Page 50 of 94 FirstFirst ... 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ... LastLast
Results 1,226 to 1,250 of 2341
  1. #1226
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    Cherry picking cunt you are

    From your link;
    "The institute believes that snow had caused poor ventilation around the thermometers at the site, wrongly boosting the temperature.

    The record temperature ever recorded at Summit is 2.2C, which was reached in both 2012 and 2017. But -2C is still unusual at the station.

    "It's not a record, but -2C is still warm," Damberg said. "It was the heat that lay around Europe that moved up to Iceland and on to Greenland."

    Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist at the institute, told The Local that the revised temperature figure did not affect the institute's estimate that the ice cap lost a record 12.5bn tons of ice in just 24 hours last week, which triggered headlines across the world.

    "This does not alter our ice melt figures at all," she said in an email to The Local, pointing out that while the temperature measurement was taken at about 2m above the ice, her group was "largely interested in the surface temperature".
    Are you serious? You don't think there is a big difference between claiming a record temperature was broken in Greenland when it was actually 4.2'C under the record. I can see the headlines now, instead of "Greenland records highest temperature on record," it's "Greenland records warm day in the summer!"

    How exactly is this cherry picking? I provided this link in response to a post about the falsely claimed warmest day on record in Greenland.

  2. #1227
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick View Post
    As a non-liberal, and ‘willing to listen’ neutral I have to say that it appears to me that you’ve lost this debate. In particular because of your use of inferior sources. Find someone that isn’t blatantly motivated by an agenda and we might be able to have a debate again, but I doubt that will happen.

    People are having a hard time understanding that I am not using any of these inferior sources as the source of my position. I am not relying on them for analysis. I have used them as links to papers that support my position.

    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    People are having a hard time understanding that I am not using any of these inferior sources as the source of my position. I am not relying on them for analysis. I have used them as links to papers that support my position.

    I'm not going to be able to provide articles from the NYT, WP, and co because they won't run anything that might question the global warming position. A major frustration of mine is that everyone loves to denounce reliability of any source that questions the global warming narrative, but no one ever considers the bias coming from the pro-global warming sources. A perfect example of this is the recent Dorian coverage. How many major news media sources ran hysterical Dorian global warming stories that do not support the consensus on hurricanes?

  3. #1228
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    What fucking difference does it make whether the glaciers are melting more or calving more. Ice mass is lost either way. And warming is responsible for the increased calving by accelerating the flow of the glacier into the sea.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo765

    I don't usually debate you on a point by point basis but you're arguing about whether there's more loss due to calving or melting is such a perfect example of how you try to use an insignificant point to (unsuccessfully) discredit the person you are debating while totally ignoring the big picture.
    It doesn't matter, he asked me to point out what he got wrong so I did.

  4. #1229
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,111
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    People are having a hard time understanding that I am not using any of these inferior sources as the source of my position. I am not relying on them for analysis. I have used them as links to papers that support my position.

    I'm not going to be able to provide articles from the NYT, WP, and co because they won't run anything that might question the global warming position. A major frustration of mine is that everyone loves to denounce reliability of any source that questions the global warming narrative, but no one ever considers the bias coming from the pro-global warming sources.
    Virtually every one of the websites to which you've linked have been identified as misrepresenting data. Claiming an added layer of indirection doesn't really reinforce your credibility.

    So while you claim that you can't look to the NYT, WaPo, etc, those institutions have orders of magnitude better reputation for attempting to report the facts.

    I agree that climate change is extremely fashionable and drives irrational and emo reactions. But even those like Lomberg, who has also been discredited to a scientific extent, accept that AGW is occurring. Some such pundits claim there's an over reaction, which may be so.

    One guy who I like a lot in the shitstorm of climate change is Cliff Mass. He does a fantastic job of sticking to scientific constructs and criticizes many sources of climate hysteria to the extent that some of the more neoliberal pundits around attack him for not insisting that climate change is obviously manifest in current weather events. Good guy.

    Anyway, like I said, debate can be healthy in the absence of personal attacks.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  5. #1230
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    There is zero analysis from NTZ in my link. It is simply screenshotting graphs and abstracts on papers about the MWP in 2019.
    Your source, and not for the first time, did a lot more than screenshotting graphs and abstracts, they purposefully misrepresented the scientific literature.

    And in your followup you did make an attempt at analysis and fell flat.

    Your own source, the "Evolution of land surface air temperature trend" paper, shows how in the second half of the of the twentieth century a warming period began affecting almost the entire planet at the same time.

    I mean, this is the first line from your own paper, "The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century."


    You've been raging in this thread about how nothing unprecedented is happening but according to your analysis and source the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate.

  6. #1231
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I am not relying on them for analysis.
    The funny thing is, when you do make an attempt at analysis your attempts often fail.

    You are not only losing these debates, you're losing your own debates with yourself.



    In any case, this is what the most recent preponderance of evidence indicates:

    1. Average global temperatures are higher now than ever before in at least 2,000 years
    2. A warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time
    3. The speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today

  7. #1232
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,303
    Maybe it's time to talk about that other scientific conspiracy... that false evolution thing. It's only natural we segue to that since ron can prove it's totally false just like global warming..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  8. #1233
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,960
    Not me buddy. I'm gonna stay so far away from all that crap I might fall off the edge of the earth.

  9. #1234
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    in a frozen jungle
    Posts
    2,144
    Scientists now have decisive molecular evidence that humans and chimpanzees once had a common momma and that this lineage had previously split from monkeys.

  10. #1235
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,862
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Dilbert Cripto.JPG 
Views:	37 
Size:	120.9 KB 
ID:	293453

    this belongs on every page

  11. #1236
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,146
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  12. #1237
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    ^^ the climate scientists on Twitter are furious about this article, saying Franzen gets the science wrong.

    Michael Mann:
    "Hey @NewYorker, I fixed the headline for you:
    "What if we stopped pretending that false prophecies of unavoidable doom are anything other than crypto-denialist narratives that favor an agenda of inaction?" (see: washingtonpost.com/opinions/dooms…)"

    Dr Genevieve Guenther:
    There are many problems w the @NewYorker Franzen climate piece. Here are three:

    1) It distorts the science.
    2) It's completely apolitical.
    3) It contradicts itself: is the apocalypse coming or should we all start local farmers markets

    First: the science.

    Franzen claims that climate change will spin "completely out of control" if the planet heats to somwhere around 2°C.

    This is flat-out wrong.

    According to @helixclimate, the EU agency tasked with studying climate impacts from 1.5° to 6°C, the "tipping points" that cause global heating to spin out of control happen at solidly higher temperatures.

    But lest you think that scientists know what they're talking about, Franzen makes sure to attack the legitimacy of the @IPCC_CH.

    The crazy thing, though? Franzen doesn't understand how climate science works.

    (Although I don't know why I'm surprised.)

    Climate scientists don't make "best predictions." Nor do they have most confidence in their "lowest" projected temperature.

    They project temperature across a confidence *range*.

    I get it, I guess, climate science is hard. But if you're going to write about climate science for the @newyorker you should really get it right.

    Moving on to the more serious issue with this essay: did you all notice that it's easier for Franzen to imagine the end of the world than to envision a politics that will change our systems in time to save millions of lives?

    That lack of vision is a choice.

    It's an aesthetic choice.

    It's a political choice.

    These putatively lefty smart boys acting like they're so courageous and manly for accepting the apocalypse?

    They're just lazy and entitled.

    (And selfish, too, also selfish.)

    ...
    Washington Post Reporter Sarah Kaplan
    I'm not linking to that Jonathan Franzen essay (which is not only poorly argued but completely mischaracterizes the scientific understanding of climate change and its impacts on society), BUT...
    1. "Climate Change" is not a bomb that's gonna go off in 2030 if we don't cut emissions. It's an ongoing process (that is already well underway) and every day we don't take action to mitigate it, it gets worse.

    But the flip side of that is: everything we DO do makes it better.
    Yes, a global avg temperature rise of 1.5 degrees will be better and safer for humanity than one of 2 degrees. But a 2 degree world is still better than a 3 degree world, which is better than 4 or 5 or 8. Cutting emissions isn't EVER "pointless."

    2. Framing our response to change as a choice between mitigation and adaptation is misguided. And not a single person who actually spends time thinking about the problem sees it that way. We have to do both.
    3. Franzen wants us to give up on large scale, transformative change and turn inward. He says the global climate catastrophe can't be averted, so we may as well stop caring about the whole world and just focus on ourselves.

    Easy to say for someone who is white, affluent, privileged, protected -- and revealing of how blinkered Franzen's view of the world is.

    Look at the Bahamas right now. What is that except the climate catastrophe, already well underway?

    It's not only inaccurate to suggest that there's salvation to be found by retreating from the world. It's inhumane. It denies the suffering of millions of people we share this world with *right now*. It condemns countless more people to suffering in the future.

    4. If you're struggling with how to feel about climate change, I'd recommend this @DrKateMarvel essay: "Courage is the resolve to do well without the assurance of a happy ending."

    Or read what the poet Alice Major told @MrDanZak:

    “It is an immense privilege to be alive at this time. We owe it to ourselves to try ... and to give meaning to it. Only by understanding our lives as meaningful can we hope to create meaningful change.”

  13. #1238
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,816
    Scientists have been misrepresenting the speed of climate change--by underestimating it.
    There is pressure on scientists to present a consensus to the public, so that evidence that suggest more rapid change is suppressed. It is felt that if there is any disagreement among scientists this will be used as evidence to undermine the credibility of all scientists. There is pressure from the denier community so scientists tend to downplay the most alarming evidence--so as not to be labeled alarmists.
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...limate-change/

    The internet has given us a world in which everyone has access to information, but all information and all sources are considered equally valid, where education, training, and experience count for nothing, where expertise is relabeled as elitism, and everyone's opinion is equally valid, where everyone is assumed to have an agenda, and where everyone is part of a conspiracy.

  14. #1239
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    Virtually every one of the websites to which you've linked have been identified as misrepresenting data. Claiming an added layer of indirection doesn't really reinforce your credibility.

    So while you claim that you can't look to the NYT, WaPo, etc, those institutions have orders of magnitude better reputation for attempting to report the facts.

    I agree that climate change is extremely fashionable and drives irrational and emo reactions. But even those like Lomberg, who has also been discredited to a scientific extent, accept that AGW is occurring. Some such pundits claim there's an over reaction, which may be so.

    One guy who I like a lot in the shitstorm of climate change is Cliff Mass. He does a fantastic job of sticking to scientific constructs and criticizes many sources of climate hysteria to the extent that some of the more neoliberal pundits around attack him for not insisting that climate change is obviously manifest in current weather events. Good guy.

    Anyway, like I said, debate can be healthy in the absence of personal attacks.
    Virtually every one? Not even close. What is there beside NTZ and climatechangedispatch? I'm happy to throw out the NTZ link if that will make everyone happy, I don't need it for my position. There is nothing wrong with my climatechangedispatch link. The 97% consensus has been thoroughly debunked, that link conglomerates all the evidence.

    The majority of scientists who get characterized as 'deniers' believe AGW is occuring.

    I don't know why you keep bringing up the personal attacks bit with me. I have tried to avoid them.

  15. #1240
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Your source, and not for the first time, did a lot more than screenshotting graphs and abstracts, they purposefully misrepresented the scientific literature.

    And in your followup you did make an attempt at analysis and fell flat.

    Your own source, the "Evolution of land surface air temperature trend" paper, shows how in the second half of the of the twentieth century a warming period began affecting almost the entire planet at the same time.

    I mean, this is the first line from your own paper, "The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century."


    You've been raging in this thread about how nothing unprecedented is happening but according to your analysis and source the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate.
    Then dismiss the NTZ link, I don't need it. The "Evolution of land surface air temperature trend" paper is not public, so I was relying on this summary from ScienceDaily: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0504133207.htm

    The summary does not support your position that a warming period is now affecting the whole globe for the first time. Nor do the land graphs from the paper:
    Name:  Warming-rate-of-global-land-surface-air-temperature-a-g-The-instantaneous-warming-rate.png
Views: 109
Size:  726.7 KB
    Warming rate of global land surface air temperature. a–g, The instantaneous warming rate of the secular trend in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2009, respectively. h, The spatial structure of the warming rate based on the time-unvarying linear trend over the whole data domain from 1901 to 2009.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Spatial-evolution-of-the-ensemble-empirical-mode-decomposition-trend-of-global-land.png 
Views:	30 
Size:	726.0 KB 
ID:	293525
    Spatial evolution of the ensemble empirical mode decomposition trend of global land surface air temperature. a–g, Ensemble empirical mode decomposition trends ending in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2009, respectively. h, The spatial structure of temperature increase based on time-unvarying linear trend over the whole data domain from 1901 to 2009.

    "The global climate has been experiencing significant warming at an unprecedented pace in the past century" statement is not a conclusion from the paper. They are relying on the IPCC for that statement.

  16. #1241
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    The funny thing is, when you do make an attempt at analysis your attempts often fail.

    You are not only losing these debates, you're losing your own debates with yourself.



    In any case, this is what the most recent preponderance of evidence indicates:

    1. Average global temperatures are higher now than ever before in at least 2,000 years
    2. A warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time
    3. The speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. None of these claims fit the bill.

  17. #1242
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    base of the Bush
    Posts
    10,951
    www.apriliaforum.com

    "If the road You followed brought you to this,of what use was the road"?

    "I have no idea what I am talking about but would be happy to share my biased opinions as fact on the matter. "
    Ottime

  18. #1243
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    The summary does not support your position that a warming period is now affecting the whole globe for the first time. Nor do the land graphs from the paper:
    The paper does, though. The paper describes how the global warming trend has evolved from lots of spatial variability to an unvarying trend. And the paper (2014) describes data through 2009, we've had another decade of warming since then.

    The charts show the same. If you look at item "g" on the charts showing the warming trend and the warming rate for the 2009 decade anyone, well almost anyone, can clearly see warming is affecting almost the entire planet at the same time.

    Can you even read a chart?

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. None of these claims fit the bill.
    Um, your own charts, from your own paper clearly show the warming the trend.

    Figure 3 from your paper illustrates the evolution of the warming trend:

    Name:  spatio-variabilty.png
Views: 104
Size:  43.9 KB

    You can see from your own source how the bands of warming expand and merge to cover nearly the entire planet.
    Last edited by MultiVerse; 09-09-2019 at 04:01 PM.

  19. #1244
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    "Do scientists agree on climate change?
    "Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here."

    https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-s...limate-change/

    READ MORE

    Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming​
    “The scientific consensus on climate change,” N. Oreskes, Science, Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686, doi: 10.1126/science.1103618 (2004).
    “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” J. Cook et al., Environ. Res. Lett., 8 024024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 (2013).
    ADDITIONAL CITATIONS

    "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming Environ," J. Cook et al., Res. Lett. 11 (2016) 048002, pp 1–7, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 (2016).

    "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," P. Doran et al., EOS, Vol. 90, Issue 3, Pages 22–23, doi: 10.1029/2009EO030002 (2009).

    "Expert credibility in climate change," W. Anderegg et al., PNAS, Vol. 107 no. 27, 12107–12109, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107 (2010).

    "Meteorologists' Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members," N. Stenhouse et al., Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 95 No. 7, pp 1029–1040, doi: 10.1175/ BAMS-D-13-00091.1 (2014).

    "Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming," B. Verheggen et al., Environ. Sci. Technol., 48 (16), pp 8963–8971, doi: 10.1021/es501998e (2014).

    "The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists," J.S. Carlton et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 094025, pp 1–12, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025 (2015).

  20. #1245
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    "No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts"

    The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

    Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.

    It had previously been thought that similarly dramatic peaks and troughs might have occurred in the past, including in periods dubbed the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Climate Anomaly. But the three studies use reconstructions based on 700 proxy records of temperature change, such as trees, ice and sediment, from all continents that indicate none of these shifts took place in more than half the globe at any one time.

    The Little Ice Age, for example, reached its extreme point in the 15th century in the Pacific Ocean, the 17th century in Europe and the 19th century elsewhere, says one of the studies. This localisation is markedly different from the trend since the late 20th century when records are being broken year after year over almost the entire globe, including this summer’s European heatwave.

    Major temperature shifts in the distant past are also likely to have been primarily caused by volcanic eruptions, according to another of the studies, which helps to explain the strong global fluctuations in the first half of the 18th century as the world started to move from a volcanically cooled era to a climate warmed by human emissions. This has become particularly pronounced since the late 20th century, when temperature rises over two decades or longer have been the most rapid in the past two millennia, notes the third.

    The authors say this highlights how unusual warming has become in recent years as a result of industrial emissions.

    “There is no doubt left – as has been shown extensively in many other studies addressing many different aspects of the climate system using different methods and data sets,” said Stefan Brönnimann, from the University of Bern and the Pages 2K consortium of climate scientists.

    Commenting on the study, other scientists said it was an important breakthrough in the “fingerprinting” task of proving how human responsibility has changed the climate in ways not seen in the past.

    “This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London.

    Previous studies have shown near unanimity among climate scientists that human factors – car exhausts, factory chimneys, forest clearance and other sources of greenhouse gases – are responsible for the exceptional level of global warming.

    A 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters found 97% of climate scientists agreed with this link in 12,000 academic papers that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change” from 1991 to 2011. Last week, that paper hit 1m downloads, making it the most accessed paper ever among the 80+ journals published by the Institute of Physics, according to the authors.

    The pushback has been political rather than scientific. In the US, the rightwing thinktank the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is reportedly putting pressure on Nasa to remove a reference to the 97% study from its webpage. The CEI has received event funding from the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers and Charles Koch Institute, which have much to lose from a transition to a low-carbon economy.

    But among academics who study the climate, the convergence of opinion is probably strengthening, according to John Cook, the lead author of the original consensus paper and a follow-up study on the “consensus about consensus” that looked at a range of similar estimates by other academics.

    He said that at the end of his 20-year study period there was more agreement than at the beginning: “There was 99% scientific consensus in 2011 that humans are causing global warming.” With ever stronger research since then and increasing heatwaves and extreme weather, Cook believes this is likely to have risen further and is now working on an update.

    “As expertise in climate science increases, so too does agreement with human-caused global warming,” Cook wrote on the Skeptical Science blog. “The good news is public understanding of the scientific consensus is increasing. The bad news is there is still a lot of work to do yet as climate deniers continue to persistently attack the scientific consensus.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ming-passes-99

  21. #1246
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,146
    Which makes us question, what is Ron's motive for being a denialist?
    Just contrarian by nature?
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  22. #1247
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,190
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$

  23. #1248
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,960
    Yeah in one way or another money is the motivator here. Probably not direct payment, more likely a business interest of some sort.

  24. #1249
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    The charts show the same. If you look at item "g" on the charts showing the warming trend and the warming rate for the 2009 decade anyone, well almost anyone, can clearly see warming is affecting almost the entire planet at the same time.

    Can you even read a chart?
    So in other words, A "warming period is NOT affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time?"


    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Um, your own charts, from your own paper clearly show the warming the trend.

    Figure 3 from your paper illustrates the evolution of the warming trend:

    Name:  spatio-variabilty.png
Views: 104
Size:  43.9 KB

    You can see from your own source how the bands of warming expand and merge to cover nearly the entire planet.
    That chart averages the warming based on latitude, but if we look at the earth graphic we can see that nearly all latitudes have areas of no warming or cooling.

  25. #1250
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    Which makes us question, what is Ron's motive for being a denialist?
    Just contrarian by nature?
    Or just went down the rabbit hole and is unwilling to update his prior beliefs.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •