House votes 244-179 to kill U.S. funding of IPCC


IPCC Nobel Peace Prize certificate 2007

Just before 2 a.m. on February 19, the war on climate science showed its grip on the U.S. House of Representatives as it voted to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Republican majority, on a mostly party-line vote of 244-179, went on record as essentially saying that it no longer wishes to have the IPCC prepare its comprehensive international climate science assessments. Transcript of floor debate follows.

To give you the flavor of how the know-nothings are in the saddle, here’s the debate on the amendment to de-fund the IPCC (my unofficial transcript). 

The amendment was sponsored by second-term Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri), who obviously knows nothing about climate science or the IPCC, and I expect could care less. His talking points were clearly provided by some denial machine operative and Mr. Leutkemeyer simply followed the script. Leading off with a reference to the stolen climate scientists emails (‘climategate’), he said:   

Luetkemeyer: Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.

Since then, more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC, in this comprehensive 740-page report. These 700 scientists represent some of the most respected institutions at home and around the world, including the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, U.S. Air Force and Navy, and even the Environmental Protection Agency.

For example, famed Princeton University physicist Dr. Robert Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Austin told a congressional committee that, unfortunately, climate has become a political science. It is tragic the some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best.

Mr. Chairman, if the families in my district have been able to tighten their belts, surely the federal government can do the same and stop funding an organization that is fraught with waste and abuse. My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill can go to the IPCC. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars this year and millions of dollars in years to come. In fact, the President has requested an additional $13 million in his fiscal 2012 budget request.

My constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that can be used as justification to impose a massive new energy tax on every American.

That is now the prevailing viewpoint of the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Speaking in opposition to the amendment, not surprisingly, was Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California), who actually does know something about the issue. This is the position now officially rejected by the House of Representatives:

Waxman: The U.S. contributes only $2.3 million to the IPCC. Our $2.3 million contribution leverages a global science assessment with global outreach and global technical input – a process we could not carry out alone and one that could come to a halt without U.S. support.

Its work on climate change is unparallelled, and its four assessment reports to date have brought together thousands of scientists around the world, in disciplines ranging from atmospheric sciences, to forest ecology, to economics, to provide objective and policy-neutral information. The panel has attracted hundreds of the best U.S. scientists. In fact, a majority of the research that’s reviewed is undertaken in U.S. institutions.

The IPCC’s work has been lauded by the U.S. Academy of Sciences, and by the Interacademy Council, a body comprised of the national academies of the world. The organization won the Nobel Prize in 2007 for its assessment work.

This institution is a nonpartisan and technically extraordinarily sound organization. The Republican majority has already voted to prevent EPA from using funds to regulate greenhouse gases. Now we’re being asked to de-fund the work of international scientists to learn about the threat.

The assumption seems to be that there is no threat, and therefore let’s not study it. I think that is not a wise assumption. This is a very shortsighted proposal to cut these funds. It’s like putting our heads in the sand, denying the science, and then stopping the scientists from working – because they might come to a different conclusion from the Republican Party’s ideology, in believing that there’s no problem and therefore we don’t need to know anything about it.

If we’re not going to do anything here at home, at least work internationally to understand the threat and work with other countries to combat it.

Round two:

Leutkemeyer: The international panel the last year or two has been funded at the rate of about $12.5 million per year. The President has it in his 2012 budget at $13 million a year. This group has been in the headlines for their activities with regard to how they are trying to tinker with the data they put out. Why would we want to fund a group of folks who are nefarious and give us incorrect information? It’s beyond me.

Such a dim parochialist. And thus the congressional denialists (‘folks who are nefarious and give us incorrect information’?) become complicit in trashing the climate science community as collateral damage in their anti-regulatory crusade.

Waxman, concluding: I don’t see how the gentleman from Missouri can say that this is a ‘nefarious’ group of people. After all, these are scientists who have won the Nobel Prize for their scientific acitivites. I used to think that people from Missouri were the ‘show-me’ state. Now this gentleman from Missouri is suggesting, I don’t want to know about it. And I don’t think that’s what the position should be of the United States Congress. Let’s learn the facts, and then decide what to do about it, and not stop trying to learn what the science is behind the global threats.

The Senate can put a stop to this.

Earlier posts:

Amendments to kill U.S. funding for IPCC proposed for House 2011 appropriations bill

House Republican group proposes to kill U.S. funding for the IPCC – and a great deal more

This entry was posted in Attacks on Climate Science and Scientists, Congress: Legislation and Oversight. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to House votes 244-179 to kill U.S. funding of IPCC

  1. Mike Jonas says:

    So what if the IPCC is closed down. Scientific research will continue intact, because the IPCC did not do any research[*]. Scientists will continue to publish their research as usual. The removal of a very powerful partisan organisation like the IPCC will open up the scientific debate a bit, which is a good thing for science. The scientific process can come to the fore, and science should then prevail.

    Nullius in verba.

    [*] This really is true. The foreword to the IPCC Report (page v) states : “The IPCC does not conduct new research.”

    PS. Those Climategate emails were real.

    • Ken says:

      Educate yourselves a little before you enter into a debate about climate change and its causes, and whether IPCC should exist or not. The IPCC has compiled and analysed published data on the physical and chemical processes that affect our climate – natural as well as human induced. The IPCC has done the global community an immensely valuable service: to provide clear advice on the growing threat posed by business-as-usual carbon emissions. The politics around the IPCC is due to those who stand to lose or gain from the recommendations of the assessment reports, not the IPCC authors themselves.

  2. Bickers says:

    I’m afraid this is the backlash to the exaggeration & scaremongering that’s surrounded the Global Warming/Climate Change ‘debate’.

    It’s clear that we have yet to fully understand all the inputs & outputs that make our climate behave in a particular way and until we can quantify those elements according to the scientific method we shouldn’t be trashing the World economy and keeping the third world in poverty by denying them affordable and accessible energy and food.

    Maybe congress wants to have time out until we better understand the science

    • Leslie Falla says:

      Well said Bickers! What alarmists fail to acknowledge is that as long as the developed world denies impoverished nations cheap electricity through coal fired power stations we are dooming them to ongoing poverty. Without electricity no evening classes, no refrigeration for medicines etc. etc.
      No matter how desirable solar and wind and nuclear may / may not be they are not practical and affordable alternatives to coal in (say) Africa.
      China is building coal fired stations at a staggering rate precisely so they can have cheap electricity. Meantime the west makes itself less and less competitive by insisting on “renewable” the CO2 savings from which are dwarfed by the increase in coal used by China. Why we insist on digging our own commercial graves beggars belief; the Chinese elite must be laughing at our stupidity.

    • John says:

      Virtually every national and international scientific organization has publicly stated that ACC is real. This includes the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S., and the equivalent organizations in Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, India, Russia, Germany, and Italy. A small sample of other scientific organizations that publicly support ACC as a reality include the Network of African Science Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the European Science Foundation, the American Meteorological Society, and the World Meteorological Organization. I can list many many more if you are interested in scientific research and opinion. It seems clear from your statement that you are not.

      • The Shadow says:

        I do not know of any climate scientist that denies ACC (aka AGW). The debate continues to center around the degree of warming, quantifying the sensitivity of the atmosphere to CO2, and attempting to explain the observational anomalies versus modeling expectations.

    • @Bickers,

      It’s clear that we have yet to fully understand all the inputs & outputs that make our climate behave in a particular way and until we can quantify those elements according to the scientific method we shouldn’t …


      (1) How exactly does cutting funding in climate science and the IPCC let us more “fully understand all the inputs & outputs that make our climate behave in a particular way”? That sounds like an argument for increasing funding dramatically, not decreasing it.

      (2) “… scientific method …”. I thought that included Physics. I thought that included Physical Chemistry. What specifically are you blabbering about? Increase of ambient energy on Earth is a direct consequence of extra energy being stored and re-radiated by atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. What’s so mysterious about that? What else could possibly happen? You are so sure of your story. Tell us.

      (3) Why shouldn’t everyone simply consider “Congress’ time out” to be simply shooting the messenger?

      No, rather, you Bickers and your ilk are just Lucy van Pelts …

      There is an old Peanuts cartoon where Lucy is teaching Linus about the world. She points out a small tree and says, “This is a palm tree, so called because you can wrap your palm all the way around it.” She goes on to say, “It grew from a tiny acorn and will be a mighty oak. Later, it will be cut down to panel a knotty pine den.” Charlie Brown eventually asks her about these statements, she replies, “These are little known scientific facts.” Charlie inquires, “If they’re so little known, how do you know them?” Lucy leans toward him and says, “I just made them up.”

  3. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    It would seem to me that this decision to stop the EPA regulating CO2 may be a prudent decision.

    Climate scientist, Dr Roy Spencer, has come up with the right questions that need to be answered before any climate action is ever considered. Dr Spencer has said:

    “This entire controversy stems from Western governments spending tens of billions of dollars pursuing an answer to the wrong question – what is the risk of human-induced (global warming) climate change?

    “The correct scientific question is: what are the causes of climate change, both natural and human?

    “Once determined, the secondary question can be answered: globally, how significant are human influences compared with natural influences?

    “Then the third question can be answered: how significant are human
    influences on local and regional climate change compared with natural influences?”

    It seems to me that these are the three vital questions for which every government should be seeking answers before even thinking of taking climate action. They might even discover there is no need for any action!

  4. Frank Tapy says:

    The elephants in the House of Representatives may contend that the work of the IPCC is fraudulent in order to further the agenda of large corporations and pander to their constituency; however no amount of denial and spin can undo retreating glaciers, shrinking ice caps, and melting permafrost which are all visual evidence of global warming.
    Fortunately the legislation by the denialists will not pass during this administration, but the prospects after 2012 could be very grim.

    • Graham Kay says:

      Frank, Frank, Frank

      “spin can undo retreating glaciers, shrinking ice caps, and melting permafrost which are all visual evidence of global warming.”

      There are no worthy skeptics who deny 300 years of global warming. What we are skeptical about is the cause.

      • John says:

        In March, every single Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted against an amendment that simply stated that the “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”, without any mention of anthropogenic causes, in effect denying the warming exists at all. So I assume you do not include these Congressional representatives as among the ‘worthy skeptics’ you mention in your condescending reply?

      • The ties of warming to fossil fuels are direct and manyfold. They don’t need paleoclimatology or trending, although those provide powerful additional evidence. The most direct proofs are isotopic Carbon ratios in excess atmospheric CO2 and in fossil fuels. End of story.

  5. John Shade says:

    Quote: “After all, these are scientists who have won the Nobel Prize for their scientific acitivites.” I believe they won the Peace Prize for their political activities, activities we would have all been better off without. I note from your post that the Senate may be able to block or overrule any action on this vote. That would be a shame. But in the meantime, a clear message has been sent out from the House, and it will be heard around the world.

  6. Dean says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with the Republicans. The IPCC got caught faking results and we shouldn’t give them a pass simply because they are on our side. Science should have absolutely no tolerance for funny business. For what it’s worth, sunlight on the research would have avoided all this skepticism from the Right, right from the beginning.

    At this point, I don’t know who to believe.

    • John says:

      The so-called “Climategate” scientists have been exonerated by at least 5 independent investigations. The most recent was by the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce, at the request of Senator Inhofe, who was certainly hoping to find wrongdoing. Other investigations by the UK House of Commons, Penn State University, the InterAcademy Council, and the National Research Council all found no evidence of wrongdoing. The current Republicans in Congress have no interest in science, and have every interest in protecting their fossil fuel financial backers.

  7. Mike says:

    Maybe next the House will vote to cut off NIH funding unless they “admit” that evolution is a hoax.

  8. Mark Anderson says:

    I find it grossly hypocritical that “law & order” Republicans readily seize on emails that were obtained by illegal and immoral means (hacking), and would have no chance of being admitted into evidence in a court of law because of how they were obtained. I guess the ends (muzzling climate science) justifies the means. This blatant attempt to illegitimize climate science and climate scientists bears an eerie resemblance to discrediting “Jewish science and Jewish scientists” in Hitler’s Germany.

  9. JohnD says:

    I am not familiar with the depth of Rep. Waxman’s knowledge on climate science, but anyone that fails to recognize (or perhaps he recognizes it, but knowingly chooses not to cite it) the political bias of the Nobel Committee in awarding prizes and twice cites them as an authority to the U.S. House of Representatives, loses a great deal of credibility in my mind.

  10. Stephen says:

    I wish people reporting on Congressional activities would mention at least a bill number so we at home can research the matter!

  11. Ron says:

    Rick, you sound like you think money grows on trees, or that the Federal Government can just print however much they want. We are in a recession and the liberals in this country want to just say “well we will spend our way out of it”, it don’t work that way. The United Nations has cost this country billions and what has it done for the world? The IPCC is just another arm of the United Nations, funding this report won’t stop the research colleges are doing and it will pull the political agenda out of the mix. The UN wants to (according to their own documentation) create a governing body for all the countries of the world so not only do I agree with defunding the IPCC report I also support defunding the UN all together, Paris or maybe Mexico City would do well with the HQ there.

  12. codehead says:

    This is excellent news—not sure it can get past the Senate, though. It’s a huge mistake to rely on the IPCC’s “scientific” reports, where the reports are edited by more political bureaucrats than climate scientists. This is even before you consider that the IPCC’s state-stated charter is to look at only “man-made” climate change. And before you consider that the head of the IPCC has massive ties to businesses that stand to benefit immensely from globally mandated GHG measures. We need our science to be more unbiased and less agenda-driven than the IPCC.

  13. Ivan says:

    Is this such a big deal? If the science is settled, why do we need to keep spending money on flying these guys around the world to produce ever more dire reports and predictions? Couldn’t the money be better spent elsewhere?

  14. Pingback: Polluter-Funded GOP to IPPC – No Money for You! – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  15. Pelle L. says:

    “The organization won the Nobel Prize in 2007 for its assessment work.”

    Hehe, this “prize” has nothing to do with science.
    It is, what we say in Sweden the Peace Prize, a Norwegian incentive for political “well doers” of the day.

    Remember Jimmy Carter? Remember Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho? They were politicians, not scientists. They received this “Prize”.

  16. LightRain says:

    Spoken like a true communist of the Peoples Republic of America.

  17. d says:

    I think this is smart. If you have been following the IPCC you know that the president of the organization is a total joke. Maybe if the IPCC would stand up and replace him the organization could once again gain respect.
    I fully support the amendment.

  18. Ron Teeter says:

    This may actually be a benifit in disguise. Half of what the deniers have been using against the climate science community is errors and contradictions in the IPCC reports that stem from poor reference checking and murky review procedures used by this commitee. If they had been working for me I would have fired them a long time ago. The body of peer reviewed evidence is strong enough by itself. This commitee is no longer required and has actually become a stone around the neck of the climate science communitee. We can spend our time more productively by framimng our perspective around the evidence and data itself and stop wating time defending this comitees mistakes.

  19. max werner says:

    Why do you qualify people who have reservations about the IPCC as ‘deniers’? You disqualify yourself, off the bat.

    I am not a ‘denier’ but highly skeptical and critical about the IPCC, the inner workings of the nomenclature, the members, their qualifications, conflicts of interest, how they are being appointed, their (non-) contribution, rubber stamping and ulterior personal motives (having had some experience participating in working groups of technical committees at certain UN units in Geneva, I am totally disillusioned about this body)

    Rather than lamenting about the House vote, why dont you try to understand that there are such species who are not ‘deniers’ but against the IPCC. Just try to get some distance and revisit where it all started, the true motives of many IPCC members: cozy jobs and cold cash, plain and simple, and as bad as any of the ‘denier’ interest groups, if not worse, because veiled in phony do-good, save the world activism.

    Excerpts Press Release UNEP New York, May 10, 2005

    Institutional investors managing USD 3.22 trillion back new call for action at 2005 Investor Summit on Climate Risk

    …The United Nations’ environmental head welcomed the 2005 Summit “Call for Action” – signed by 20 major investors – and said, “Investors backing these practical and pragmatic steps send a strong signal to the markets that climate risk is real and needs to be managed aggressively.”…

    …It is estimated that greenhouse gas emissions trading markets could be worth $2 trillion by 2012 and it is further estimated that the market for clean technologies could be worth $1.9 trillion by 2020. …

  20. caerbannog says:

    A possible explanation for the outburst of denialist garbage in this comment thread can be found here:

    May I suggest that climatesciencewatch adopt a strong pro-active moderation policy in order to discourage the kind of sockpuppetry that we’ve seen overrun this thread.

  21. Terri Jackson Msc MPhil MInstP says:

    Three cheers for the US House of Representatives in their vote to stop funding to the IPCC. As a UK scientist working in climate science I applaud
    this action. I agree with Dr Roy Spencer, one of the US`s top climate scientists, when he says to the AGW lobby
    “show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record”. The fact is there is none!

    • John says:

      The Royal Meteorological Society, the Royal Society of the UK, and the British Antarctic Survey all support the idea of ACC, along with hundreds of other scientific organizations from the EU and from individual countries around the globe. Do you consider the views of creationist Dr. Spencer to have more credibility than all of the scientists represented by these groups?

  22. DK says:

    [quote]The Senate can put a stop to this.[/quote]
    No they can’t. The House controls the purse strings. If they vote no to funding the BS the IPCC puts out there is nothing the Senate can do about it.

    • Rick Piltz says:

      The IPCC de-funding amendment passed by the House applies only to the rest of the current fiscal year 2011, which ends on September 30. Unless the Senate agrees to the amendment, it doesn’t become law, and funds may continue to be spent in support of the IPCC, at the FY 2010 level, under the current Continuing Resolution.

      The situation would be different for FY 2012, which begins on October 1. For 2012, there should be an appropriation bill for the President’s State Department budget request, which includes funding for climate negotiations and the international scientific assessments such as IPCC. In order for those (or any other) activities to be funded it would require the agreement of both the House and the Senate, which must both approve an appropriations bill. If either the House or the Senate version of the appropriation didn’t fund some part of the President’s 2012 request, and if the House and Senate both agreed, then it wouldn’t be funded. If they disagreed, they would have to negotiate their difference in order for a bill to be passed. If they fail to pass any appropriation bill at all, then that creates a different situation. So this political gesture by the House on 2011 U.S. funding for the IPCC is unlikely to have any affect on the IPCC as long as the Senate doesn’t go along with it. 2012 becomes a diffferent matter.

      • manacker says:

        Interesting analysis.

        I would agree that the House move was more symbolic than having any real impact on the IPCC itself, but what happens if the House specifically removes IPCC funding from the 2011 continuing resolution?

        Could they even do this?

        • Rick Piltz says:

          The bill passed by the House on February 19, “H.R. 1 – Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011”, which includes the amendment to zero out U.S. funding for the IPCC during the remainder of fiscal year 2011, is intended as a follow-on to the current Continuing Resolution under which the federal agencies are operating (at the FY2010 level). The current Continuing Resolution per se can’t be changed, and expires on March 4. Congress must pass something by then, or shut the federal government down.

          My expectation is that the Senate majority, which is on recess until next week, will want to pass something like a “clean” follow-up Continuing Resolution, i.e., one that keeps the government going for a bit longer while something is negotiated with the House, but in the meantime not changing anything. The House majority doesn’t appear to be interested in this option, raising the distinct possibility of a shutdown, since the House and Senate must agree on a bill in order for it to be enacted.

          If the federal government shuts down, it won’t shut down the IPCC Secretariat in Geneva (Switzerland). Presumably any federal employees doing administrative work on IPCC-related activity will be furloughed temporarily. Federal scientists would presumably be furloughed and stop doing science in federal research institutions until the shutdown is resolved. But if the federal government shuts down, there will be much larger impacts to notice!

  23. Pingback: A Long, Deep View of the U.S. Budget -

  24. Pingback: Dot Earth: A Long, Deep View of the U.S. Budget-World Bad News : World Bad News

  25. John Lang says:

    Luetkemeyer: Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.

    Waxman doesn’t even object to this.

    And comments on this blog like “The IPCC got caught faking results and we shouldn’t give them a pass simply because they are on our side.” and none to the contrary suggests this is a widely held idea.

    Surely this isn’t referring to the “climategate” emails? Or is this how this issue has been reported in the US?


    The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry found that “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact”.

    The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel had seen “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit.”

    The Independent Climate Change Email Review published its final report saying it had exonerated the scientists of manipulating their research to support preconceived ideas about global warming. The “rigour and honesty” of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt. The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any “competent” researcher.

    At the conclusion of the inquiry, Jones was reinstated with the newly-created post of Director of Research.

    Yet the debate in your House just assumes populist headlines to be fact?

    ….. scary.

  26. Pingback: Episode 18: Show Notes — Irregular Climate

  27. Ken says:

    The Koch brothers are certainly getting their money’s worth. Everyone should check out AFPCA’s Around the world on 69 million in welfare funds. Americans for Prosperity California is funded by Koch Industries and Exxon Mobile. The joke is they are attacking the poor on welfare, when they pay no taxes, and they each collect over 1 billion in government subsidies. They dare call themselves patriots.

  28. Enrique S says:

    Partiendo de una base lógica refiriéndonos al estado de nuestro Planeta y sabiendo que estamos en un momento critico (Como en una empresa y su gestión).
    Las limitaciones en subvenciones y participaciones de las Naciones en las prevenciones y reformas sociales son el principal objetivo, para estabilizar las poblaciones y los mercados de TRABAJO FUTUROS .
    Siendo la tecnología y estudio de la situación el soporte principal de todo avance social, en beneficio de futuras generaciones, son de lógica las actuaciones de recorte de capital que no cumplen con una causa social común ni poseen una tecnología para verificar datos recibidos.(IPCC)
    La situación es la siguiente, unos países invierten en tecnología, investigación, vigilancia por satelite, información del estado de los datos recibidos, aplicación de reformas y preparación de sus poblaciones. Y otros
    siguen o hacen copias de las mejoras aplicadas.
    Siendo US la Nación que más participa en la vigilancia y control de los desastres naturales y Cambio Climático con su infraestructura y departamentos, no es lógico que siendo ellos los que dan los datos y recursos tecnológicos deban también que financiar un grupo que solo ejerce de informador de los datos recibidos y menos sabiendo de los desentendidos que provoca el IPCC entre los Gobiernos Mundiales.
    Los datos del IPCC, parten de los estudios Científicos que se realizan dia a dia y que son contrastados antes de pasarlos, siendo esos fácilmente observados por las poblaciones, personas, investigadores, etc,.. de todo el Planeta . No se estima necesario más interlocutores que los que en realidad participan de los Proyectos. Ni la creación de falsas interpretaciones por parte de políticos de conveniencia.
    Los científicos, cuerpos de seguridad, ejércitos, cuerpos sanitarios y de actuación inmediata son los que en realidad deben estar intercomunicados ante cualquier cambio brusco de cualquier zona del Planeta que provoque daños y dentro de esa organización ya existe la UN que ejerce ante cualquier duda de arbitro y en la aplicación de normativas necesarias.
    La estrategia ha seguir ya esta definida hace tiempo por la ciencia y la aplicación de los cambios ya se esta realizando, la conclusión esta en la unificación del Planeta cueste lo que cueste, para gestionarnos como una Única Civilización y con un único proyecto, (ASEGURAR UNA ESTABILIDAD PARA LAS GENERACIONES Y ESPACIES FUTURAS).
    Lo demás son cuentos de nunca acabar.

    Felicidades y suerte de : E.Sanz

Comments are closed.