View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:03 pm



Reply to topic  [ 1041 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 18  Next
 Climategate 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3128
Location: The center of the universe
Post Re: Climategate
That's exactly what I was thinking of but I was just too lazy to go look for it
Thanks for takin' my job

_________________
I may be an asshole, but I'm not a fucking asshole
R!


Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:52 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Climategate
Dey Dirk de Jeerb!

Quote:
Them damn telephones are gonna put us pony express riders and telegraph operators out of business!!!
Them damn horseless carriages are gonna put us horse breeders and buggy builders out of buisiness!!!
Them damn refrigerators and air conditioners are gonna put our ice houses out of buisiness!!!

And so on and so on............


Thx for helping me make my point Rock, all of the above are great examples of how capitalism works. Green biz relies on corporate welfare & a scam called Cap n Trade.
If there is a market for Green products thats great, but Govt. should not throw tax $ at a problem that doesn't exist. We would be better off spending the $ sending a Man to Mars, at least we know it's there!


Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
2fisted wrote:
Dey Dirk de Jeerb!

Quote:
Them damn telephones are gonna put us pony express riders and telegraph operators out of business!!!
Them damn horseless carriages are gonna put us horse breeders and buggy builders out of buisiness!!!
Them damn refrigerators and air conditioners are gonna put our ice houses out of buisiness!!!

And so on and so on............


Thx for helping me make my point Rock, all of the above are great examples of how capitalism works. Green biz relies on corporate welfare & a scam called Cap n Trade.
If there is a market for Green products thats great, but Govt. should not throw tax $ at a problem that doesn't exist. We would be better off spending the $ sending a Man to Mars, at least we know it's there!


Exactly, the govt. shouldn't throw money at a problem that doesn't exist. The global warming problem does exist.


Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:59 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3264
Post Re: Climategate
I guess it was okay to throw a huge shitpile of money to destroy Iraq and rid them of the weapons of mass destruction though, right?


Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:08 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 4886
Location: S St Paul
Post Re: Climategate
zom-zom wrote:
I guess it was okay to throw a huge shitpile of money to destroy Iraq and rid them of the weapons of mass destruction though, right?
Bah! Look at all the high-paying jobs that were created to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure!
Woo-hoo, stimulate our economy FTW!
/waves US flag

</sarcasm>


Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:21 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3128
Location: The center of the universe
Post Re: Climategate
2fisted wrote:

Thx for helping me make my point Rock, all of the above are great examples of how capitalism works. Green biz relies on corporate welfare & a scam called Cap n Trade.
If there is a market for Green products thats great, but Govt. should not throw tax $ at a problem that doesn't exist.



Provided that you have people in your administration that have vested interestes in what you are doing
Halliburton, Backwater etc....
I'm sure none of them had a vested interest in the war

_________________
I may be an asshole, but I'm not a fucking asshole
R!


Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:30 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Climategate
DaveS wrote:
Exactly, the govt. shouldn't throw money at a problem that doesn't exist. The global warming problem does exist.


I'm sure many believe it does. Many believe in God & the Devil too. & Angels!

Quote:
Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits sending 'pretty awful emails' to hide data
By David Derbyshire
02nd March 2010

Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science's credibility.

The Institute of Physics said 'worrying implications' had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming.

The rebuke - the strongest yet from the scientific community - came as Professor Phil Jones, the researcher at the heart of the scandal, told MPs he had written 'some pretty awful emails' - but denied trying to suppress data.
The Climategate row, which was first revealed by the Daily Mail in November, was triggered when a hacker stole hundreds of emails sent from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

They revealed scientists plotting how to avoid responding to Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics.

Some even appeared to show the researchers discussing how to manipulate raw data from tree rings about historical temperatures.

In one, Professor Jones talks about using a 'trick' to massage figures and 'hide the decline'.


Quote:
I guess it was okay to throw a huge shitpile of money to destroy Iraq and rid them of the weapons of mass destruction though, right?


At least Iraq has oil. :D
I'm sure you are ok with Obama spending Billions more as our troops run around in the mountains of Pakistan looking or Osama. I wonder if those million dollar drone assasination planes run on green tech?


Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:52 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
2fisted wrote:
DaveS wrote:
Exactly, the govt. shouldn't throw money at a problem that doesn't exist. The global warming problem does exist.


I'm sure many believe it does. Many believe in God & the Devil too. & Angels!

[quote]

There's a difference between belief and expert opinion.

A difference which conservatives don't ever seem to get.


Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:56 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3128
Location: The center of the universe
Post Re: Climategate
2fisted wrote:
I'm sure you are ok with Obama spending Billions more as our troops run around in the mountains of Pakistan looking or Osama. I wonder if those million dollar drone assasination planes run on green tech?



Funny, it seems that Obama is trying harder to catch Bin Laden than Dubya ever did

_________________
I may be an asshole, but I'm not a fucking asshole
R!


Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:44 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Climategate
Quote:
There's a difference between belief and expert opinion.
A difference which conservatives don't ever seem to get.


I know of many Liberal Preachers, even the Pope believes in Global Hell on Earth Armageddon.

Quote:
Funny, it seems that Obama is trying harder to catch Bin Laden than Dubya ever did


Mission Accomplished!


Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:05 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
2fisted wrote:
Quote:
There's a difference between belief and expert opinion.
A difference which conservatives don't ever seem to get.


I know of many Liberal Preachers, even the Pope believes in Global Hell on Earth Armageddon.


I don't see what your point is here.

And, you think the Pope is liberal?


Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:08 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:18 am
Posts: 407
Location: atop unknown Kadath, seeking the Ultimate Gate
Post Re: Climategate
after reading all this (okay, i confess i neglected to go to most of the links), i have one question...

why does this bunny have a pancake on its head??? what the hell does the pancake signify? is the bunny praying for syrup or something?...

rskm1 wrote:
Image
**MODERATOR NOTE: By request of Dan Lacey, the copyright holder of this image, please see this article on the image in question: http://www.citypages.com/2009-04-29/new ... ond-gawker


Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:40 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Climategate
DaveS wrote:

There's a difference between belief and expert opinion.

A difference which conservatives don't ever seem to get.



It turns out there are differences in expert opinions too! Unfortunately most people are too lazy to actually look into things for themselves and consider multiple theories when it comes to matters of science. I am not one of those people, and I find the different takes on the global warming issue very fascinating. When a person looks at ACTUAL research instead of going by media bullet points you tend to find better and more current information.

While there is a large concensus that global warming (or climate change, whichever you prefer) exists and is taking place there is NOT concensus on whether it is man-made or natural. There is tons of evidence that allows us to chart the natural warming and cooling of the earth throughout history, and for all we know this could be part of one of those trends. The truth is we are still learning and we have much to learn.

Bear in mind I am not talking about my opinion here. These are the facts as we know them. My only opinion on the matter is that it is foolish to enact sweeping changes to our lifestyles and industrial practices without first knowing the science that justifies those changes. We could be wasting money on a problem we have no control over!

I also am of the opinion that the environmental movement is being hijacked by the global warming people and having their message lumped in with the global warming stuff. It's a shame because I believe in environmentalism and want more attention paid to things like landfill problems, waste treatment, clean water, recycling, litter, etc. These things are important for reasons other than global warming and have a direct proven impact on the world we live in. They are tangible and measurable and we know for a fact we can do something about these things, yet we spend all of this time and money on a problem that has far less research behind it and is not proven only because it is a populist issue with lots of money behind it.

~€~

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:26 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Climategate
^^^^ RIGHT ON RIGHT ON!

I would add that the Global Warming movement was hijacked by Socialists (They needed a new home) soon after the wall came down.


Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:18 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3264
Post Re: Climategate
There are miles-long plastic debris "islands" floating in the ocean, we've messed up shoreline with oil spills that have impacted environments for decades, we keep burning up fossil fuels, it's absurd to believe that man has no impact on the environment and the earth's climate. Absolutely crazy to think that somehow the billions of humans spewing garbage into the environment are having no impact on it.

"Socialists".. talk about political bullshit points.


Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
Ether wrote:
DaveS wrote:

There's a difference between belief and expert opinion.

A difference which conservatives don't ever seem to get.



It turns out there are differences in expert opinions too! Unfortunately most people are too lazy to actually look into things for themselves and consider multiple theories when it comes to matters of science. I am not one of those people, and I find the different takes on the global warming issue very fascinating. When a person looks at ACTUAL research instead of going by media bullet points you tend to find better and more current information.

While there is a large concensus that global warming (or climate change, whichever you prefer) exists and is taking place there is NOT concensus on whether it is man-made or natural.

~€~


Dude, you're just wrong. There is concensus both that change is happening and that the practices of humans, specifically human industrialization, plays a role.

This is not in dispute among any respected, pier-reviewed climatologists.

While I do agree that in theory, it would be best for every single voter, or at least every politician, to become an expert in meterology before making their decision, it isn't practical. To understand these things, you have to spend your lifetime doing it, just as to understand why you'd ever posit over 20 dimensions you'd have to spend your lifetime studying physics.

Therefore to some extent most of us have to trust the experts. And since this, unlike string theory, is an issue which has direct consequences for our well-being, it is indeed appropriate action when there is as wide a consensus as there is right now that industry is causing a problem.


Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:57 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
As the beginnings of a source, albeit second-hand but respected:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/scien ... ?ref=earth

(You have to sign up for the New York Times Online to read it, but it's free.)

Quote:

"And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it."


Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:01 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Climategate
Here is another respected scientist. A Global Warming Scientist:

Quote:

Though Dr. Sagan is one of the most frequently cited experts on atmospheric issues by the media, his predictions are often wrong. For example, at the outset of the Persian Gulf War, Sagan warned that if Saddam Hussein delivered on his threat to set fire to Kuwait's oil wells, so much black soot would be sent into the stratosphere that sunlight would be blocked and a variation of the "nuclear winter" scenario would occur. Hussein followed through on his threat and by the close of the war over 600 wells were on fire. But the fires had little environmental or climatic effect beyond the Gulf region and virtually no ill effects globally. Peter Hobbs, a University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor who studied the atmospheric impact of the fires for the National Science Foundation, said that the fires' modest impact suggested that "some numbers [used to support the Nuclear Winter Theory]... were probably a little overblown."



Whoa... block out the sun? :wink:


Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:19 am
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
2fisted wrote:
Here is another respected scientist. A Global Warming Scientist:

Quote:

Though Dr. Sagan is one of the most frequently cited experts on atmospheric issues by the media, his predictions are often wrong. For example, at the outset of the Persian Gulf War, Sagan warned that if Saddam Hussein delivered on his threat to set fire to Kuwait's oil wells, so much black soot would be sent into the stratosphere that sunlight would be blocked and a variation of the "nuclear winter" scenario would occur. Hussein followed through on his threat and by the close of the war over 600 wells were on fire. But the fires had little environmental or climatic effect beyond the Gulf region and virtually no ill effects globally. Peter Hobbs, a University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor who studied the atmospheric impact of the fires for the National Science Foundation, said that the fires' modest impact suggested that "some numbers [used to support the Nuclear Winter Theory]... were probably a little overblown."



Whoa... block out the sun? :wink:


Source?


Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:00 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Climategate
Sagans poor prediction record on scientific & political matters is no secret. But I did enjoy his Cosmos show!


Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:25 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:52 pm
Posts: 3442
Location: minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
i have never in my life seen carl sagan, A FUCKING ASTROPHYSICIST, cited by the media anywhere other than skepticism sites.

STRAW MAN STRAW MAN STRAW MAN

its like you have a wheel of fallacy and just pick a new one every day. fucking stupid.

_________________
thosquanta: the band!
http://www.thosquanta.com


Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:55 am
Profile YIM WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Climategate
More like a Wheel of FACT!

Image


Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:08 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3264
Post Re: Climategate
Poor fisty, when confronted with questions he resorts to trying to be "funny" because he simply cannot answer questions or back up his crazy points and talking-point "ideas".


Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:10 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:52 pm
Posts: 3442
Location: minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
well, he did present a "wheel of facts" sans facts.


i guess that sums up his arguments well enough.

affirm the consequent, show a picture of a hotdog.
argumentum ad populum, show a "funny" obama photoshop...

_________________
thosquanta: the band!
http://www.thosquanta.com


Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:23 pm
Profile YIM WWW

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 10:54 am
Posts: 1273
Location: Minne-Hopeless
Post Re: Climategate
Ether wrote:
DaveS wrote:

There's a difference between belief and expert opinion.

A difference which conservatives don't ever seem to get.



It turns out there... [verbose, factual Ether post]

~€~


ibid

A climatologist once stated in, probably, the best way I had heard: "global weirding." Hot days are hotter. Cold days are colder. Droughts are longer. Rains are also longer. Dry areas become more arrid. Wet areas become more flood prone.

I know there is dissent. Dissent is good. Let the peer-reviewed scholars continue to pontificate. I'll reuse my plastic cups, recycle my aluminum, and reduce my energy usage whenever possible. I don't do it because of climate change, though I believe good science exists to support it. I do it because I see grandeur in pristine wilderness. I do it because I don't want ColdWater Spring to taste funny.

_________________
I've shed the baggage of years in hell. Now, I breathe. I am home.


Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:09 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
2fisted wrote:
More like a Wheel of FACT!

Image


We all know what a wheel looks like Fisty.


Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3264
Post Re: Climategate
But see.. this wheel-shaped thing is made from muskets and arrows! Which means.. something. I guess.

Go teabaggers? Luddites?


Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:31 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:52 pm
Posts: 3442
Location: minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
i thought YOU were the Luddite?

is it a zomwheel?

_________________
thosquanta: the band!
http://www.thosquanta.com


Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:35 pm
Profile YIM WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3264
Post Re: Climategate
No, my guns are from the 1910-50s eras.


Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:38 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:52 pm
Posts: 3442
Location: minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
revolvers are the way to go.

_________________
thosquanta: the band!
http://www.thosquanta.com


Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:44 pm
Profile YIM WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3264
Post Re: Climategate
Yeah, I have my dad's old CPD S&W .38 Special


Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:02 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3128
Location: The center of the universe
Post Re: Climategate
zom-zom wrote:
.38 Special


Really
Why do you need TWO drummers if they're going to play the same beats?

_________________
I may be an asshole, but I'm not a fucking asshole
R!


Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:59 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3264
Post Re: Climategate
Rockula! wrote:
zom-zom wrote:
.38 Special


Really
Why do you need TWO drummers if they're going to play the same beats?


To rock into the night, of course.


Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:02 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:18 am
Posts: 407
Location: atop unknown Kadath, seeking the Ultimate Gate
Post Re: Climategate
Rockula! wrote:
zom-zom wrote:
.38 Special


Really
Why do you need TWO drummers if they're going to play the same beats?


because those "wild-eyed southern boys" find that "strength in numbers" gives them a "tour de force" "rock 'n' roll strategy".


Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:09 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3128
Location: The center of the universe
Post Re: Climategate
Band with two drummers that works

_________________
I may be an asshole, but I'm not a fucking asshole
R!


Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:35 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Climategate
zom-zom wrote:
There are miles-long plastic debris "islands" floating in the ocean, we've messed up shoreline with oil spills that have impacted environments for decades, we keep burning up fossil fuels...


Look, I know reading comprehension isn't for everyone- but try to hang in there.

It's possible to be an environmentalist without buying into the idea of manmade global warming. I am fully with LongPig in that I adore the pristine beauty of nature and believe in protecting it. I hate litter and I want clean drinking water. I believe industry should responsibly address the issues of industrial waste disposal, and I think consumers should be recycle and be responsible as well. I believe in preserving animal habitats and I love state and national parks. I don't need to believe in manmade global warming to feel this way, as there are a host of more tangible and proven reasons to support those causes.

I also agree with LongPig in that there is some very good science backing the idea of manmade global warming. Where we perhaps differ is that there is also very good science backing the opposing view. I've read up on both and continue to be fascinated by both views, and the only 'truth' I can arrive at in the whole debate is that we don't yet know the scope of this thing or man's effect on the actual warming of the earth. Furthermore, scientists don't know whether we can actually do anything to stop it whether or not we are responsible.

The debate is made more complicated by the money that is at stake. Scientists are being bought, educators are being lured, entire learning institutions are being forced to adopt a view to teach their students, corporations have a lot at stake, politicians have motives, etc. Consequently it is now more than ever incumbent upon the individual to look into the matter themselves to try to discern what they really believe - because you can't trust what you're being told. It's far too dangerous and you risk becoming a pawn in this high-stakes game they are playing.

~€~

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:47 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Climategate
DaveS wrote:
Dude, you're just wrong. There is concensus both that change is happening and that the practices of humans, specifically human industrialization, plays a role.


Well, if you say so. Unfortunately you are believing political bullet points that you have been fed- and that ain't true science. There is fantastic research from respected scientists all over the world which presents multiple cases for global warming. Some involve humans, some involve volcanos, some involve natural earth cycles, some involve the oceans, and some are hybrids of any of the above.

Is there concensus that change is happening? Yes. Is there concensus as to why? No. Simple as that.

~€~

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:01 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
Ether wrote:
DaveS wrote:
Dude, you're just wrong. There is concensus both that change is happening and that the practices of humans, specifically human industrialization, plays a role.


Well, if you say so. Unfortunately you are believing political bullet points that you have been fed- and that ain't true science. There is fantastic research from respected scientists all over the world which presents multiple cases for global warming. Some involve humans, some involve volcanos, some involve natural earth cycles, some involve the oceans, and some are hybrids of any of the above.

Is there concensus that change is happening? Yes. Is there concensus as to why? No. Simple as that.

~€~


Well, no, you don't know what I'm believing or where I'm getting it from. I gave you a source even, more of one than you have at least. The idea that there is a sizable part of the scientific community that doubts that there is a human component to global warming has been pushed by political and business interests; it just isn't there with any appreciable size or respect.

Is there a consensus why? Yes, at least at the level of detail you're talking about. There's no doubt that industry plays a part. And that's how simple it is.


Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
Quote from Wikipedia:

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[27] With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[28], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[29]"

With sources:

# ^ a b Joint statement of sixteen national academies of science (18 May 2001). "The Science of Climate Change". The Royal Society. http://royalsociety.org/Report_WF.aspx?pageid=10028. Retrieved 2009-05-20.
# ^ "American Association of Petroleum Geologists Statements, Climate Change". June 2007. http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.pdf. Retrieved 2009-12-11.
# ^ Brigham-Grette, Julie; et al. "Petroleum Geologist' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate". EOS 87 (36): 364. http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf. Retrieved 2009-12-10. "AAPG...stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming".


Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:33 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Climategate
*sigh*

I advise you to look into actual research... things actual researchers have found.... real science done by real scientists... and you post a Wikipedia entry?!??!? Sheesh.

If your idea of really digging deep into the issues is punching 'global warming' into Wikipedia then I'm afraid there is no hope for you. Wikipedia is made from user-submitted content which makes it a less than reliable source, especially in the case of hot political topics. Users are constantly warring over what information is reflected about a given issue or political figure. The founders of Wikipedia have even publicly acknowledged the site's liberal lean (remeber the scandal over the George Bush page?) A major difference between science and Wikipedia is science isn't majority-win. In science, even if most people think the world is flat- that still doesn't make it flat.

~€~

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:43 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 4886
Location: S St Paul
Post Re: Climategate
Ether wrote:
*sigh*

I advise you to look into actual research... things actual researchers have found.... real science done by real scientists... and you post a Wikipedia entry?!??!? Sheesh.
Since you APPARENTLY stopped reading at the word "Wikipedia", allow me to point out using short words and big letters:
THE WI KI PE DIA PAGE LISTS SOUR CES
which DaveS was nice enough to excerpt for you so you wouldn't have to actually click a link or read the Wikipedia page or anything else that might be beneath your massive intellect. Sheesh, indeed!


Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:02 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3128
Location: The center of the universe
Post Re: Climategate
I still have not seen any sources from Ether

_________________
I may be an asshole, but I'm not a fucking asshole
R!


Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:16 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Climategate
Is sour ces like sour cream?

he he... ehe... he... *gulp* ok, nothing? tough crowd...

I understand your desire for me to post sources that you can then pick apart or counter with other sources, but to engage in that would be to miss the point of my post. My point is that there is no concensus scientifically. By saying that, I am acknowledging that there are in fact sources for BOTH points of view. There are scientific results that support different theories therefor there are sources that could be cited for either case. The differing theories concept itself does not require a source because it is common knowledge and has been debated for many years in zillions of magazines, scientific journals, books, papers, etc. The debate hasn't been resolved... and THAT... stay with me... is the point.

double sheesh

~€~

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:25 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
Ether wrote:
Is sour ces like sour cream?

he he... ehe... he... *gulp* ok, nothing? tough crowd...

I understand your desire for me to post sources that you can then pick apart or counter with other sources, but to engage in that would be to miss the point of my post. My point is that there is no concensus scientifically. By saying that, I am acknowledging that there are in fact sources for BOTH points of view. There are scientific results that support different theories therefor there are sources that could be cited for either case. The differing theories concept itself does not require a source because it is common knowledge and has been debated for many years in zillions of magazines, scientific journals, books, papers, etc. The debate hasn't been resolved... and THAT... stay with me... is the point.

double sheesh

~€~


You, by saying this, are obviously the one who's missed the point.

The sources I gave are not just in support of man-influenced global warming, but sources that there is no significant conflict, and there is a consensus. Your refusal to either admit that or show a reliable to the contrary is a passing of the buck.

What did you say was common knowledge? That it's been debated in magazines? Yes, political magazines. That it's been debated period? Sure, among people who don't know what they're talking about.

That wasn't the point of course. The question is whether it's still debated by experts. And it isn't.

Scientific journals? Not to any significant degree in any respectable ones, so say the scientific academies referenced earlier.


Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:40 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Climategate
DaveS wrote:
Scientific journals? Not to any significant degree in any respectable ones, so say the scientific academies referenced earlier.


Oh, I see. You don't read. I was wondering where this mixup was coming from.

Seriously, do some reading on it and you'll be very interested by what you find.... If you can look beyond your bias you'll find that the key is to not play favorites when it comes to science. You find such great research and varying opinions which give one a better understanding of the subject as a whole. It's all about looking at it from different angles. This in particular is a fascinating issue with LOTS of differing opinions so there is a lot to learn!

My advice would be to see it as an opportunity to learn more about a subject rather than just latching on to one idea. This is a HUGE field of research and one would be foolish to only sample one idea out of that sea of information.

~€~

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:51 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 4886
Location: S St Paul
Post Re: Climategate
:roll:


Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:13 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
Yeah, it's hard to know what to say here, to someone who asserts and asserts and doesn't offer a shred of support.

My advice to you, first of all, is to respond to my entire post and not just one line here or there.

The next thing is to post a source or two.

The third is to realize what forum you're posting in: The Body Politic: Political debate to the point of fisty cuffs.

This forum is about debate, not giving advice.

And debate involves posting sources where relevant.

And it is relevant here; it is NOT a matter of common sense.


Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:43 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Climategate
*sigh*

Funny you can work Wikipedia but apparently can't do any other form of research. Hmmm...

I absolutely hate having to do homework for and engage in cut n' paste arguments with ignorant people that are unwilling to do it themselves. It usually means they are biased, stupid, or just too lazy to look into it. Since you keep coming back with the same tired old crap I guess that at least means you aren't lazy.... so I'll throw a couple at you just to finally dismiss this ridiculous idea you have that there is broad agreement about manmade climate change.

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson - Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences (& the most frequently cited climatologist in the world)
“Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,”

-and-

“We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,”


Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson of Carlton University in Ottowa
converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.”


Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre
"The cause of climate change is unknown, and the prophets of doom are motivated by money."
-and-
"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."


Botanist David Bellamy
recently converted into a skeptic of manmade climate change after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns.


Please note: These are are leading people in their fields and are well respected voices in the field of climate change research. Furthermore, they are varied in their backgrounds and from different parts of the world.

Please also note: My point is not to say I agree with them, it is to illustrate that there are differing views.

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:32 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
Great, you came up with names. I give credit where credit is due; you did what I asked, albeit having to have your teeth pulled to do it and having to work in insults and unwarranted assumptions while doing it.

I don't get why you have such a problem with offering support for your claims.

However, and I know you will never get this but I feel the need to point it out, this does not prove your case that there is appreciable disagreement about man-influenced global warming.

I never said there were zero skeptics in the employ of major universities, or that such people never got published.

The tenure system is generally great, and the way to go, but it also means that people can say whatever they want once they are in such positions.

You say they are respected; I'm sure they're respected enough, but that doesn't mean that their particular positions on this issue are respected or given any weight in the general scientific community.

It is also of note that you only can give 4 names, whereas I, as I said, can give you "every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries".

Why this isn't enough for you will I suppose forever remain a mystery.


Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:41 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
Ether wrote:
*sigh*

Funny you can work Wikipedia but apparently can't do any other form of research. Hmmm...


Are you unfamiliar with the idea of "burden of proof"?


Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:42 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:14 am
Posts: 1
Post Re: Climategate
David Bellamy is hardly an expert on climate science. He is basically a TV guy with a doctorate who has a distinctive character. He was abandoned by the BBC years ago after he started getting involved in extreme politics.

He is a joke who has been caught, it seems, committing clear scientific fraud by not properly checking his data. See this page and the video where it is exposed that he got fraudulent data of a well known conspiracy nut
who thinks the Queen of England is a drug runner!

I don't think he could be reasonably called a respected expert in the field


David Bellamy and bad science Bellamy and bunkum


Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:28 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Climategate
Bailout for the Rose Industry? :lol:

Code:
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Malaysia/Story/A1Story20100322-206015.html


Tue Mar 23, 2010 11:28 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Climategate
DaveS wrote:
I don't get why you have such a problem with offering support for your claims.


Because I am correct and the burden of proof is actually on you. You are the one disputing a known fact, not me. I also have a problem with it because I know how this discussion ends. Stubborn misinformed people rarely admit they are wrong, even when you provide everything they ask and counter their every point.

For example, you wanted examples of differing opinions. I gave them in the form of some quick major name examples that put your argument to bed. then, rather than nod and admit I might have a point you counter by saying I didn't give you enough of them. Oh, I see... NOW there is a magic number I need to find. How many scientists do you need? 10? 20? 100?

The truth is it will never end because you are like a religious zealot that can't admit they are wrong because you are too dug in to your position. You are so invested in this opinion you've adopted that you are blind to new information.

It's f*cked up that you think this way. I've done your homework for you and you won't even read it. I've give you the information you need to begin to be informed and you ignore it.

Nevermind the audacity of asking me, the mighty and wise €ther, to prove the only known fact in all of this- which is that not all scientists agree that global warming is due to manmade activity. Do you even know how science works? I'll give you a hint: it's not a popularity contest. The round-earth theory was pretty unpopular in it's time but that didn't make it untrue.

Served.

~€~

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:24 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:18 am
Posts: 407
Location: atop unknown Kadath, seeking the Ultimate Gate
Post Re: Climategate
Ether wrote:
Stubborn misinformed people rarely admit they are wrong


yeah, i suppose not. even the well-informed seem to have a problem with this at times.


Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:10 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
Ether wrote:
DaveS wrote:
I don't get why you have such a problem with offering support for your claims.


Because I am correct and the burden of proof is actually on you. You are the one disputing a known fact, not me. I also have a problem with it because I know how this discussion ends. Stubborn misinformed people rarely admit they are wrong, even when you provide everything they ask and counter their every point.

For example, you wanted examples of differing opinions. I gave them in the form of some quick major name examples that put your argument to bed. then, rather than nod and admit I might have a point you counter by saying I didn't give you enough of them. Oh, I see... NOW there is a magic number I need to find. How many scientists do you need? 10? 20? 100?

The truth is it will never end because you are like a religious zealot that can't admit they are wrong because you are too dug in to your position. You are so invested in this opinion you've adopted that you are blind to new information.

It's f*cked up that you think this way. I've done your homework for you and you won't even read it. I've give you the information you need to begin to be informed and you ignore it.

Nevermind the audacity of asking me, the mighty and wise €ther, to prove the only known fact in all of this- which is that not all scientists agree that global warming is due to manmade activity. Do you even know how science works? I'll give you a hint: it's not a popularity contest. The round-earth theory was pretty unpopular in it's time but that didn't make it untrue.

Served.

~€~


Oh Christ.

First of all, I never said that every single scientist agreed. That would be a ridiculous requirement for the idea that there is a "consensus", which is all I asserted. You can probably find scientists that don't believe in evolution or the big bang either; that doesn't mean there's not a consensus.

Second of all, you didn't do "my homework"; it was always your homework, because contrary to your insistence, it is not a "known fact" that there is a controversy; the converse is a known fact. At best, you did your homework, as well as you could have given that you are in fact wrong.

To be clear, I didn't really ask for a few examples of people who disagreed; I asked for a reputable source that claimed that there is a real controversy in the scientific community.

As for knowing how science works, don't make me laugh? What a talking point it is for global-warming-denials that it's not a "popularity contest". Wrong. Reality is not a popularity contest, true. Science, the human endeavor which studies reality systematically, is a lot more complicated than that, and does indeed often proceed via consensus. Reality is not the same as science; get that through your head. It's not a fact about science that the earth is round, it's a fact about reality.

That consensus is fluid, of course, and changes usually based on objectively valid arguments, as in your round-earth example. But the way it proceeds is that scientists work based on prevailing opinion, and change it only when they have good evidence to do so.

This is all moot, of course, since the whole point of our little disagreement is whether there is a consensus or not, meaning that "popularity" is inherently relevant.

As for a "magic number", obviously not, but numbers combined with prestige are clearly relevant. How else could you do it? And if the numbers were close, or if there were a lot of activity at conferences presenting different sides of the issue, and if the national academies didn't take a stand on it, then one could indeed call it a "controversy", even if there were a majority viewing it one way or another.

But when the vast majority of the scientific community considers it to be settled science, and only a few stragglers disagree and none of their work is taken seriously, that does not a controversy make.


Tue Mar 23, 2010 8:50 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 1768
Location: Twin Cities
Post Re: Climategate
DaveS wrote:
Second of all, you didn't do "my homework"; it was always your homework


I know you are but what am I.

Look, you can keep saying the same thing over and over but until you come to the table with something substantial it's all just noise. I gave you what you wanted, you were unable to refute it, yet here you are still claiming you're right when you've so clearly been proven incorrect.

I started you on the right path with 5 names of people who have spoken/written about this very subject. Look into their work and your argument will be put to bed. It's becoming silly, this 'debate' with you, and I am growing weary of showing you that which is right in front of your face.


DaveS wrote:
To be clear, I didn't really ask for a few examples of people who disagreed; I asked for a reputable source that claimed that there is a real controversy in the scientific community.


And I gave you five.


DaveS wrote:
What a talking point it is for global-warming-denials that it's not a "popularity contest". Wrong.


This hits at the heart of where we disagree. You believe it's about popularity of a theory and I believe it's about whether the theory holds up to measured data, testing, etc. and allows for predictions based on the theory which actually come true. There is a thing called the scientific process that missing from your popularity contest take on the manmade global warming theory.

I don't entirely blame you for believing that the "vast majority of the scientific community considers it settled science" because that is the bullet point of those powerful people who make money off that theory. They hammer that false claim constantly to try to discredit the many scientists who disagree with them and threaten their massive industry. If they are credible, then you try to buy them because even the noble scientist rarely bites the hand that feeds. Good tactics, not good science.

~€~

_________________
regards,

~€ᵀᴴᴲᴿ~



_______________________________________________________
____________________
[color=#FFFF00]________
€₸╠╣≡Ɽ
commercial graphic artist, singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist


BACK ALLEY: https://www.facebook.com/backalleysocial
CRUSH COLLECTIVE: http://www.facebook.com/crushmydesign


Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:39 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 4886
Location: S St Paul
Post Re: Climategate
:roll:


Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:16 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 557
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: Climategate
Ether wrote:

This hits at the heart of where we disagree. You believe it's about popularity of a theory and I believe it's about whether the theory holds up to measured data, testing, etc. and allows for predictions based on the theory which actually come true. There is a thing called the scientific process that missing from your popularity contest take on the manmade global warming theory.

I don't entirely blame you for believing that the "vast majority of the scientific community considers it settled science" because that is the bullet point of those powerful people who make money off that theory. They hammer that false claim constantly to try to discredit the many scientists who disagree with them and threaten their massive industry. If they are credible, then you try to buy them because even the noble scientist rarely bites the hand that feeds. Good tactics, not good science.

~€~


It's not really about disagreement. I know how science works and you do not.

Yes, it's about whether the theory holds up to measured data, but how are you supposed to know which theories do?

In an ideal world, which you seem to think you live in, the only way for there to be a consensus would be for everyone to work together and do the exact right experiment, come up with the exact right answer, and the results would be completely clear and hence every rational person would agree, and for any issue for which that didn't happen you'd say the jury's still out and there'd be a "controversy".

But that's not the world we live in. The way it really works is that scientists try to be as rational and systematic as possible, and publish their results in as clear a manner as possible, but sometimes the results aren't clear and experts disagree on their interpretation.

In some such cases, the issue is indeed considered to still be open. But sometimes, the results are so close to clear, and replicated so many times, that the science just has to be declared settled so people can move on, EVEN IF A FEW PEOPLE STILL DISAGREE.

Science does involve a somewhat adversarial process, and controveries can be healthy, but they also can't go on forever or else no progress can be made.

That's why it's settled science that the world is round, that evolution happens, that the common cold is caused by microorganisms, and that human industry can contribute to climate change.


Wed Mar 24, 2010 5:20 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:18 am
Posts: 407
Location: atop unknown Kadath, seeking the Ultimate Gate
Post Re: Climategate
yeah, there's dispute everywhere.

even this group is still active: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

CONTROVERSY!!!
at least there's an Antarctic barrier to make sure it doesn't get too warm i suppose...

okay, global warming/climategate (all the "gate" terms really have to stop)...
regardless if it is real or not, areas that create a large amount of carbon emissions tend to have an impact on their locale. the worse they are about the carbon emissions and the more densely populated they are (though it is understood that weather plays a factor in the severity), the more the air is affected.
no matter if it has any affect on the temperature of the world at all, i would think it would be simple common sense to opt for cleaner air to breathe and attempt to curtail elements of that pollution so that it isn't as bad.
if that has a positive effect on "global warming", great. if it turns out that it has no effect, we are still better off than we were before.


Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:29 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 3369
Location: ATBOG
Post Re: Climategate
OMG! I forgot to put my beer cans in the recycling! DOOM!!!!



Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:50 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 1041 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 18  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.