forumhome :: pariswiki :: parisblog :: mikeaudet :: thesoniq :: thePARISmap :: gearslutz :: reaper
The PARIS Forums


Home » The Bin » Lester The Nightfly » I hate winter...
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue...... [message #95294 is a reply to message #95292] Thu, 31 January 2008 17:10 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Jamie K is currently offline  Jamie K   UNITED STATES
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
Senior Member
It would be nice if he would get a clue, very true.

Or at least some compelling evidence. The few alternate theories he
cites have been aired, discussed, and long been discarded by most
experts in the field. Why? Because the evidence does not support them.
Those ideas have already been "battled" and found inadequate, and he has
nothing new.

So he's left with a persecution complex, a victim mentality. And
apparently, a book deal.

Put-on or not, the victim branding is working for him. This is shrewd
because there's a great market for people who want to be told what they
want to hear. This beats bothering with ALL THAT PESKY EVIDENCE. Who has
time to understand atmospheric chemistry, after all? Cherrypick a few
indignant sounding bits here and there, attack peer review, attack
experts, ignore most of the research, and that's good enough to sell the
lie.

Anyway, there's been substantial commercial backing for obfuscation of
climate science. So he'll probably do pretty well in the denial industry.

I don't see any scientific qualifications listed, so he may not have
any. This could be a detriment if he were trying to write for scientific
journals. But there are no such qualifications needed to write a denial
book other than the ability to write hyperbole and half truths. Which,
judging by that link, he does very well.

Just once it would be nice to see a political writer (left, right or
sideways) who has a clue about science. But no, he's misusing the issue
to make political points and create scapegoats, much like he's accusing
others of doing. There's a word for that.

BTW, not so long ago anthropogenic climate change proponents were the
contrarians. They were the outcasts, or the visionaries, depending on
who you asked. But as more and more evidence piled up, theirs became the
consensus. That's how science works. It's about the data.

But that's not how politics works, obviously. Personally, I think we
ought to face facts as we find them and quit playing political games
when it comes to the planet. That goes for all parties on all sides in
all countries.

Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com










Deej wrote:
> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_p rintable/4357/
>
> ;o)
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:47a0168b@linux...
>> chuck duffy wrote:
>>> So does this evidence mean that .........
>> ....global dimming and greenhouse gas induced warming are two different
>> processes that for a time overlapped. Global dimming is not going to
>> magically save us from the current warming trend. We're on the right track
>> with worldwide plans to slow our contribution of greenhouse gases ASAP.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> Chuck
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> rick wrote:
>>>>> this is a mac vs pc thing in disguise isn't it? ;o) thank god for
>>>>> global dimming...
>>>> Heh. Mac vs. PC is more benign.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a paper on the relationship between global dimming and greenhouse
>>>> warming: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/2006GL028031.pdf
>>>>
>>>> From the summary:
>>>> "In the present study we investigated the role of solar dimming and
>>>> brightening in the context of recent global warming. Our analysis showed
>>>> that the decadal changes of land mean surface temperature as well as
>>>> TMAX, TMIN, and DTR are in line with the proposed transition in surface
>>>> solar radiation from dimming to brightening during the 1980s and with
>>>> the increasing greenhouse effect. This suggests that solar dimming,
>>>> possibly favoured by increasing air pollution, was effective in masking
>>>> greenhouse warming up to the 1980s, but not thereafter, when the dimming
>>>> disappeared and atmospheres started to clear up.
>>>>
>>>> The temperature response since the mid-1980s may therefore be a more
>>>> genuine reflection of the greenhouse effect than during the decades
>>>> before, which were subject to solar dimming. Unlike to the decades prior
>>>> to the 1980s, the recent rapid temperature rise therefore no longer
>>>> underrates the response of the climate system to greenhouse forcing and
>>>> reflects the full magnitude of the greenhouse effect."
>>>>
>>>> More discussion here:
>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/global -dimming-and-global-warming/
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:51:55 -0700, Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> James McCloskey wrote:
>>>>>>> Yep, those scientist don't know what they are talking about,
>>>>>> If you're looking for the opinion of scientists, here's a start:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the American Physical Society
>>>>>> http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
>>>>>> "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the
>>>>>> atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases
>>>>>> include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other
>>>>>> gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of
>>>>>> industrial and agricultural processes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
>>>>>> mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s
>>>>>> physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
>>>>>> health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse
>>>>>> gases
>>>>>> beginning now."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the National Academy of Sciences
>>>>>> http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
>>>>>> "Climate change is real:
>>>>>> There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex
>>> as
>>>>>> the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that
>>>>>> significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from
>>>>>> direct
>>>>>> measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
>>>>>> temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global
>>>>>> sea
>>>>>> levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and
>>>>>> biological
>>>>>> systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can
>>> be
>>>>>> attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already
>>>>>> led to changes in the Earth's climate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life
>>> on
>>>>>> Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30
>>>>>> centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are
>>>>>> now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including
>>>>>> carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to
>>>>>> rise
>>>>>> well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased
>>>>> >from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous
>>>>>> levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years).
>>>>>> Increasing greenhouse gases are causing
>>>>>> temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6
>>>>>> centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental
>>>>>> Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global
>>>>>> surface
>>>>>> temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade
>>>>>> degrees
>>>>>> and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the American Geophysical Union
>>>>>> http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change20 08.shtml
>>>>>> "Human Impacts on Climate:
>>>>>> The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many
>>>>>> components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the
>>>>>> atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain
>>>>>> glaciers,
>>>>>> the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of
>>>>>> seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural
>>>>>> and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of
>>>>>> greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the
>>>>>> 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average
>>>>>> by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the
>>>>>> previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The
>>>>>> observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and
>>>>>> lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century.
>>>>>> Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows
>>>>>> warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many
>>>>>> physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate
>>>>>> change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and
>>>>>> summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on
>>>>>> Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of
>>> the
>>>>>> climate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization
>>>>>> became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50
>>>>>> years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional
>>>>>> global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the
>>>>>> range
>>>>>> of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and
>>>>>> poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming
>>>>>> greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be
>>>>>> disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing
>>>>>> widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over
>>>>>> centuries—melting
>>>>>> much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of
>>>>>> several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net
>>>>>> annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within
>>>>>> this century. With such projections, there are many sources of
>>>>>> scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact
>>> of
>>>>>> climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate
>>>>>> projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic
>>>>>> disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on
>>>>>> Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike
>>>>>> ozone
>>>>>> depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society.
>>>>>> Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation
>>>>>> strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations
>>>>>> across
>>>>>> science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as
>>>>>> part of the scientific community, collectively have special
>>>>>> responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to
>>>>>> educate
>>>>>> the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate
>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>> and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future
>>>>>> climate."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From The Geological Society of America
>>>>>> http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
>>>>>> "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific
>>>>>> conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are
>>>>>> due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the
>>>>>> climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical
>>>>>> boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate
>>>>>> change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur
>>>>>> require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports
>>>>>> statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint
>>>>>> national
>>>>>> academies of science (June 2005), American Geophysical Union
>>>>>> (December,
>>>>>> 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages
>>>>>> that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1)
>>>>>> adequately
>>>>>> research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful,
>>>>>> science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global
>>>>>> climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare
>>>>>> for,
>>>>>> and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and
>>>>>> (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for
>>>>>> sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on
>>>>>> global
>>>>>> climate."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the American Meteorological Society
>>>>>> http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
>>>>>> "Why is climate changing?
>>>>>> Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural
>>>>>> reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising
>>>>> >from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching
>>>>>> Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans
>>>>>> have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by
>>>>>> altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth
>>>>>> system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.),
>>>>>> which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land
>>>>>> ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human
>>>>>> activities are a major contributor to climate change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain
>>>>>> trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane,
>>>>>> nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as
>>>>>> greenhouse
>>>>>> gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming
>>>>>> energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing
>>>>>> infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until
>>>>>> the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide
>>>>>> accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas
>>>>>> contribution
>>>>>> to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other
>>>>>> greenhouse
>>>>>> gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have
>>>>>> provided
>>>>>> an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of
>>>>>> fossil-fuel
>>>>>> burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the
>>>>>> enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the
>>>>>> Earth
>>>>>> system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years
>>>>>> atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much
>>>>>> faster
>>>>>> than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several
>>>>>> thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at
>>> a
>>>>>> rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and
>>>>>> probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere,
>>>>>> carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a
>>>>>> lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in
>>>>>> greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in
>>>>>> temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds,
>>>>>> pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further
>>>>>> effects."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Al Gore does,
>>>>>>> after all he invented the internet.
>>>>>> Here's what snopes has to say about that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
>>>>>> "Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did
>>>>>> not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented'
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of
>>>>>> something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late
>>>>>> Edition" program on 9 March 1999."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides, Al Gore is not the point, he's just one guy. Love him or hate
>>>>>> him, the climate will do what it does with or without him. It's best
>>> to
>>>>>> look to the actual science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing like trying to shift the wealth
>>>>>>> of the world and making money doing it by selling global offsets and
>>> taxing
>>>>>>> the shit out of stupid people with a lie!
>>>>>> That the climate is currently changing is not a lie, it's a measurable
>>>>>> phenomenon we are currently experiencing on our planet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of evidence points to human contributions to the current climate
>>>>>> change event. So again, this is not a lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your problem is with politics and economics, not with science. Blaming
>>>>>> the science does not help your cause. You have political and economic
>>>>>> objections to some of the proposed solutions, so by all means take
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> on. If you don't like using a market mechanism to regulate carbon
>>>>>> emissions, which is just one idea that's been proposed, there are
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> options on the table.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do your best to move the solutions conversation in a direction you're
>>>>>> more comfortable with. But simple blanket denial of actual evidence
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> peer reviewed science won't get you there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Bush's, the Clinton's, and
>>>>>>> the Gore's are all Trilateralists, they have done a fine job of
>>>>>>> lowering
>>>>>>> the standard of living here in the USA! Long live the CFR, the world
>>> banks
>>>>>>> and man made Global warming.
>>>>>> You can believe what you like about all that, except that there is
>>>>>> actual evidence supporting human contributions to the current climate
>>>>>> change event. Again, ignoring evidence won't get you very far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way, if you buy the man made global warming lie, I got some
>>>>>>> swamp
>>>>>>> land I'd like to sell you!
>>>>>> You're being sold swamp land already, possibly by the fossil fuels
>>>>>> industry, and by people who want to maintain power and income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
>>>>>> "The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate
>>> the
>>>>>> science and the threat of global warming. It tracks the activities of
>>> a
>>>>>> group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted for Big
>>>>>> Tobacco,
>>>>>> and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil
>>>>>> companies."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
>>>>>> "The database compiles Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a
>>>>>> series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to
>>>>>> global
>>>>>> warming and climate change. It details the working relationships of
>>>>>> individuals associated with these organizations and their global
>>>>>> warming
>>>>>> quotes and deeds."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour
>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>>>>>> Yep, the swindle movie is old news, we even discussed it here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I mentioned at the time, it ignores the main body of
>>>>>>>> peer-reviewed
>>>>>>>> scientific evidence for the sake of sensationalism. It was done that
>>> way
>>>>>>>> deliberately by the producers, with no attempt at an objective look
>>> at
>>>>>>>> the actual scientific evidence. Fair and balanced it ain't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do like the breathless announcer, fast cuts and dramatic music.
>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>> always fun to see a one-sided polemic that ironically accuses others
>>> of
>>>>>>>> being one-sided. I doubt anyone here is gullible enough to take it
>>> as an
>>>>>>>> objective authority.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But anyway, here's more (follow the links):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From:
>>>>>>>> http://climatedenial.org/2007/05/01/why-was-the-great-global -warming-swindle-so-persuasive/
>>>>>>>> "The fans of the film would argue that it has been effective because
>>> it
>>>>>>>> is true. But truth is not, of itself, persuasive. When we receive
>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>> information on a topic we have no idea whether it is true or not. We
>>>>>>>> base our conclusions on how it was presented to us, whether it
>>>>>>>> concurs
>>>>>>>> with what we already know about that topic, how far we trust the
>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>> telling us, and how well that information fits inside our world
>>>>>>>> view.
>>> We
>>>>>>>> then seek to match our initial conclusions against the conclusions
>>> of
>>>>>>>> our peers. So, although we think we seek truth, the process by which
>>> we
>>>>>>>> reach opinions is equally capable of leading us in the wrong
>>>>>>>> direction.
>>>>>>>> It turns out that Swindle was a collection of rather crude
>>>>>>>> distortions
>>>>>>>> in an elegant package. We now know that the data was misrepresented,
>>> the
>>>>>>>> charts re-arranged, and the interviews edited in ways that were
>>>>>>>> designed
>>>>>>>> to mislead."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindl e
>>>>>>>> "Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics,
>>> it
>>>>>>>> was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and
>>>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>>> scientists (including two of the film's contributors[3][4]). The
>>>>>>>> film's
>>>>>>>> critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date
>>>>>>>> research,
>>>>>>>> employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/7
>>>>>>>> "The DVD version of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ has been
>>>>>>>> available for purchase since late July 2007. The front of the
>>>>>>>> presentation case describes it as a “documentary”, which is defined
>>> by
>>>>>>>> the Oxford English Dictionary as “a film or television or radio
>>>>>>>> programme giving a factual account of something, using film,
>>>>>>>> photographs, and sound recordings of real events”. However, the DVD
>>>>>>>> contains at least five major misrepresentations of the scientific
>>>>>>>> evidence and researchers’ views on climate change. This document
>>>>>>>> presents details of the five misrepresentations."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_the.p hp
>>>>>>>> "What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there
>>> is
>>>>>>>> not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the
>>>>>>>> extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the
>>>>>>>> scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know
>>>>>>>> where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is
>>>>>>>> true,
>>>>>>>> that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric
>>>>>>>> mass.
>>>>>>>> The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn't really matter.
>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>> even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the
>>>>>>>> relative
>>>>>>>> masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative
>>>>>>>> balance.
>>> A
>>>>>>>> director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried
>>> to
>>>>>>>> eliminate that piece of disinformation.”
>>>>>>>> (http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
>>>>>>>> papersonline/channel4response)"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Must be global warming. Anyone seen this? If you've got an hour
>>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> out. It may take a minute or two to load.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warm ing-Swindle
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "EK Sound" <ask_me@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:479e36ad$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>> Woke up this morning and the temp with wind chill was -59C >:(
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why did I move here again???
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David.
>
>

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: algore in hell again...
Next Topic: OT The platform wars are over...
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Sat Apr 27 12:20:40 PDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01440 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.1.0.
Copyright ©2001-2020 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software