Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 ... 15  Next
AuthorMessage
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3112

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/12/2010, 9:15 am

*yawn*

Quote :
* “Which studies were compromised, how? be specific. Cite papers and data sets. What is the evidence? where is it? what work is affected? how? show me the evidence that says so.

* This supposed scandal involves perhaps a half dozen people, how does it affect the work of the 3,000+ others who’s work makes up climate science?

* How does it affect the work that was done before the alleged culprits graduated from univeristy? the work from before they were born?

* Of the 30,000(ish) studies that make up climate science, which ones are undone? where is the evidence? be specific … show us exactly how and why?” etc

* “You are certain it topples climate science? how? where? which studies? what evidence? You don’t know? then how are you certain?

* Please run through a list of the studies you believe are affected? Hockey stick? what’s that? please refer to specific papers and studies.You don’t know? then how can you be certain?

* Ahhh, Soandso 2004? so just how is it compromised? what part of the work? I thought you were certain?”

Still don't have any answers, huh?

Quote :
now the public has changed the term, from Global Warming to Climate Change.

You really, really need to stop regurgitating these bullshit talking points. They really make you look like a brain dead partisan hack falling neatly in line. Don't embarrass yourself further. If you'd ever actually read any of the science, you'd know both terms have been used going back decades. And unsurprisingly, it was conservative strategist Frank Luntz who recommended that switching terms from "global warming" to "climate change" would be an effective way for climate skeptics to downplay the urgency of the issue.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3112

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/12/2010, 9:35 am

Besides, it's a moot point unless you believe that it's not happening. Did Fox's coverage of a snow storm change your mind? Laughing
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9392

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/12/2010, 10:09 am

Back to top Go down
BigWhiteGuy

avatar

Posts : 689

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/12/2010, 10:50 am

It's called "re-posturing"!
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3112

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/12/2010, 12:28 pm

No actual comment? Hmmm... boring. And predictable. Rolling Eyes
Back to top Go down
BigWhiteGuy

avatar

Posts : 689

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/12/2010, 4:24 pm

#1. You will not change your opinion.
#2. I will not change my opinion.
#3. To argue, would be pointless.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/12/2010, 5:59 pm

BigWhiteGuy wrote:
#1. You will not change your opinion.

Why should he? All of the evidence supports it. If the evidence didn't support his opinion, then I'm sure that Heretic would change his opinion. I know that I would.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

#2. I will not change my opinion.

Even when faced with overwhelming evidence that your opinion is based on falsehoods? The sane thing to do when presented with clear evidence that your "opinion" is not based upon the facts is to change it.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

#3. To argue, would be pointless.

Perhaps, but don't kid yourself. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that your opinion is equally valid... because it's not.

As they say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3112

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/13/2010, 2:04 am

BigWhiteGuy wrote:
#1. You will not change your opinion.

False. As Scorpion stated, I am perfectly capable of changing my opinion in light of contradictory evidence. I'll even give you an embarrassing example. I used to be a Twoofer. Granted it was quite some time ago and it wasn't for more than a few days... but that Loose Change video can be persuasive if its the only thing you've seen on the topic. Thankfully the consensus on the actual events of 9/11 is as solid as the one on AGW. A cursory glance at published reports from our government and the Pentagon (who also acknowledge AGW) as well as scientists from the related fields (physicists... who also acknowledge AGW) quickly turned me off of the Twoof movement.

This is why I'm so immediately skeptical of claims of conspiracy and particularly the alleged global warming one since it involves more people than the 9/11 cover-up would have.

I do find your ability to recognize the 9/11 conspiracy as the nonsense that it is at the same time you maintain the global warming conspiracy is real truly fascinating.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:
#2. I will not change my opinion.

Which is just really f**king dumb. Especially since I can see no other reason for it other than to thumb your nose at Al Gore.

It’s not a virtue.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:
#3. To argue, would be pointless.

Well, it doesn't have to be an argument... I was hoping for an entertaining and informative discussion. But try as I might I can never seem to get one, and certainly not an honest one. All I get are snide remarks and rants from individuals who are absolutely obsessed with Al Gore and armed with nothing more than ignorance, bad science, and poorly thought out and often contradictory arguments like your CRU hack incident. They also have an inability to admit they're wrong, even when caught in a flat out lie.

Honestly... You are fully allowed to accept our physical reality for what it is without getting into trouble. Agreeing with Al Gore will not destroy the universe; no one will revoke your party affiliation or teabagger membership.



On second thought, maybe they will... they do seem pretty fanatical about global warming (and creationism too).
Back to top Go down
BigWhiteGuy

avatar

Posts : 689

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/14/2010, 10:15 am

Wow! Look at this. A thorough, surgical dissection of my three point post, by Scorpion then by Heretic. Is it any wonder why nobody posts on this board anymore? Have fun. Play amongst yourselves.
Back to top Go down
UrRight



Posts : 3993

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/14/2010, 11:03 am

Unless Obama gets impeached....we'll be the third world.


Last edited by UrRight on 2/14/2010, 11:13 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
UrRight



Posts : 3993

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/14/2010, 11:05 am

This off and on climate has been happening for centuries. It's just another tool for freaks to make money on.

If climate control/pollution is such a problem, why are the communities throughout, not making it mandatory that you recycle an quit filling your garbage can up with recyclables?

They don't give a crap on the local level, or they would run the communities like they do out west in wealthier suburbs where the most educated know the importance, and streamline the process by giving one container the same size as the garbage container and educate people - even the dumb ones...that they will NOT pick up your garbage unless they fill the recycable container that is to be the same size as the garbage can, finding one or two true bags of garbage and the recyclable garbage can full to the tip. That's how much they throw in landfills in Indiana an other states where mandatory recycling isn't presented, or residents aren't educated. That causes landfills and shows the lack of intelligence of leaders in communities.

As far as that global warming crap, stick it up your butts. My mom and dad are in their mid-70s and nothing has changed - one November back in the '60s we ha 80 degree weather, on Thanksgiving Day. We called my uncle (dad's brother) in California, bragging. This crap is all political b.s.
Back to top Go down
UrRight



Posts : 3993

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/14/2010, 11:09 am

BigWhiteGuy wrote:
Wow! Look at this. A thorough, surgical dissection of my three point post, by Scorpion then by Heretic. Is it any wonder why nobody posts on this board anymore? Have fun. Play amongst yourselves.

Yeah, you're right about that BWG, but old JCMT talks to himself all day on the other board. With Freelies dating the Preacher, she now has an occupation.

The politicals are remaining quiet on this board for some reason.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3112

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/14/2010, 1:24 pm

BigWhiteGuy wrote:
Wow! Look at this. A thorough, surgical dissection of my three point post, by Scorpion then by Heretic. Is it any wonder why nobody posts on this board anymore? Have fun. Play amongst yourselves.

So you are leaving to save yourself further embarassment...

Sleep

Hmmm... boring. And predictable. Rolling Eyes
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9392

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/14/2010, 1:48 pm

BigWhiteGuy wrote:
Wow! Look at this. A thorough, surgical dissection of my three point post, by Scorpion then by Heretic. Is it any wonder why nobody posts on this board anymore? Have fun. Play amongst yourselves.

The majority of people who don't post here are either incapable of honest discussion,or take the ball home when faced with indisputable facts that destroy their arguments.

There is a board however,where wild claims,indefensible positions,and absolute lies are cheered and go unchecked. If someone refutes those posts the thread quickly turns to the usual static of off topic cartoons,name calling,and of course their favorite method of personal attack,baseless accusations about their sexuality. Know which board I'm referring to?

It's your choice as to where you feel more comfortable posting.


Last edited by Artie60438 on 2/14/2010, 1:51 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : grammar & punctuation)
Back to top Go down
BigWhiteGuy

avatar

Posts : 689

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/14/2010, 4:54 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
There is a board however,where wild claims,indefensible positions,and absolute lies are cheered and go unchecked. If someone refutes those posts the thread quickly turns to the usual static of off topic cartoons,name calling,and of course their favorite method of personal attack,baseless accusations about their sexuality. Know which board I'm referring to?
Somewhat similar to how you conduct yourself on YOUR Freetime thread.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9392

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/14/2010, 4:59 pm

BigWhiteGuy wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
There is a board however,where wild claims,indefensible positions,and absolute lies are cheered and go unchecked. If someone refutes those posts the thread quickly turns to the usual static of off topic cartoons,name calling,and of course their favorite method of personal attack,baseless accusations about their sexuality. Know which board I'm referring to?
Somewhat similar to how you conduct yourself on YOUR Freetime thread.

As opposed to almost EVERY thread on the bigots.liars,and trolls,board. Btw,the Freetime thread was only started after months and months of her stealing content from here and falsely claiming that if you joined this site you would be infected by viruses.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/14/2010, 8:59 pm

Artie60438 wrote:
BigWhiteGuy wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
There is a board however,where wild claims,indefensible positions,and absolute lies are cheered and go unchecked. If someone refutes those posts the thread quickly turns to the usual static of off topic cartoons,name calling,and of course their favorite method of personal attack,baseless accusations about their sexuality. Know which board I'm referring to?
Somewhat similar to how you conduct yourself on YOUR Freetime thread.

As opposed to almost EVERY thread on the bigots.liars,and trolls,board. Btw,the Freetime thread was only started after months and months of her stealing content from here and falsely claiming that if you joined this site you would be infected by viruses.

I don't care how you rationalize it, Artie. Either name calling and personal attacks are wrong, or they're not.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3112

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/14/2010, 11:05 pm

Whatever the grievance with Artie, we all know that's certainly not the reason he's bailing on the discussion now.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/14/2010, 11:38 pm

Heretic wrote:
Whatever the grievance with Artie, we all know that's certainly not the reason he's bailing on the discussion now.

No, of course not. I know why he's bailing.

But can you believe this guy? Whining because we both answered his post?

Frickin' unbelievable.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3112

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/15/2010, 10:19 am

Why the denial camp is winning (and we're all losing) the climate wars

Quote :
As the year began, climatologists were able to launch what should have been a devastating counterattack to the nonsensical but appealing notion that global warming has been replacing by global cooling. The records show that the first decade of the century was the warmest on record. Not only that, but 2009 tied for the second warmest year on record. This despite the recent La Niña, the phase of the irregular ENSO cycle that temporarily cools the surface waters of the oceans and consequently the lower atmosphere, and an unusually long solar minimum, which has the same qualitative, though not quantitative, effect on the Sun's heating of the planet.

Then there was the nail in the coffin of the already moribund argument that the siting of U.S. weather stations lent a warming bias to temperature records. A new paper from the staff of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., concluded the net bias came in the form of a cooling trend. If anything, temperatures in the U.S. have been rising more than previously thought. (Although the real bias is tiny, the important point is the absence of a warming bias.)

Given those facts, even a middle-school student can see the thesis that any warming trend was natural and short-lived is just plain false. And indeed, after a spate late last year of "there's been no warming since 1998" stories, largely in the UK but also to a surprising extent in the US, that particular fiction is no longer a favorite of the anti-intellectual pundits. But that hasn't silenced them.

Instead, they've switched from attacking the science to attacking the scientists. The advent of the publication of hundreds of private emails among leading climatologists made this as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. We've all written things in haste that we'd love to retract, but that's just not possible in the wired world. And everyone makes mistakes. Automobile manufacturers sell cars with faulty accelerators and brakes because they're staffed by humans, just as IPCC authors cut corners and disregard protocol because they're human.

Here's IPCC author Phil Duffy, whose thoughts on the subject inspired mine:

Quote :
Things happen, but let's react appropriately. Medical doctors make mistakes every day. (In fact, medical errors in the US alone kill hundreds of people daily--the equivalent of a jumbo-jet crash.) And no doubt many of these errors happen because established procedures are ignored, sometimes knowingly. Does this mean the entire edifice of western medicine is wrong, or prejudiced, or the product of a conspiracy, and should be rejected? Of course not. Furthermore, the medical profession as a whole is still held in high regard, as it should be.

No one worth listening to is calling for a massive inquiry into the science underpinning modern medicine, or the engineering foundations of the car industry. But pseudoskeptics argue that the IPCC is systematically fraudulent simply because a couple of statements among thousands of pages of heavily edited and re-editing (and re-re-edited) documents cite gray literature instead of the peer-reviewed literature that supplied the science in the first place.

Is it controversial among those study such things that 40% of the Amazon is susceptible to drought? No. Is it controversial that Himalayan glaciers are receding? No. Only the way in which that science was presented and attributed was found faulty. To thrown out anthropogenic global warming because of such missteps is the climatological analog of dismissing an entire faculty of medicine because someone correctly diagnosed a patient because of a story they read in New Scientist instead of the medical journal article on which the story was based. Bad judgment? Yes. Fatal error? No.

Just more hypocrisy.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3112

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/15/2010, 10:38 am

Not a surprise to anyone following the discussion here:

Why the denial camp is winning the climate wars (Part 2): they lie

Quote :
It gives me no pleasure to pass on the facts about the lack of respect for the truth shown by climate change pseudo-skeptics. But there's simply no getting around it.

Last year, in his book Science as a Contact Sport, veteran climatologist Stephen Schneider made much of the misuse of a quote that actually did come from his lips about the temptation to "offer up scary scenarios" and the need to stay honest. The problem was he ended his observation on conflicting messaging priorities by saying, "I hope that means being both" but that line almost never makes it into stories by denialists citing the quote.

That's bad enough, and it continues to haunt Schneider, but the latest example of integrity-free reportage, which comes from the UK, makes such transgressions seem like something less than a little white lie. "Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist" is the headline in The Independent. I shall lift several paragraphs from the story, as it really deserves wide distribution:

Quote :
Sir John Houghton, who played a critical role in establishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), was roundly condemned after it emerged that he was an apparent advocate of scary propaganda to frighten the public into believing the dangers of global warming.

"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen," Sir John was supposed to have said in 1994.
...
The trouble is, Sir John Houghton has never said what he is quoted as saying. The words do not appear in his own book on global warming, first published in 1994, despite statements to the contrary. In fact, he denies emphatically that he ever said it at any time, either verbally or in writing.

In fact, his view on the matter of generating scare stories to publicise climate change is quite the opposite. "There are those who will say 'unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', but I'm not one of them," Sir John told The Independent.

"It's not the sort of thing I would ever say. It's quite the opposite of what I think and it pains me to see this quote being used repeatedly in this way. I would never say we should hype up the risk of climate disasters in order to get noticed," he said.

Even though the quotation appears on about 1.77 million web links, no one seems to know where it originated. On the few occasions a reference is cited, it is listed as coming from the first edition of Sir John's book, Global Warming: The Complete Briefing, published by Lion Books in 1994. But Sir John does not say it in this edition, nor in subsequent editions published by Cambridge University Press.

Christopher Booker, a newspaper columnist, considers the quotation so important that he lists it at the top of the first page of his most recent book on climate scepticism, The Real Global Warming Disaster, published last year. Mr Booker also cites the 1994 edition of Houghton's own book on global warming as the source of the quotation, even though there is no mention of it there. Mr Booker did not respond yesterday to enquiries by The Independent.

Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, also cited the 1994 edition of Sir John's book as the source of the quote, which he used last Sunday in an article denouncing the alarmism of climate scientists. Dr Peiser admitted to The Independent that he had not read the book recently and had only used the quote "from memory" because it is so widely cited in other books on climate scepticism.

And again, the same tactics employed by creationists: quote-mining or downright fabrication.
Back to top Go down
Scorpion

avatar

Posts : 1917

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/20/2010, 2:50 am

Seen this yet?

Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3112

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/20/2010, 9:05 am

LOL Perfect!!
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9392

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/20/2010, 2:31 pm

Yeah,that was pretty good.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3112

PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   2/26/2010, 12:07 pm

This is exactly the kind of bullshit and lies climate scientists have to put up with.

Quote :
Climate Auditing – Close Encounters with Mr. Steven McIntyre

Ten days after the online publication of our International Journal of Climatology paper, Mr. Steven McIntyre, who runs the “ClimateAudit” blog, requested all of the climate model data we had used in our research. I replied that Mr. McIntyre was welcome to “audit” our calculations, and that all of the primary model data we had employed were archived at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and freely available to any researcher. Over 3,400 scientists around the world currently analyze climate model output from this open database.

My response was insufficient for Mr. McIntyre. He submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for climate model data – not for the freely available raw data, but for the results from intermediate calculations I had performed with the raw data. One FOIA request also asked for two years of my email correspondence related to these climate model data sets.

I had performed these intermediate calculations in order derive weighted-average temperature changes for different layers of the atmosphere. This is standard practice. It is necessary since model temperature data are available at specific heights in the atmosphere, whereas satellite temperature measurements represent an average over a deep layer of the atmosphere. The weighted averages calculated from the climate model data can be directly compared with actual satellite data. The method used for making such intermediate calculations is not a secret. It is published in several different scientific journals.

Unlike Mr. McIntyre, David Douglass and his colleagues (in their International Journal of Climatology paper) had used the freely available raw model data. With these raw datasets, Douglass et al. made intermediate calculations similar to the calculations we had performed. The results of their intermediate calculations were similar to our own intermediate results. The differences between what Douglass and colleagues had done and what my colleagues and I had done was not in the intermediate calculations – it was in the statistical tests each group had used to compare climate models with observations.

The punch-line of this story is that Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests were completely unnecessary. In my opinion, they were frivolous. Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the information necessary to check our calculations and our findings.

When I invited Mr. McIntyre to “audit” our entire study, including the intermediate calculations, and told him that all the data necessary to perform such an “audit” were freely available, he expressed moral outrage on his blog. I began to receive threatening emails. Complaints about my “stonewalling” behavior were sent to my superiors at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and at the U.S. Department of Energy.

A little over a month after receiving Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests, I decided to release all of the intermediate calculations I had performed for our International Journal of Climatology paper. I made these datasets available to the entire scientific community. I did this because I wanted to continue with my scientific research. I did not want to spend all of my available time and energy responding to harassment incited by Mr. McIntyre’s blog.

Mr. Pearce does not mention that Mr. McIntyre had no need to file Freedom of Information Act requests, since Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the raw climate model data we had used in our study (and to the methods we had used for performing intermediate calculations). Nor does Mr. Pearce mention the curious asymmetry in Mr. McIntyre’s “auditing”. To my knowledge, Mr. McIntyre – who purports to have considerable statistical expertise – has failed to “audit” the Douglass et al. paper ['cause they're fellow "skeptics" -H], which contained serious statistical errors.

As the “Climategate” emails clearly show, there is a pattern of behavior here. My encounter with Mr. McIntyre’s use of FOIA requests for “audit” purposes is not an isolated event. In my opinion, Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA requests serve the purpose of initiating fishing expeditions, and are not being used for true scientific discovery.

. . .

My research is subject to rigorous scrutiny. Mr. McIntyre’s blogging is not. He can issue FOIA requests at will. He is the master of his domain – the supreme, unchallenged ruler of the “ClimateAudit” universe. He is not a climate scientist, but he has the power to single-handedly destroy the reputations of exceptional men and women who have devoted their entire careers to the pursuit of climate science. Mr. McIntyre’s unchecked, extraordinary power is the real story of “Climategate”.



Quote :
Journalistic malpractice on global warming

For example, a week ago Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, gave an interview to the BBC that was widely described as a debacle. The main reason was that the BBC reporter asked Mr Jones whether he would concede that global warming since 1995 has not been statistically significant. Mr Jones replied: "Yes, but only just," and went on to note that there was a measured global warming of 0.12°C per decade since then, and that it tends to be harder to get statistical significance out of shorter time samples.

This led to a Daily Mail headline reading: "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995."

Since I've advocated a more explicit use of the word "lie", I'll go ahead and follow my own advice: that Daily Mail headline is a lie. Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995; he said the opposite. He said the world had been warming at 0.12°C per decade since 1995. However, over that time frame, he could not quite rule out at the traditional 95% confidence level that the warming since 1995 had not been a random fluke.

Anyone who has even a passing high-school familiarity with statistics should understand the difference between these two statements. At a longer time interval, say 30 or 50 or 100 years, Mr Jones could obviously demonstrate that global warming is a statistically significant trend. In the interview he stated that the warming since 1975 is statistically significant. Everyone, even climate-change sceptics, agrees that the earth has experienced a warming trend since the late 19th century. But if you take any short sample out of that trend (say, 1930-45 or 1960-75), you might not be able to guarantee that the particular warming observed in those years was not a statistical fluke. This is a simple truth about statistics: if you measure just ten children, the relationship between age and height might be a fluke. But obviously the fact remains that older children tend to be taller than younger ones, and if you measure 100 of them, you'll find the relationship quite statistically significant indeed.

What's truly infuriating about this episode of journalistic malpractice is that, once again, it illustrates the reasons why the East Anglia scientists adopted an adversarial attitude towards information management with regard to outsiders and the media. They were afraid that any data they allowed to be characterised by non-climate scientists would be vulnerable to propagandistic distortion. And they were right.

Which is why a bunch of hacked emails only showed they have no love for morons masquerading as skeptics and the journalists who continually misrepresent them.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming 101   

Back to top Go down
 
Anthropogenic Global Warming 101
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 15Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 ... 15  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: The Environment-
Jump to: