BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 19 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-09-2009, 05:43 PM   #271
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:47 PM
YouTube - Please help the world - COP15 opening film

I rest my case.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 06:25 PM   #272
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
The next 11 presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, all had higher job approval ratings than Obama at this stage of their tenure. Their ratings were:

-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent
5 of these Presidents were re-elected.
JFK was an exception so let's throw him out. That leaves 10.
That means that if you are the President (since 1945), no matter what your approval rating is (because it spans the gamut), basically you have a 50/50 shot of being re-elected.

And when you figure there are only two candidates that could conceivably be elected. The Dem or the Rep, then it's 50/50 as well.

So yeah, it's a toss-up.

Translation: These poll numbers are completely meaningless.
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 07:34 PM   #273
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Hello! Maurice Strong is a Communist and I posted his recent criticism of the ballot box. What do you think a world government is that we can't vote for?

BTW attacking Monckton personally for gathering science that others did and presenting it is not going to stop other climatologists from responding to AGW attacks. Monckton got the Nobel Prize pin because of Al Gore (who represents the IPCC) and Monckton contibuted to the 2007 IPCC report. He was being sarcastic.

Welcome to the Copenhagen Climate Challenge Web Site

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9

All their arguments about how deniers are like tobacco companies can easily be thrown towards the AGW lobby. Anybody thinks that there is no wrong doing in the emails didn't read them. Deleting back up data so no one could check them or threatening to delete something to prevent Steve McIntyre from checking it is an enormous problem and denying (A-ha) the problem is not going to satisfy the critics and will create more critics as we are seeing right now.
You are entirely agenda driven and closed minded, the fact that Monckton can put together a literature review to justify his biases doesn't make him an expert. Putting a conservative politician with no scientific background as your superstar in a scientific debate highlights how weak climate sceptics arguments are.

You throw out labels like socialist and communist at people who talk about how to deal with a tragedy of the commons situation while completely ignoring the problems of increased CO2 in our atmosphere. You don't give a fuck about global warming because your favoured political talking heads oppose it.

I had some sympathy for climate change scepticism in 2005-2006, but I changed my mind in light of learning more about the evidence. You are taking a political position and reposting claims from a right wing echo chamber without a jot of honest active doubt.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 07:48 PM   #274
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Have you read your posts lately?

You come as the most "religious" in this thread. You believe any piece of junk science that comes your way as long as it supports your side.
Well it's pretty clear who the deniers are now. Including this guy:

YouTube - Biggest Epic Fail - Al Gore Claims Climategate Emails Taken "Out of Context" by "Climate Deniers"
Talk about vested interest here.

Then again you don't really read my posts because their are TONS of "denier" science available in my posts and nobody seems to be able to explain how Vikings buried their dead in permafrost in Greenland. Eliminating the MWP brings the antennae up for many scientists. But hey BVS says it's junk so it must be. These people even go out of their way to make their science make sense so average people can see what the other side is.

Since the IPCC likes to decide what is science and what is not there has been an alternate NIPCC created for skeptics to publish.

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change: Rebutting the IPCC with Authority

At least they aren't spewing alarmism like Gore and that it's "right infront of our eyes" and that we have good enough technology to move to solar and wind. That's an obvious lie. Or he's on Or he's inventing a Church of Climatology.

The ice in the north has been increasing since 2007. Also pointing out warming in the past only shows correlation but not causation. We should be spending some money at looking at what natural causes could exist. We're lucky as a species that we aren't cooling (yet) to the level of another little ice age or worse.

Another thing. How are green jobs (subsidized jobs by taxpayers) going to lift people out of poverty? Poverty is alleviated when there is growth in the economy. Cap and trade is just going to send money to corrupt regimes in 3rd world countries and reward Al Gore's companies for producing unproven products and punish companies for producing the real thing. We have to go on a carbon diet and wait for some miraculous technology to produce energy to the level we do now. Even Van Jones was talking about green jobs lifting people out of poverty.

YouTube - The Green Collar Economy - Van Jones

Saudi Arabia of wind and solar? Nuclear was the cheapest option and Al Gore didn't answer that question well.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 08:02 PM   #275
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:47 PM
An article written by a respected historian of science and published in the journal Science.
Quote:
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

INDY, you should be honest and argue economics rather than promoting obscurantists.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 08:03 PM   #276
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
You are entirely agenda driven and closed minded, the fact that Monckton can put together a literature review to justify his biases doesn't make him an expert. Putting a conservative politician with no scientific background as your superstar in a scientific debate highlights how weak climate sceptics arguments are.
There you go AGAIN. The IPCC is not agenda driven? Who are you fooling?

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
You throw out labels like socialist and communist at people who talk about how to deal with a tragedy of the commons situation while completely ignoring the problems of increased CO2 in our atmosphere. You don't give a fuck about global warming because your favoured political talking heads oppose it.
The scientists haven't proven that recent changes in the climate are man made. They just point out that climate changes and want us to believe it's our fault. Your video of ice melting simply proved that ice melted up to 2007. It didn't prove that this was unnatural. Why do you think the IPCC doesn't want a medieval warming period? Because they want us to conclude it's not natural.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I had some sympathy for climate change scepticism in 2005-2006, but I changed my mind in light of learning more about the evidence. You are taking a political position and reposting claims from a right wing echo chamber without a jot of honest active doubt.
Because their arguments have holes in them. The skeptics are poking holes in the theory of AGW. The skeptics didn't make up a theory to be disproven. It's the AGW group that has made a simplistic claim about C02 and temperature and they are getting called out on it as they should. Calling evidence on the skeptic side a "right wing echo chamber" is not an argument and jumping on the bandwagon when it's falling apart is maybe embarrassing for you so you will tow the line. I agree that the right and the left have taken sides (mostly) on this issue but that's because the stakeholders who will benefit from cap and trade are governments and businesses that ally with government or who can trade C02 credits to make profits on it. The people who will lose are those who need energy but don't fit into those categories, so they rely on right-wingers to give them voice. That's the ballot box problem that Maurice Strong doesn't like. If anything there is more evidence for the skeptics now than ever before and I've already posted almost all of it. The climate is much more complicated than targeting C02 and even Al Gore in his new book is downplaying C02 and admitting that new evidence may prevent a consensus at Copenhagen.

Think of it. If you make a simple claim about a complex system like the climate and make disaster scenarios around it that aren't remotely true don't you think that some scientists (many in fact) will find observations that don't match? That's how science works. I already posted Tim Flannery who admits the models are not good enough all the while saying that we should go ahead with world government. Well yeah, it's in his interest to go ahead.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 08:12 PM   #277
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:47 PM
I changed my mind when I was doing a third year unit on palaeoclimatology, I learnt about the methodology and the evidence and was persuaded. I didn't jump on any bandwagon, I am sceptical of cap and trade and don't think fear-mongering is justified.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 08:12 PM   #278
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
An article written by a respected historian of science and published in the journal Science.BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science
Key items in the article:

Quote:
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
Humility my ass! Acting without knowing and damaging the economy effects future generations as well. Talking about overwhelming evidence when it's exactly the opposite is the appeal to authority argument which people are not falling for anymore since the IPCC consensus doesn't exist. The emails clearly show politics. The weather has been cooling since the last El Nino yet C02 has increased. Models have gotten it wrong over and over again. How many times do models have to get it wrong before you begin to be skeptical?

Even using the word obscurantist shows you buy into the appeal to authority.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 08:18 PM   #279
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:47 PM
We don't know everything about the climate system, but we can say with confidence that our carbon dioxide emissions are effecting climates and will have an impact on ocean acidity. The implication of having a complex and dynamic climate system isn't that you can ignore an input (such as more CO2), but that we will have unforseen outcomes that ripple through the system; pushing climate beyond 2 degrees will impact the biosphere and it could trigger a mass extinction.

I used obscurantist to highlight the way that your side deliberately minimises and obscures climate science for political ends, something that the scientific community is able to moderate with its system of checks.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 09:08 PM   #280
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
We don't know everything about the climate system, but we can say with confidence that our carbon dioxide emissions are effecting climates and will have an impact on ocean acidity. The implication of having a complex and dynamic climate system isn't that you can ignore an input (such as more CO2), but that we will have unforseen outcomes that ripple through the system; pushing climate beyond 2 degrees will impact the biosphere and it could trigger a mass extinction.

I used obscurantist to highlight the way that your side deliberately minimises and obscures climate science for political ends, something that the scientific community is able to moderate with its system of checks.
The problem with the systems of checks is that it checks those who don't agree precisely for political reasons. Especially when they attack McIntyre and Monckton when they want to audit the data. McIntyre was appointed the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of Climate Science in those emails. He's just doing his job trying to compare their base data to the claims.

Here's a Gavin Schmidt trainwreck. These guys are their own worst enemies when they try to defend those emails.

Eyeblast.tv

And on Ocean Acidification I posted an article on that already:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...dification.pdf

Quote:
In evaluating global seawater impacts of (1) model-predicted global warming and (2) direct seawater chemical consequences of a doubling of the air's CO2 content, Loaiciga (2006), for example, used a mass-balance approach to (1) "estimate the change in average seawater salinity caused by the melting of terrestrial ice and permanent snow in a warming earth," and he (2) applied "a chemical equilibrium model for the concentration of carbonate species in seawater open to the atmosphere" in order to "estimate the effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 on the acidity of seawater." Assuming that the rise in the planet's mean surface air temperature continues unabated, and that it eventually causes the melting of all terrestrial ice and permanent snow, Loaiciga calculated that "the average seawater salinity would be lowered not more than 0.61‰ from its current 35‰." He also reports that across the range of seawater temperature considered (0 to 30°C), "a doubling of CO2 from 380 ppm to 760 ppm increases the seawater acidity [lowers its pH] approximately 0.19 pH units." He thus concludes that "on a global scale and over the time scales considered (hundreds of years), there would not be accentuated changes in either seawater salinity or acidity from the rising concentration of atmospheric CO2."
I don't think a mass extinction is going to happen from C02 anytime soon. That's another problem. Everything is always about doom and gloom and that we have to ACT NOW to prevent something that scientists themselves admit they don't understand properly.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 09:25 PM   #281
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Your article comes straight from science and public policy institute
Quote:
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President.

(It is worth noting that in the late 1990's, George Carlo founded a group known as the "Science and Public Policy Institute" to work on issues such as electro-magnetic radiation and health issues. Approximately eight years later Ferguson founded his group with the identical name, oblivious to the existence of Carlo's group. Ferguson states that after registering his organization in Virginia he discovered that Carlo's group existed but by then his group had created the website and printed their stationery).

The website of Ferguson's SPPI draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.

Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

SPPI describes itself as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science." It also proclaims that it is "free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry."
Science and Public Policy Institute - SourceWatch

It is a political lobby group, the "paper" that you produced isn't peer reviewed science, it's a cherry picked literature review promulgated by a climate sceptic think tank.

Here is a proper paper on the subject.

Orr, J.C. et al. "Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms", published in Nature in 2005
Quote:
Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.
https://www.up.ethz.ch/people/ngrube...orr_nat_05.pdf
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-09-2009, 09:41 PM   #282
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Another review of the e-mails from Peter Sinclair

YouTube - Smacking the Hack Attack

and a clearinghouse for the e-mail leaks

SwiftHack
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-10-2009, 02:09 AM   #283
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
We don't know everything about the climate system, but we can say with confidence that our carbon dioxide emissions are effecting climates and will have an impact on ocean acidity. The implication of having a complex and dynamic climate system isn't that you can ignore an input (such as more CO2), but that we will have unforseen outcomes that ripple through the system; pushing climate beyond 2 degrees will impact the biosphere and it could trigger a mass extinction.
Even if true, do we have to accept only the most catastrophic projections? Even if we lose land to higher sea levels and suffer droughts in Africa aren't we going to reclaim land (including minerals, coal and oil) previously covered by ice? Won't we have longer growing seasons and other benefits.

Even if true, is the prudent course to forfeit our sovereignty over to unelected international bodies to police and regulate energy usage around the globe?

Even if true, should we really be burdening our economy with even higher taxes during a world-wide recession. Should we really be talking about capping fossil fuels before we have viable replacement energies which would have the effect of choking-off future economic growth and prosperity? (A hidden agenda behind all this anyway I would argue or green advocates would have been trumpeting nuclear energy for the past 15 years-- which most of them still don't)

Even if true, rather than take trillions of dollars out of the economy wouldn't the best course be to stay prosperous and strong as an nation so we can quickly adapt to the temperature that will be higher regardless of what we do? Invest in relocation and dykes and possible solutions for water shortages. As well as high tech or bio projects to lower the albido of the planet to lower the temperature.

Quote:
I used obscurantist to highlight the way that your side deliberately minimises and obscures climate science for political ends, something that the scientific community is able to moderate with its system of checks.
System of checks? This is what Ronald Bailey said in Reason Magazine about Climategate

Quote:
In another set of troubling emails, the CRU crew and associates discussed how to freeze out researchers and editors who expressed doubts about the man-made climate change. For example, an email from CRU’s leader Phil Jones saying that he and Kevin Trenberth would keep two dissenting scientific articles out of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s next report "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" In addition, the CRU crew evidently plotted to remove journal editors with whom they disagreed and suppress the publication of articles that they disliked. If they actually succeeded, this compounds the tragedy. Eliminating dissenting voices distorts the peer review process and the resulting scientific literature.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 12-10-2009, 02:26 AM   #284
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:47 AM
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 12-10-2009, 02:34 AM   #285
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:47 PM
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2008 International Conference on Climate Change purpleoscar Free Your Mind 19 04-17-2009 07:56 PM
New York Times: Cool the Hype MaxFisher Free Your Mind Archive 17 03-18-2007 06:09 PM
If You Wear A ONE White Band.... Jamila Free Your Mind Archive 18 05-27-2005 07:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com