backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 41 comment(s) - last by FaceMaster.. on Jun 8 at 5:16 PM


Claude Allegre, a celebrated scientist, has become the victim of climate alarmists who seek to block his appointment to government office, over his skepticism of the theory of global warming.  (Source: RTL France)
The scientific method dissolves into infallible opinion dictated by alarmists

True scientists have always sought to welcome dissenting views and encourage questioning the truth via the scientific method.  However, throughout history there have sadly been those who would make a mockery of science and try to pervert it by suppressing dissenting views, and seeking to silence legitimate researchers diligently following the scientific method.  Galileo Galilei was condemned by the Church for believing the earth orbited the sun, Hypatia of Alexandria was murdered for practicing math, and today respectable scientists are facing ostracism at the hands of climate alarmists.

When news broke earlier this month that French president Nicolas Sarkozy was considering Claude Allègre, a former government official, for a ministerial position, it should have been cause for celebration.  After all, Mr. Allegre is a respected geophysicist who headed the Institut de Physique de Globe in Paris from 1976 to 1986, and was president of the French geological survey — the Bureau des Recherches Géologiques et Minières — from 1992 until 1997.  He even won the 1986 Crafoord Prize for outstanding work in fields not covered by the Nobel Prize.

Mr. Allègre was also seasoned in the ways of government, serving in the French Parliament between 1989 to 1994.  He then went on to serve as minister for science and higher education under French President Lionel Jospin, between 1997 and 2000.

He did, however, have his political problems.  First, he was a vocal socialist and the French people, while somewhat accepting of socialism, have mixed views on it, much like liberalism or conservatism here in the U.S.  Secondly, he was very critical of the French educational system, which at the time was struggling.  He called it a fat "mammoth" in need of slimming.  He also accused the government of suppressing trade unions, saying that they were "chloroformed".  These stances led to President Jospin eventually letting him go in 2000.

Since that time, Mr. Allègre has toned down his rhetoric on other topics, but he has taken up a new controversy -- becoming a vocal critic of the theory of global warming.  And as a prominent geophysicist, Mr. Allègre has more than a leg to stand on, something that makes his opponents quite disconcerted and eager to condemn him.

So when French President Sarkozy reached out to Mr. Allègre about a cabinet position, his critics attacked.  Ecologist Nicolas Hulot, a popular TV environmentalist, journalist and writer, complained, "(Allègre's appointment) would be giving the bras d'honneur to the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  (It would be a) tragic signal six months before the Copenhagen conference, and an incomprehensible move coming from France which has for years been a country that has been an engine in the combat against climate change."

Alain Juppé, a former prime minister and foreign minister of the centre right party made similar criticisms over the scientist's climate skepticism.  And the popular French newspaper Le Monde also echoed these alarmists' remarks.

Now Mr. Allègre has broken his silence, commenting, "I've nothing to say. I'm in my lab writing a scientific article.  We are not in the Soviet Union; we can contest a scientific thesis."

What's truly alarming and grave about this situation is that it’s not Mr. Allègre's past political stances, nor the merits of his celebrated career that critics of his potential appointment are focusing on.  It is his skepticism that man is responsible for global warming.  These critics have transformed global warming into the new religion of alarm, and those who do not convert, will be condemned. 

In doing so, they make a mockery of diligent climate researchers, both proponents of anthropogenic warming and climate skeptics alike.  And sadly, such respectable researchers are in a dwindling minority as the alarmists gain greater control of research funding and publicity.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Alarmism is going to scare me
By mdogs444 on 6/2/2009 10:08:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It is his skepticism that man is responsible for global warming. These critics have transformed global warming into the new religion of alarm, and those who do not convert, will be condemned.

Isn't that the truth! Dirty liberal environmentalists using this alarmism of something that they can't prove and doesn't exist, all in an attempt to further their agenda of higher taxation, redistribution of wealth, and transforming capitalism into socialism all in the disguise of "equality".

You want me to change my ways into your bullshit lifestyle ideas AND you want my money to do it? You better plan on prying it from my cold dead hands, because I'm not going down without a fight.




RE: Alarmism is going to scare me
By mandrews on 6/2/2009 10:19:15 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Dirty liberal environmentalists using this alarmism of something that they can't prove and doesn't exist, all in an attempt to further their agenda of higher taxation, redistribution of wealth, and transforming capitalism into socialism all in the disguise of "equality".


Unfortunately, its not as simple as one party holding the blame for the constant climate change bunk. Global warming has been embraced by many ranking politicians both on the left and right. The religious right, in particular have been particularly noisy lately, decrying the evils of global warming.

However, its certainly true that liberal environmentalism propelled such ideas into the mainstream and continues to support them.

While there's certainly no harm in proponents of GW theory having their voice in the scientific community -- in fact its a good thing -- the problem is the atmosphere of fear that has been adopted. Climate skeptics are automatically labelled crackpots and denied funding -- despite the fact that many are esteemed researchers. This is a travesty, and its likely to get worse, if the public does not stand up against it.


By kattanna on 6/2/2009 11:33:13 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/06/mike_hulme...

there is an interesting interview with a climate person who actually wants to broaden the debate.


RE: Alarmism is going to scare me
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Alarmism is going to scare me
By Boze on 6/2/2009 11:56:49 AM , Rating: 4
Global warming might be a good theory, except for the tiny little fact that the temperature change follows the solar activity cycles of the Sun damn near perfectly.

On top of that, with mankind contributing a total of only 3% of all the carbon dioxide in the world, its a little arrogant to think that our measly 3% overpowers the largest single energy production body in this solar system.

It should also speak volumes to anyone of common sense when the founder of Greenpeace leaves Greenpeace because the organization has become too political.


RE: Alarmism is going to scare me
By reader1 on 6/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Alarmism is going to scare me
By acase on 6/4/2009 9:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm fascinated by his stupidity. It's like looking at man that weighs 1000 lbs.


How does his "stupidity" turn you on like that?


RE: Alarmism is going to scare me
By truk007 on 6/5/2009 7:06:44 AM , Rating: 2
Was Michael Asher even a man? Michael is a female's name as well. Perhaps she got married and took on the name of Andrews.

At any rate... whether or not this Michael is the same as the last one, I sure am glad to see the debates spurred on by these blogs. Endlessly fun insults and sometimes some great points on both sides. It's very entertaining.


RE: Alarmism is going to scare me
By clovell on 6/2/2009 12:49:10 PM , Rating: 5
> While your comments about anthropogenic global warming's supporters may be accurate, you gloss over tremendous body of evidence supporting the theory. Further, you ignore the many researchers who diligently are working per the scientific method to prove this theory, while focusing on a handful that resort to bullyish tactics.

Jason, kindly read the article before commenting on it. There is nothing 'glossed' over here - the research for and against AGW is not the focus of the article at all. Further, he does nothing to ignore the diligent researchers - indeed, he acknowledges that alarmists who seek to quash dissenting opinion with nary a critique or debat are diluting the work of those true scientists who welcome the review of their work.

As for the comment about 'the few' who resort to bullyish tactics - that's the point - it's not just a few. France's entire political community is up in arms over this, and you call it 'a few'. The focus of the article is that politics and science on the issue are mixing about as well as religion and science. The scientific method has been abandoned and governments are now refusing to allow dissenting opinions any voice in government.


RE: Alarmism is going to scare me
By Hieyeck on 6/3/2009 8:08:26 AM , Rating: 2
You made one mistake: this isn't an article, it's a blog. We already know that Jason has trouble differentiating the two.


By johnsonx on 6/3/2009 5:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
this isn't an article, it's a blog. We already know that Jason has trouble differentiating the two.


oh, snap!


michael andrews?
By johnsonx on 6/2/2009 1:11:04 PM , Rating: 5
Mr. Andrews topic selection and writing style does seem EXTREMELY similar to Michael Asher's. If they are one and the same, I am confused at why this has been done. It seems rather a bit dishonest.




RE: michael andrews?
By kattanna on 6/2/2009 1:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
maybe he lost his login info ;>)

he does seem to be very similar to masher, though a bit more reigned in.

anyways, im glad there is this style of voice back here in DT


RE: michael andrews?
By arazok on 6/2/2009 1:47:28 PM , Rating: 5
Can someone from DT PLEASE clarify exactly WTF is going on? Where has Masher been, and is MAndrews the same person?


RE: michael andrews?
By OblivionMage on 6/2/2009 3:55:31 PM , Rating: 5
I second that, some info would be well appreciated.


RE: michael andrews?
By reader1 on 6/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: michael andrews?
By FITCamaro on 6/3/2009 10:53:25 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't think they give a sh*t what people think about their articles.


RE: michael andrews?
By arazok on 6/3/2009 11:05:30 AM , Rating: 2
And they shouldn’t. Either you like them, and frequent the site, or you don’t and go elsewhere.

Personally, I find I’ve already read about most of DailyTech’s ‘news’ 1-2 days before it hits the site. I’m not here for up to the minute information, I’m here for the blog articles, and the reader comments. It fills my otherwise boring days at work when I’m in-between projects.


I love this quote
By grandpope on 6/2/2009 3:59:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Mr. Allègre has broken his silence, commenting, "I've nothing to say."

This is almost as good as quoting somebody saying "No comment."




Just Do It Nick!
By BernardP on 6/2/2009 10:37:30 AM , Rating: 2
If (and its a big if) Mr.Sarkozy nominates Claude Allegre, this could be a turning point in the anthropogenic global warming saga. Worldwide hysteria is getting out of hand. At some point, a courageous major-country leader will have to publicly put his/her foot down to bring the debate down from its "believe or burn" quasi-religious status. Even George W. Bush was too afraid of the green lobbies to do this and simply tried to "kill the penalty" without saying much.




Allegre's previous comments
By BeSustainable on 6/7/2009 10:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
Allegre was not always a global warming critic. Twenty years ago Allègre wrote in “Clés pour la géologie", (éd. Belin/France Culture):

"En brûlant des combustibles fossiles, l'homme a augmenté le taux de gaz carbonique dans l'atmosphère, ce qui fait, par exemple, que depuis un siècle la température moyenne du globe a augmenté d'un demi-degré."

(Translation)
“By burning fossil fuels man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century”.

Allegre also was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse."

Check it out:
http://www.realclimate.org/?s=all%C3%
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2f4...




By mmntech on 6/2/2009 10:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
Arguably, anthropogenic global warming has become more of a political, and some would say a psudo-religious movement than a scientific one. There's a lot of money at steak on both sides, though in my opinion the pro-AGW movement has more to loose if proven wrong. It's no different than Galileo being condemned his heliocentric model because it defied the conventional wisdom of the time. It doesn't necessarily mean the sceptics are right but the powers that be fear any challenges that might cause the public to question their authority.


By acase on 6/3/2009 9:46:40 AM , Rating: 3
Well if it IS becoming religious at least we know it HAS to be bullshit!


By marvdmartian on 6/5/2009 10:03:08 AM , Rating: 2
On the other hand, if enough people are convinced of that theory, it becomes more factual (at least, in their minds), regardless of whether any facts support it or not.

Remember, until it was proven incorrect, people thought the earth was the center of the solar system. People thought the world was flat once upon a time. And even today, with just a theoretical "missing link" between man and ape, we have the theory of evolution that people believe (as factual), just as much as any religion they might otherwise embrace.

Global warming has just become the theory du jour of the 21st century.


By Keeir on 6/2/2009 8:36:31 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I've patiently endured lousy forum comments for years, but this is just stupidly bad. The arguments I see on both sides are of such low quality I'd expect them from the Intelligent Design fanatics.


I am sorry, you are the one that often seems like a fanatic

quote:
Humans are causing global warming, period.


The inability to admit that an opposing view point could potentially be right is a form of fanatism. Plain and simple.

quote:
Global warming is a theory. So is gravity. Details will be refined, but that's it.


Well thats all fine and dandy. One problem small problem from my view point. After hundreds of years for gravity theory and a modeling method that is incredibily accurate for a wide range of applications, science still has no explanation for How and Why gravity works. Higgs particule might be a good explanation and right now is the "accepted" explanation. Yet the Higgs particule that has never been observed in the field. It is entirely possibly that gravitational theory is completely wrong. Not likely, but possible. Steven Hawking for example is a noted skeptic of the Higgs particle explanation of gravity.

Compare this to Antro. Climate Change. A theory that is at best 100 years old with data (Being generous since just 35 years ago, global "cooling" was going to kill us all) that shows warming climate over at best 50 years, and modeling methods that can not be shown to be accurate over short, medium, long term durations. It is entirely possible that "Climate Change" is not being adversely affected by mankind. Climate change is also a hilarous term. It is a term that literally can not be argued with... if humans cut down or plant a forest, we have affected the climate in some small way.

quote:
This stuff is lies and misinformation, and it comes from 1. ignorance of science 2. lack of respect for the scientific community and process 3. poor knowledge of history: when science is wrong, it corrects itself without help from the peanut gallery, and disagreeing with the scientific establishment is a great way to put yourself on the fast track to being proven wrong 4. greed, from the people who want to drive Hummers forever and will latch onto any excuse to avoid making lifestyle changes that may be necessary.


1 & 2 & 3.

I am sorry, but in this case the skeptic in the article -Claude Allègre - appears to be the sort that if he agreed with AGW (or "Climate Change") would be considered a noted expert and unassaliable by you. He is after all an award winning scientist working in a field which would be directly affected by changes in climate, geochemistry. Your dismissal of him in 4. seems be a little too personal and "high-minded". After all, it doesn't really matter what car you drive, including Hummers. It matters how much energy you choose to consume. Someone with a Prius that drives 25,000 miles a year does more enviromental and C02 release than someone with a Hummer driving 5,000 miles a year.

quote:
Also, scientists make their money by being right, not by embracing fads.


Close... Scientist make money by convincing others to invest in thier research. Whether this is grant money, private money, etc, its all the same. Developing a good reputation is a good way to convince others to invest. But so is being a shill. And this happens on both "sides" of any arguement.

But this confuses me most of all
quote:
The scientific community is one of our last institutions that isn't completely corrupt, and the blatant public disregard for it is nothing short of disgusting - especially on a supposedly science-centric website.


Thats true for the most part. But when Politicians are involved in re-writing and editing prominate "scientific" reports and fight over millions and millions of dollars of funding for climate change research, things begin to become inheritantly political rather than scientific. I think thats the number one complaignt on this site. The Science has been rail-roaded to the point where politicians and activists are using data and conclusions they don't understand to justify a massive reduction in people's well-being.

The plain and simple truth is that low-cost electricity is probably one of the quickest ways to improve quality of life for a human. It enables more labor saving technology. It enables freedom from Sun/Seasons. It enables cheap education, cheap food preservation, cheap water purification, cheap healthcare, etc, etc, etc. Increasing the cost of electricity by factors between 2 to 4 times to remove C02 emissions (and not use Nuclear) will be a blow to all humans well-being in this world. To make that movement based on a scanty 50 years of data and models which can not/nor have been ever shown to be correct...


By FITCamaro on 6/3/2009 11:06:02 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also, scientists make their money by being right, not by embracing fads.


Imagine that this was a time before it was proven that the Earth rotated around the Sun. Those in power predominantly believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. They had "scientists" back then who attempted to prove this was true. So take that in the context of today to where those people were the "scientists" that would be making the money.

Still believe that all scientists who make money are those trying to be right?

Scientists have admitted that in order to get funding for things these days, all they have to do is say the research is somehow linked to proving manmade global warming. Proving it is where the majority of the money is. It has nothing to do with an attempt to be right. It has everything to do with an attempt to get money.


By clovell on 6/3/2009 12:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'll bite.

> Briefly: Global warming is a theory. So is gravity. Details will be refined, but that's it. The model works. Humans are causing global warming, period. We aren't just experiencing an increase in 100,000 year solar cycles that happen to coincide with global industrialization and expansion, period. The people who disagree on these issues are not the next Galileo, but the next alchemists and Intelligent Design nuts and flat earth society crackpots. What these people are doing is not science any more than Ben Stein's self-pitying screeds are science.

Yes, it is a theory. Big deal. Euclid's parallel postulate stood for over a millenia before it was thrown out. Thrown out. Not refined. Thrown out. As in, completely dismissed as untrue. Another interesting fact - Pythagoras thought his own theory was crap because there was no concept of irrational numbers at the time - those didn't come for, you guessed it, millenia.

The model works? Says who? you? Bill Nye? I've got news for you, cupcake. I do statistical modelling for a living. I have an advanced degree in it. The models don't 'work' - at least not well. Not a single one has accurately predicted both past and future events. Most leave out some covariates that, by all scientific conjecture, should be included.

So, you say this isn't just a coincidence. You wave your hand and magically adjust the relationships of causation and correlation. Except, that in the scientific community, hand-waving is not fact. You might be surprised to know that the sun has more than one cycle. Some are sshort, some are long. And then, there are random solar events. Any model that claims to show AGW, must take these confounding covaraites into account. Most don't.

And then you get int to name-calling. Maybe back in the second or third grade, that level of bullshit worked. But, now, it's time to grow up and learn how to have an intelligent conversation.

> This stuff is lies and misinformation, and it comes from 1. ignorance of science 2. lack of respect for the scientific community and process 3. poor knowledge of history: when science is wrong, it corrects itself without help from the peanut gallery, and disagreeing with the scientific establishment is a great way to put yourself on the fast track to being proven wrong 4. greed, from the people who want to drive Hummers forever and will latch onto any excuse to avoid making lifestyle changes that may be necessary.

I'm not ignorant of science. I develop drugs that treat cancer, HIV, and dyslipidemia. I have the utmost respect for my trade and fellow scientists. I have demonstrated in my post a far better understanding of scientific history than your pithy references to Galileo. I'm not a peanut gallery, I'm a professional who is not afraid to argue facts instead of name-calling.

Disagreeing with scientific establishment gave us Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, Hilbert, Fermat, Gauss - I could do this all day, son. Science is not an establishment. It is a living body of knowledge that is constantly tested and revised. When you quash the revision process out of you insecure need to be right, you halt science.

I drive an 8 year old Taurus. My recycle bin fills up faster than my trash can. I turn off runnin faucets at work. I buy dishwasher detergent that is enviro-friendly. I use CFLs. I like to take walks along the river trail and check out the Botanic Garden in the Spring. So, tell me - which one of your stereotypical boxes do I fit into? How are you going justify categorically ignoring the valid points that I raise?

> The environmentalist illuminati conspiracy serves the same function as a dunce cap - you embrace it, and we know you're either misinformed or you have something to gain. Yes, Greenpeace is too political. Yes, their membership dues are ridiculous. No, it's not a conspiracy. It's a bunch of well-meaning but ignorant hippies on the low end and a few businesspeople getting rich off them at the high end - business as usual. You somehow think multinationals whose executives make more in a year than Greenpeace execs will make in their lifetimes don't have a vested interest in the matter? But of course it doesn't matter - the entire who-has-something-to-gain debate is pure circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacy.

Conspiracy? This is just the story of how politics and science mix about as well as politics and religion - there is no tolerance. And that undermines scientific progress.

> Also, scientists make their money by being right, not by embracing fads. The cold fusion scammers were effectively ostracized from the community, remember. If there were a legitimate anti-GW argument, they'd get paid the same for making it as they do for being pro-GW. The scientific community is one of our last institutions that isn't completely corrupt, and the blatant public disregard for it is nothing short of disgusting - especially on a supposedly science-centric website.

No, scientists get paid for running experiments that are deemed worthy of merit by people who have money. And let's not get ahead of ourselves, nobody is calling St. Jude's Hospital a bunch of money-grubbing, politically-motivated kooks - we're talking about climatologists, in France, who had their chance to destroy this man's reputation decades before Sarkozy ever breathed his name, but now suddenly have a problem.

> I'm counting the days till DT starts embracing 'alternative' medicine as another poor victim of the science illuminati. And Intelligent Design, and the flat earth, and every other thoroughly debunked pile of tripe.

And I'm counting the days until you, or one of your AGW buddies can construct an arguement without hand-waving and resorting to name-calling.


By Smokey48 on 6/5/2009 7:33:10 AM , Rating: 2
"Briefly: Global warming is a theory."

Wrong. Anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis, not a theory. And it is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly falsified; as CO2 levels rise, the planet continues to cool:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CRU_AND_MSU_vs_CO2...

No one has falsified the long held theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability. The climate fluctuates, on a decadal time frame, above and below a gradually increasing trend line going back to the Little Ice Age.

There is nothing unusual happening. A change in an atmospheric trace gas -- from 4 parts in ten thousand, to 5 parts in ten thousand -- will not cause runaway global warming as the climate alarmists want you to believe. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been up to twenty times greater in the past, without ever triggering runaway global warming [or any global warming, for that matter]. CO2 follows changes in temperature, it does not precede changes in temperature.

The entire CO2 scare is based on grant money: this year NASA is getting over $5 billion to study "global warming." Now, Cap & Trade is being flogged so the government can cash in on the global warming fad. And it's all just a scare over a minor trace gas that is essential to life on Earth.


It's impossible to stop the reduction of pollution.
By reader1 on 6/2/09, Rating: -1
By mdogs444 on 6/2/2009 11:17:15 AM , Rating: 2
Except that CO2 is not pollution.

But if you whackos continue to think it is, and you want whats best for the common good, then offing yourselves would be the best way to start...you know, doing the right thing for the rest of mankind and common good.


By s12033722 on 6/2/2009 12:26:04 PM , Rating: 4
Increasing CO2 levels lead to more productive agriculture, and if it did result in some global warming, the net result would be less landmass locked in snow and ice, more areas usable for farming, and overall a more hospitable planet. Remember that the earth has been considerably warmer than it is now within the last few centuries. Far from being a catastrophe, it was actually the loss of this higher temperature that had a dramatic and negative impact on human life.


By Motoman on 6/2/2009 9:15:27 PM , Rating: 1
Here's your sign.

The mild-yet-important increase in average global temperatures is already increasing the zone of desertification on either side of the equator. Place that use to be merely horrible are becoming hellish. And melting glaciers aren't going to unearth any earth that's good for farming, but they will eventually cause the oceans to eat up large amounts of land...arable and not.

Pull your head out of your ass, Bizzaro.


By kyleb2112 on 6/2/2009 9:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
...and worst of all, we're melting the polar ice caps on Mars.

You can have your sign back.


By Motoman on 6/2/2009 9:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
...after that comment, I think you qualify for 2 or 3...


By Hieyeck on 6/3/2009 8:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
Africa != the world. There's some pretty lush and really wet rainforests in South America last I checked, even with all that logging going on.

Newsflash: glaciers have been melting since last ice age. I have 20,000 years of trend to back me up. What do you have?

Don't take this personally, I'm not for or against global warming. I'm of the school of thought that humans are insignificant, but we should still cut back because breathing a tailpipe really stinks, literally. Weren't people panicking about an ice age as recently as 1970?


By FaceMaster on 6/8/2009 5:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Weren't people panicking about an ice age as recently as 1970?


Global warming will cause the North Atlantic Drift to cease, leading to an ice age in Europe, followed by 3 super storms in the Northern Hemisphere. Don't you know ANYTHING?


By clovell on 6/2/2009 12:52:06 PM , Rating: 2
> If it isn't now and it continues to be increased, it will be.

Same story with Oxygen. B!tch.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki