Home » The Bin » Lester The Nightfly » I hate winter...
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue...... [message #95293 is a reply to message #95292] |
Thu, 31 January 2008 17:35 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895 Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Wow! Brave guy. He is a legit lefty of impeccable creds BTW.
DC
"Deej" <noway@jose.net> 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.
>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
I hate winter...
By: EK Sound on Mon, 28 January 2008 11:55
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 13:27
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Bill L on Mon, 28 January 2008 12:30
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 14:02
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Mon, 28 January 2008 14:38
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 22:48
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 22:50
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 22:53
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Neil on Mon, 28 January 2008 22:59
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 21:56
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Mon, 28 January 2008 23:49
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Mon, 28 January 2008 20:04
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Mon, 28 January 2008 23:39
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: excelav on Tue, 29 January 2008 10:03
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Tue, 29 January 2008 09:51
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: rick on Tue, 29 January 2008 10:36
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Tue, 29 January 2008 11:16
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Tue, 29 January 2008 22:03
|
|
|
I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Deej [5] on Thu, 31 January 2008 15:26
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: dc[3] on Thu, 31 January 2008 17:35
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Jamie K on Thu, 31 January 2008 17:10
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Deej [5] on Fri, 01 February 2008 10:40
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Jamie K on Fri, 01 February 2008 13:57
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: excelav on Fri, 01 February 2008 11:55
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Jamie K on Fri, 01 February 2008 13:53
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: excelav on Fri, 01 February 2008 20:31
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Jamie K on Fri, 01 February 2008 23:10
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: Kim on Thu, 31 January 2008 19:31
|
|
|
Re: I just this liberal would get a clue......
By: dc[3] on Thu, 31 January 2008 23:08
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Jamie K on Wed, 30 January 2008 02:03
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: rick on Tue, 29 January 2008 10:38
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Deej [5] on Tue, 29 January 2008 10:48
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: rick on Wed, 30 January 2008 01:41
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Don Nafe on Tue, 29 January 2008 05:31
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: EK Sound on Tue, 29 January 2008 07:45
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: rick on Tue, 29 January 2008 10:41
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Sarah on Tue, 29 January 2008 05:50
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: rick on Tue, 29 January 2008 10:42
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: Sarah on Wed, 30 January 2008 14:56
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
By: rick on Thu, 31 January 2008 02:28
|
|
|
Re: I hate winter...
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Sep 27 08:14:49 PDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01273 seconds
|