for thought.
    IMHO, “global warming” represents the worst example of how easily science can be politicized by those who have something to gain in so doing. It is also proof of how dogmatic the political Left has become, as the Left clings to “global warming” like Pagans of old worshipping the weather gods. Never mind that it is they who will suffer if they get their wish of wealth redistribution on the scale the Kyoto Protocol enables.

  23. The Swindle: Complete Documentary Here

    Thanks to our Harvard physicist pal Lubos for linking the entire movie of The Great Global Warming Swindle.  So many fine folks who help with the labor on Maggie’s Farm – it’s a blessing.I don’t know what to watch first, 300 or the Swindle. OK, I am off

  24. ajacksonian says:

    As a geologist I have always questioned the data presented for man-made global warming as it is not amenable to the actual data sets involved. When carbon dioxide levels have been around ~315 ppm over the last few centuries, the entire planet had levels far, far higher, ranging up to 7,000 ppm back at the Carboniferous. ( )
    We did *not* get a runaway greenhouse effect and, in point of fact, there was such a high proportion of oxygen in comparison to other gases that life flourished. Plant life development was highly intense and for millions upon millions of years vast forests laid down their remains, year upon year until the were compressed and oxygen driven out of their components to form this thing we know as: coal. Now far be it from me to point out that the huge amount of carbon dioxide caused one of the greatest green periods the planet has ever seen…
    There are, indeed, geologically based disasters that *will* happen because they are cyclic, although the timing of them is not well understood, but these have true and intense ramifications not only for parts of the continent of North America, but also the entire world. ( ) And even more fun is that we do not address these things that can happen tomorrow and are absolutely devastating… they probably will *not* happen tomorrow, but as each day and each year passes the certainty that they will happen increases. That is basic statistical probability build-up where every day has the exact same chance of something happening, no matter how remotely, and yet the chance of it happening does escalate over time.
    Global warming? What of it? The sun plays a larger part in terrestrial temperatures than anything else, and a minor fluctuation upwards causes global temperature to rise. Complicating that are things like plate tectonics with the continental plates riding at historic high levels that started 70 million years ago which drained out the lovely, shallow seas that covered most of the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia. Antarctica moved into the southern polar region and its land mass no longer retains heat, thus dropping global temperatures further. Along with that goes increased volcanic activity which has a strong correlation with glacial periods. Further changing things, again due to plate tectonics *alone* is orogeny or mountain formation. The Himalayas have been rising, measurably for millions of years change the entire flow of upper atmospheric air on a global basis. The western coastal mountain ranges in the Americas have a similar impact on lower-level atmospheric motion.
    When scientific data is left *out* to get to a conclusion, you are not longer doing science. Science is about the full reporting of *all* the data so that the anomolies can be understood so that actual, real understanding of how the world works can be done. By pushing billions of dollars into targeted research and editing out data that does not fit or data that fits other hypotheses better, one is no longer doing science. That is the scientific version of Politial Correctness and it is abhorrent because you end up with bad results from mis-reported data that *does* come back to haunt you as predictions go awry. You cannot either edit the data to fit the hypothesis nor remove the responsibility of actually accounting for that data and explaining it. And even more stunning is that you can have a totally valid hypothesis that is *right* and be *wrong* for not having data to back you up on it and be laughed out of lecture halls because you lack the data. ( )
    But that is science and it changes as new data comes to light… it is a process of understanding that moves over time and older ways of looking at things get discarded as anomolous data invalidates those outlooks. A hypothesis must fit the facts… not the facts made to fit the hypothesis. That is why full reporting of the data is necessary and *vital* to scientific endeavors. Because it is the things your hypothesis doesn’t explain that lead to new pathways of understanding which, in turn, will have their own pathways to validation and invalidation opened. By trying to remove the pathways to invalidation, you are removing the critical feedback element of scientific inquiry. That is what the PC element is trying to do in science, so that they can make society fit their theories.

  25. Global warming is not yourfault!

    Or mine. Or Al (manbearpig) Gores, even if he does use more than twenty times the electricity and fuel than anyone else.
    Its not even the smelly hippies fault who have turned global warming into some kind of religion.
    Watch this video: Th…

  26. TomB says:

    “Does anyone think Gore is a source of facts? Or the U.N.?”
    Heh. The left won’t shut up about the alleged “no WMDs” in Iraq. Yet both Gore and the UN said they had them.
    But when it comes to AGW, the UN is not to be questioned.

  27. I’m not nearly as concerned with easily disprovable junk science, propped up by “scientists” protecting their paychecks from grants and foundation funding.
    Rather, ordinary people, spurred on by relentless media sales jobs and pandering politicians, are feeding this poisonous nonsense to our children using tax dollars.
    Also, the leftist refuge of environmentalism and the overall socialist agenda furthering the fall of capitalism and the reeling in of progressive globalisation serve as a foundation for activists worldwide.
    Exposing the nutjobs at the root of this scheme is fundamental to ridding humanity of one more yoke of totalitarianism.
    Oh yeah, they hate Bush. Shocker.

  28. TheSpartan says:

    “BTW, why didn’t Al distribute that movie over the web? Was he being a little bit greedy? Why wasn’t it free? Why did he feel the need to sell product made out of plastic?”
    Actually they did give it away for free to any educator who requested it.

  29. Jimi says:

    Here is an old article about Thatcher and GW

  30. PuddleDuck in SC says:

    ajacksonian –
    I think that you have your facts just a little confused.
    The only time that the CO2 has been at 7000 ppm was during the Cambrian period, not the Carboniferous period.
    The late Carboniferous period had CO2 levels that were similar to present day levels and also had similar global temperatures and climate.
    If we ever see CO2 levels at 7000 ppm, North America will become an inland sea, as it was during the Cambrian period.
    “During most of Cambrian, global sea levels were at relatively high elevations as compared with most of the balance of Earth’s history. The world’s continents were mainly low-lying deserts and alluvial plains, and the rising Cambrian sea—in what is known as the Sauk transgression—encroached upon these areas, thus forming vast epicontinental seas. For example, during most of Cambrian, sea level was so high that an epicontinental sea covered North America except for a series of low islands running southwest-northeast along the elevated middle part of the continent (i.e., the Transcontinental Arch) and some parts of the low-lying Canadian cratonic shield region.
    Cambrian was a time of rising global temperatures and Cambrian global climate ultimately became warmer than today. During Cambrian, there were essentially no polar or high-altitude glaciers.”
    If you want to try to predict what the world will be like, by using the ppm levels of CO2, just look at the geologic record.
    The Cambrian period contained the closest thing that we have seen to Noah’s flood.

  31. If you look like your passport picture, you probably need the trip. Thanks good site.

  32. Ed Tuggle says:

    Nice web site. I’ve got a few sites myself. Used to handle everything. Are able to still find it through Google. Type and you need to be able to find it.