Home | Community | Message Board

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next >
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Phred]
    #8116374 - 03/07/08 03:11 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
The Medieval Warm Period happened. So did the Little Ice Age. So did the Roman Warm Period. So did countless other periods of warmer-than-mean and colder-than-mean temperatures. Yet man has been burning significant quantities of fossil fuels for less than a hundred years.



I don't know much about the science of whats being discussed, so why don't you post some articles showing that what you say is true. Ive never weighed in on this issue because as someone who is into science, I would never just proclaim one side or the other without knowing a lot about it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: AnonymousRabbit]
    #8116390 - 03/07/08 03:15 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit.

Quote:

I pretty much blew apart everything you just said...




Nope.

Quote:

.... ranging from saying that mann's report itself was wrong...




It was not just wrong, it was outright fraudulent. It was a hoax.

Quote:

....to the IPCC not sticking by it....




It has been dropped by the IPCC. It appears nowhere in their 2007 report. Even the IPCC could no longer support it, and that's saying something!

Quote:

... to the existence of at least 10 other metrics that came out since mann's report that confirm his findings.




Bullshit. Mann's "findings" depended on completely cooking the books on data from the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, combined with the use of a faulty algorithm which generated an uptick on the end of the graph of even randomly-generated datasets. As such, no other metrics "confirm" his hoax.

Quote:

However, upon me listing all my sources and showing why what you said was false, I am glad that you have decided to turn the debate away from the hockey stick graph, because you know that its not BS.




Mann's hockey stick is the most thoroughly debunked artifact of all Warmenist "data". Reading your attempts to claim otherwise is just mind-boggling. As I said, you have posted a lot of disputed and even outright erroneous stuff up to now, but there's erroneous and then there's ridiculous. Defending Mann's hoax is as ridiculous a ploy as one can make. It truly isn't worth the keystrokes to respond.

Quote:

I've shown CO2 is responsible for warming through the use of physics and climatology over several threads, several posts, none of which you managed to disprove.




Actually, no you haven't. Correlation isn't causation, and as has been demonstrated so amply over the course of this thread, even the correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature sucks donkey balls, especially when compared to the correlation between other natural phenomena which have been going on long before humans arrived on the scene.

But are you now saying that -- despite all the peer-reviewed evidence showing increases in CO2 lag behind increases in temperature -- the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and countless others also came about because of CO2 increases? Okay, then. What was the cause of the increase in CO2 in those times? It sure as shit wasn't SUVs and coal-fired electrical generating stations.

Quote:

I also pointed to the fact that the warming period that you called the "medieval warm period" was at its PEAK, a -.1 degree to 0 degree anomaly.




More bullshit. The historical records alone (let alone proxy methods) show a far, FAR greater difference than a tenth of a degree. It takes a fuck of a lot more than a tenth of a degree change to let farmers grow wine-quality grapes in England.

But even if you were correct about the Medieval Warm Period -- and you aren't, but let's pretend you are for the next thirty seconds -- it says nothing about the countless other warm periods in the Earth's past: periods where the temperature was higher than today despite the lack of fossil fuels being burned at the time.

Talk about duck and run. In all the dozens of posts in this thread since you joined in, you have yet to answer the simple and straightforward question zap and I have posed to you from the beginning -- point us to the science proving the Earth's temperature today is the result of some mechanism other than the one (or ones) responsible for prior warm periods. Think you might get around to that some day?



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Seuss]
    #8119774 - 03/08/08 01:09 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
Quote:

However, my sources span 20 academic journals, many scientific institutions, decades of climatological resource, and more.




As I stated before, when politics enters science, the science becomes as corrupt as the politics. Global warming is politics, not science. Citing politically motivated research doesn't make your point more valid. Again, look at the war on drugs and the massive amount of propaganda called "research" that is published in various medical and scientific journals. I'm not doubting your analysis of the data, but I am doubting the validity of the research the data is based upon; not because of what the data says, but because of the political nature of the subject.




Amen, Couldnt of said it better myself, Global Warming is a political issue with political and scientific banter to back it up. I simply dont think humans have or significantly impacted the warming levels of earth. I also dislike the doomsday predictions that are intellectually dishonest.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTheCow
Stranger

Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 4,790
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #8119813 - 03/08/08 01:19 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I see a lot of opinions about what people feel about the subject in this thread. Only two people in this thread have put up any evidence.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: TheCow]
    #8120207 - 03/08/08 03:25 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

TheCow said:
I see a lot of opinions about what people feel about the subject in this thread. Only two people in this thread have put up any evidence.




http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

How bout this peer-reviewed journal which shows that rising carbon dioxide levels are negligible on global warming.

BTW green energy sources only make up .33 of our energy consumption, its not economically viable to eliminate our consumption of hydrocarbons, since it will rob growing prosperity and the prosperity of growing third world nations.


Edited by The_Red_Crayon (03/08/08 03:44 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #8120286 - 03/08/08 03:49 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

The_Red_Crayon said:
Quote:

TheCow said:
I see a lot of opinions about what people feel about the subject in this thread.  Only two people in this thread have put up any evidence.




http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

How bout this peer-reviewed journal which shows that rising carbon dioxide levels are negligible on global warming.

BTW green energy sources only make up .33 of our energy consumption, its not economically viable to eliminate our consumption of hydrocarbons, since it will rob growing prosperity and the prosperity of growing third world nations.




Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons? :wtf:

The OISM has six members...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #8120354 - 03/08/08 04:23 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf




Care to talk about what "peer reviewed journal" that paper appears in?
Oh, wait, that's right.... the same one that is comprised of 6 members, puts out home schooling material for "parents concerned about socialism in their public schools," and of which one of the writers of that paper... is one of the 6 faculty of the organization who decide what goes through and what does not. It is not, as you claim, peer reviewed.

Here are some BASIC, and humorous errors in that paper..


1) The dating of the Sargasso Sea record is 50 years out, because they misunderstand the use of 'BP' (Before Present) dates in paleo-records, which refers to before 1950 AD, not the present day.

2)Figure 2 is uncited

3) RRS state “The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years”. This is actually derived purely from Figure 1, and show refers the Sargasso Sea temperatures, not any kind of hemispheric or global compilation. This is proven wrong by the following papers that came around and/or after the original publication of this author, that WERE peer reviewed:

P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures, The Holocene, 8: 455-471.

M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.

rowley and Lowery (2000). Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction, Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years, Science, 289: 270-277.

K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network, J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.

J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability, Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253.

M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814.

P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143

S. Huang (2004). Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future, Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781

A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data, Nature, 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265

J.H. Oerlemans (2005). Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records, Science, 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046

4) The authors appear to think that human breathing out of CO2 is contributing to accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. (Actually since that carbon comes directly and indirectly from recent plants taking it out of the air, our breathing is carbon neutral).

5) Neptune is not significantly showing a response to solar forcing.
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2003/17/paper.pdf (peer reviewed showing seasonal forcing rather than solar forcing)
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/pdf/2007/37/aa8277-07.pdf
(another peer reviewed paper saying the same thing)

6) The assertion that current Earth temperatures are 1C lower now than 1000 years ago requires rejecting a recent NAS panel report in favor of an article by one of the authors and another unpublished manuscript, with virtually no evidence.

There are a lot of other errors in it too, but anyhow, the paper is definitely not peer reviewed, and contains many outright lies.

Try for one from a respectable journal with a peer review process.

By the way, I am not debating any other points from this paper. It is not peer reviewed and contains many errors. Clearly listing its sources is not nearly enough. Heck, one of its sources, source 19: "A private communication." I would also discourage anyone (including Phred, Zappa, or yourself) from using graphs, charts, and data from that paper, unless you want to face the embarrassment of finding out your data is wrong or intentionally being used in ways that have little to no relevance in this debate. I gave this same warning before Phred insisted to go along with the argument that the hockey stick was wrong.


--------------------
.


Edited by AnonymousRabbit (03/08/08 04:46 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #8120377 - 03/08/08 04:29 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

MushmanTheManic said:
Quote:

The_Red_Crayon said:
Quote:

TheCow said:
I see a lot of opinions about what people feel about the subject in this thread.  Only two people in this thread have put up any evidence.




http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

How bout this peer-reviewed journal which shows that rising carbon dioxide levels are negligible on global warming.

BTW green energy sources only make up .33 of our energy consumption, its not economically viable to eliminate our consumption of hydrocarbons, since it will rob growing prosperity and the prosperity of growing third world nations.




Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons? :wtf:

The OISM has six members...




Look I honestly cant prove anything, but you cant say anything is wrong due to the absence of data. I just believe that according to most global warmists is that the earth will rapidly warm quickly. I believe this is a bit sensationalist and even if we were in a warming period I dont think humans make a serious enough impact to drastically altar the temperatures of earth to accelerate an incredibly rapid warming process.

The questions I need answer is this.

How can we prove beyond a immeasureable doubt that humans cause global warming and how can economically viable solutions be drafted to mitigate the effects of said global warming?

If harsh legislation is drafted to combat hydrocarbon usage I personally fear that it could stunt the economies of many countries. I fear that taxpayers will have to shell out subsidies for "green" companies involved in things that show no contribution to the environment.

It will also drastically impact energy consumption and will force us to find newer methods of cleaner or alternative fuels which have not been studied to see their long-term environmental effects or impact on society.

If the earth is warming its cause has been hijacked by neo-leftists, and people who profit off global warming dont seem to mind squandering more energy then the average person, and creating ridiculous energy wasting music schemes to compel people to lead by their standards, which dont seem very modest at all.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAnonymousRabbit
Comrade
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/10/08
Posts: 8,993
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #8120515 - 03/08/08 05:05 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

How can we prove beyond a immeasureable doubt that humans cause global warming and how can economically viable solutions be drafted to mitigate the effects of said global warming?




The economic viability of solutions to mitigate the effects of global warming are more along the lines of encouraging greener technologies, encouraging more efficient technologies, and weaning ourself off of carbon-releaseing technologies. This is a little outside of my scope of expertise, and someone else can probably discuss/debate this issue beter than I can.

As far as humans causing global warming, all that you need to do is read a lot of the posts that I've posted over the last several pages. Our actions have plenty of effect on the environment. Never in the last 400,000 years have we seen such a fast increase of CO2 in such a short amount of time. If you look at the graphs and charts, its staggering... in history, CO2 took thousands of years to raise to peak levels from 200 ppm to 280 ppm, due to Milankovitch cycles discussed in the following posts with sources. In human history, CO2 took merely 100 years to raise to its peak level today, from 280 ppm to 375 ppm of CO2 in 2005. The physics behind CO2's heat effects are well researched, and discussed too with sources in my posts.

Where I list 30 sources that have concluded CO2 affects temperature
Where I give official quotes from scientific organizations that solar variation is not responsible for the current warming trend
Where I explain why and provide sources for why anthropogenic CO2 is the reason for the temperature increase and CO2 since 1880.
Where another poster, seemingly caught between the sides, makes a good argument and comes to the conclusion that solar forcing is not responsible for modern heating, and that CO2 is a better correlation
Another post where I showed a lack of correlation with solar irradiance
Where I post two charts, showing lack of correlation with both Irradiance and Sunspot Numbers, and correlation with increasing CO2
Where I talked about the physics behind CO2 absorbtion of infrared frequencies and why they heat the atmosphere, using physics AND sources
Where I post a peer reviewed paper about the physical effect of the 4.3-15 micron band blocking outgoing radiation
Where I post an explanation in laymans terms, complete with peer-reviewed sources, as to the way that CO2 blocks outgoing heat
Where I post a recent source showing why the heating and cooling rates with respect to CO2 are so important for temperature balance
Where I show why PDO, sunspot number, and solar irradiance have bad correlations on graphs
Where I showed, with sources, the recent warming trend is unique and happening at a fast pace, compared to the past several generations, and show a few different common correlations

Quote:

If harsh legislation is drafted to combat hydrocarbon usage I personally fear that it could stunt the economies of many countries. I fear that taxpayers will have to shell out subsidies for "green" companies involved in things that show no contribution to the environment.




I personally believe that the best way to accomplish emission standards is through STRONG promotion of research, not only to scientists studying the global warming issue, but MOST importantly, to engineering firms with records of developing good technologies. This HAS to start with alternative power and fuel sources. Solar, wind, nuclear, and other sources should be utilized (thats right, I said nuclear. I may be liberal, but I am strongly for nuclear energy and truly believe it will be the energy that the future society of mankind will be based on).

Quote:

It will also drastically impact energy consumption and will force us to find newer methods of cleaner or alternative fuels which have not been studied to see their long-term environmental effects or impact on society.




You're right. There needs to be plenty more research into the clean, alternative fuels and their impacts on the environment and society. I am always one for the promotion of more research. America has become a society that seems to downplay science, in my opinion.

Quote:

If the earth is warming its cause has been hijacked by neo-leftists, and people who profit off global warming dont seem to mind squandering more energy then the average person, and creating ridiculous energy wasting music schemes to compel people to lead by their standards, which dont seem very modest at all.




People who are not scientists are profiting off of global warming on both sides of the issue. Sadly, good science gets thrown under the bus in the process.


--------------------
.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblexdaveman
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 02/28/07
Posts: 84
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: blackegg]
    #8123180 - 03/09/08 12:17 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

blackegg said:
Quote:

you cant use something from wiki for an argument. for all we know you wrote. you cant trust information you get off of that site.





Oh really?
Well how do you respond to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia



im sorry it took me so long to respond i didnt realize you had responded to me. you have proved my argument with the first two paragraphs of that article.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: xdaveman]
    #8126518 - 03/10/08 05:06 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

From the wiki link above:
Quote:

Several studies suggest that articles in Wikipedia are of a similar order of accuracy and similar rates of both serious and minor errors to Encyclopædia Britannica, that it provides a good starting point for research, and that articles are in general reasonably sound. However, it does suffer from omissions and inaccuracies and sometimes these can be serious. A separate study suggests that in the great majority of cases, vandalism is noticed and reverted fairly quickly — so fast that most users will not be aware of it — but in some cases this does not happen.




I find wiki to be a great starting place and good for a general overview of a topic, but from experience, I try not to use the site as a reference. I've been burned quoting inaccurate/misleading information from wiki.

Quote:

For something to be "proven", in a scientific context, it must be done in a controlled setting where all other variables are consistent to be sure that the one being manipulated by the experimenter(s) is indeed what is causing the monitored dependent variable to change.




Not always. Tobacco smoke linked to lung cancer is a good counter-example. HIV linked to AIDS is another counter-example. In both cases, causality was proven based upon statistics, not lab experiments.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: Seuss]
    #8127091 - 03/10/08 11:27 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
From the wiki link above:
Quote:

Several studies suggest that articles in Wikipedia are of a similar order of accuracy and similar rates of both serious and minor errors to Encyclopædia Britannica, that it provides a good starting point for research, and that articles are in general reasonably sound. However, it does suffer from omissions and inaccuracies and sometimes these can be serious. A separate study suggests that in the great majority of cases, vandalism is noticed and reverted fairly quickly — so fast that most users will not be aware of it — but in some cases this does not happen.




I find wiki to be a great starting place and good for a general overview of a topic, but from experience, I try not to use the site as a reference. I've been burned quoting inaccurate/misleading information from wiki.

Quote:

For something to be "proven", in a scientific context, it must be done in a controlled setting where all other variables are consistent to be sure that the one being manipulated by the experimenter(s) is indeed what is causing the monitored dependent variable to change.




Not always. Tobacco smoke linked to lung cancer is a good counter-example. HIV linked to AIDS is another counter-example. In both cases, causality was proven based upon statistics, not lab experiments.




Causality can never be proven.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: Lots of ice cubes now [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #8128772 - 03/10/08 07:08 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Bullshit. Every time I hit a pool ball with a stick it moves. My criteria of proof of causality is met.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8146469 - 03/14/08 03:38 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Climate panel on the hot seat

More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.

Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.

These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."

The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.

Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.

In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.

The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.

The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #8146734 - 03/14/08 05:01 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.





To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.





Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.



http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Luddite]
    #8146738 - 03/14/08 05:02 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

The Press Gets It Wrong
Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty.

BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Monday, June 11, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."

As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.

As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.

Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).

But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.




One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling.
Distinguishing the small recent changes in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.

We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide.

What we do is know that a doubling of carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on "amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor.




The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater.
The panel was finally asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. The Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.

The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.

Mr. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, was a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change.



http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Luddite]
    #8146757 - 03/14/08 05:05 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Luddite]
    #8146761 - 03/14/08 05:07 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

November 16, 2001

Dissent in the Maelstrom

Maverick meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen keeps right on arguing that human-induced global warming isn't a problem

By Daniel Grossman

Adviser to senators, think tanks and at least some of the president's men, Richard S. Lindzen holds a special place in today's heated debate about global warming. An award-winning scientist and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, he holds an endowed chair at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and is the nation's most prominent and vocal scientist in doubting whether human activities pose any threat at all to the climate. Blunt and acerbic, Lindzen ill-tolerates naïveté. So it was with considerable trepidation recently that I parked in the driveway of his suburban home.
A portly man with a bushy beard and a receding hairline, Lindzen ushered me into his living room. Using a succession of cigarettes for emphasis, he explains that he never intended to be outspoken on climate change. It all began in the searing summer of 1988. At a high-profile congressional hearing, physicist James E. Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies went public with his view: that scientists knew, "with a high degree of confidence," that human activities such as burning fossil fuel were warming the world. Lindzen was shocked by the media accounts that followed. "I thought it was important," he recalls, "to make it clear that the science was at an early and primitive stage and that there was little basis for consensus and much reason for skepticism." What he thought would be a couple of months in the public eye has turned into more than a decade of climate skepticism. "I did feel a moral obligation," he remarks of the early days, "although now it is more a matter of being stuck with a role."

It may be just a role, but Lindzen still plays it with gusto. His wide-ranging attack touches on computer modeling, atmospheric physics and research on past climate. His views appear in a steady stream of congressional testimonies, newspaper op-eds and public appearances. Earlier this year he gave a tutorial on climate change to President George W. Bush's cabinet.

It's difficult to untangle how Lindzen's views differ from those of other scientists because he questions so much of what many others regard as settled. He fiercely disputes the conclusions of this past spring's report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--largely considered to be the definitive scientific assessment of climate change--and those of a recent NAS report that reviewed the panel's work. (Lindzen was a lead author of one chapter of the IPCC report and was an author of the NAS report.) But, according to him, the country's leading scientists (who, he says, concur with him) prefer not to wade into the troubled waters of climate change: "It's the kind of pressure that the average scientist doesn't need." Tom M. L. Wigley, a prominent climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, says it is "demonstrably incorrect" that top researchers are keeping quiet. "The best people in the world," he observes, have contributed to the IPCC report.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Lindzen, climate research is "polluted with political rhetoric"; the science remains weak.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lindzen agrees with the IPCC and most other climate scientists that the world has warmed about 0.5 degree Celsius over the past 100 years or so. He agrees that human activities have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 30 percent. He parts company with the others when it comes to whether these facts are related. It's not that humans have no effect at all on climate. "They do," he admits, though with as much impact on the environment as when "a butterfly shuts its wings."

The IPCC report states that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years" is of human origin. It says that late 20th-century temperatures shot up above anything the earth had experienced in the previous 1,000 years. Michael E. Mann, a geologist at the University of Virginia and a lead author of the IPCC's past-climate chapter, calls the spike "a change that is inconsistent with natural variability." Lindzen dismisses this analysis by questioning the method for determining historical temperatures. For the first 600 years of the 1,000-year chronology, he claims, researchers used tree rings alone to gauge temperature and only those from four separate locations. He calls the method used to turn tree-ring width into temperature hopelessly flawed.


Mann was flabbergasted when I questioned him about Lindzen's critique, which he called "nonsense" and "hogwash." A close examination of the IPCC report itself shows, for instance, that trees weren't the sole source of data--ice cores helped to reconstruct the temperatures of the first 600 years, too. And trees were sampled from 34 independent sites in a dozen distinct regions scattered around the globe, not four.

Past climate isn't the only point of divergence. Lindzen also says there is little cause for concern in the future. The key to his optimism is a parameter called "climate sensitivity." This variable represents the increase in global temperature expected if the amount of carbon dioxide in the air doubles over preindustrial levels--a level the earth is already one third of the way toward reaching. Whereas the IPCC and the NAS calculate climate sensitivity to be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees C, Lindzen insists that it is in the neighborhood of 0.4 degree.

The IPCC and the NAS derived the higher range after incorporating positive feedback mechanisms. For instance, warmer temperatures will most likely shrink the earth's snow and ice cover, making the planet less reflective and thus hastening warming, and will also probably increase evaporation of water. Water vapor, in fact, is the main absorber of heat in the atmosphere.

But such positive feedbacks "have neither empirical nor theoretical foundations," Lindzen told the U.S. Senate commerce committee this past May. The scientist says negative, not positive, feedback rules the day. One hypothesis he has postulated is that increased warming actually dries out certain parts of the upper atmosphere. Decreased water vapor would in turn temper warming. Goddard's Hansen says that by raising this possibility Lindzen "has done a lot of good for the climate discussion." He hastens to add, however, "I'm very confident his basic criticism--that climate models overestimate climate sensitivity--is wrong."

In March, Lindzen published what he calls "potentially the most important" paper he's written about negative feedback from water vapor. In it, he concludes that warming would decrease tropical cloud cover. Cloud cover is a complicated subject. Depending on factors that change by the minute, clouds can cool (by reflecting sunlight back into space) or warm (by trapping heat from the earth). Lindzen states that a reduction in tropical cloudiness would produce a marked cooling effect overall and thus serve as a stabilizing negative feedback.

But three research teams say Lindzen's paper is flawed. For example, his research was based on data collected from satellite images of tropical clouds. Bruce A. Wielicki of the NASA Langley Research Center believes that the images were not representative of the entire tropics. Using data from a different satellite, Wielicki and his group conclude, in a paper to appear in the Journal of Climate, that, on balance, warmer tropical clouds would have a slight heating, not a cooling, effect.

Looking back at the past decade of climate science, many researchers say computer models have improved, estimates of past climate are more accurate, and uncertainty is being reduced. Lindzen is not nearly so sanguine. In his mind the case for global warming is as poor as it was when his crusade began, in 1988. Climate research is, he insists, "heavily polluted by political rhetoric, with evidence remaining extremely weak." To Lindzen, apparently, the earth will take care of itself.


http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00095B0D-C331-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Luddite]
    #8146766 - 03/14/08 05:07 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! [Re: Luddite]
    #8146774 - 03/14/08 05:09 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

March 2, 2007, SAVAGE ANNOUNCES FIRST EVER GLOBAL-WARMING SKEPTICS CONFERENCE

"Proposed Program & Speakers"

5 top scientists to speak including:

Dr. Henrik Svensmark from the Danish Space Research Institute

Andre Viau from the University of Ottawa

An open forum moderated by Michael Savage
A chance for you to ask top scientists about the truth behind the global warming myth! Dates to be announced soon!


Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

Global Warming; Selected Articles, Editorials, Letters:

The Heartland Institute

Apocalypse Not

Global Warming Skeptics

Scientists Debunk 'Global Warming' Effect on Hurricanes



http://www.savage-productions.com/global_warming.html


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | Next >

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Good article on global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
luvdemshrooms 4,997 86 06/10/03 04:56 AM
by Innvertigo
* A look at global warming.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
luvdemshrooms 13,994 119 02/27/04 01:07 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,177 75 05/04/03 08:07 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
question_for_joo 10,911 112 08/31/04 07:48 PM
by Gijith
* Global Warming?
( 1 2 all )
luvdemshrooms 2,409 37 07/18/03 06:49 PM
by Innvertigo
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 994 17 11/01/03 02:44 PM
by d33p
* Blair must tackle global warming Xlea321 463 1 05/28/04 10:30 AM
by phi1618
* "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,887 20 03/14/04 12:45 PM
by silversoul7

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
39,558 topic views. 2 members, 6 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.