Originally posted by Leonhard
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYou know, I'm on your side on this subject, but in my opinion, you haven't made at all a compelling case. If these emails are accurate, then it appears to me that all you're doing is handwaving away some serious issues, including scientists hiding data, and blatantly making this a political issue. I still accept the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, but this post, how you've decided to reply to it, far from reinforcing AGW, has actually produced in me a bit of misgiving.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View Posthas to be well hidden"...that's hiding the work to me. Why would anyone want to hide their work?
Especially on a topic this contentious.
You'd expect that even "intermittent data" would be available for full transparency. He obviously did not make all his data accessible to anyone if he's talking about hiding some of it. Why would you think this is not a big deal? What am I missing here.
The only thing you want access to, if you're going to replicate the findings (something which isn't done enough in science imho), is the raw data. And all the raw data is available to anyone who wants it on request. Again, for the third time, the Berkeley Surface Temperature (BEST) reconstruction effort to try to replicate the hockey stick graph, while carefully vetting the surface temperature stations on a suspicion that heat island effects were plaguing the data sets did just that. They took the raw data, analyzed it and wound up almost exactly replicating it with only negligible differences.
Personally I don't know what research grants they were protecting. That's the fishy part if you ask me.
Well for instance, when citing people who are talking about other scientists not holding the line, and not "helping the cause", you seem completely dismissive. "If there was something about data manipulation here I missed it."
I mean, maybe that's so,
but there shouldn't be any "helping the cause" when it comes to scientific truths. Either climate is changing because of people, or it's not.
They were commissioned to do that.
And it also makes perfect sense because if all they did was write a scientific paper then hardly any politician would read it. So they condensed the message down to a 17-page summary of the state of the field, and there aren't any problems with this summary. Or are you indicating that there are? If you want the full deal you can read the 2000+ page tome of a report, I finished a few hundred pages of various parts of it. There's interesting details in that report you won't find the summary, such as dangerous possible developments regarding sea level rise, that were possible, but not deemed likely enough to make it into the summary, which was highly conservative picking only the things deemed most certain.
I'm not handwaving here either, this was basically what they were doing. The politicians had asked the scientists to summarize their results in a way that they could easily read. And the scientists offered that. I can't see anything unreasonable about that request.
I will agree that the scientists talk with urgency. But I really can't get my blood up and boiling about two dozen emails plucked from a list of thirty thousand emails, all picked because of specific words used that would scandalous in isolation. That was exactly my point in the beginning about quote mining.
What kind of insanity is it for a scientist to say that they're "finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose" skeptical scientists?
They had discussion with lawyers about what they were and weren't allowed to share. After several investigations going over those leaked emails, nothing has come out about them having deleted something they were obligated to share.
Again, all the raw data has been made available, all data sources shared. The intermittent work was the only thing not shared, for various reasons we're not privy to.
That sounds like something someone with an agenda would say, not a reputable individual who is attempting to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Again, what am I missing here?
Namely by pretending that they're not a big deal.
And even then, following these events the IPCC have made effort to explicitly include the source code for the software used to calibrate things, as well as all the sources, so that you can reproduce the calculations on your computer, get all the graphs, and get into complete detail about the calibrations made. Each program is stored with an explanation of why the calibrations were made the way they were. So now everything is completely transparent.
Again, I still firmly accept AGW, but jeezow dude, these are some seriously bad optics.
You don't think that's a big deal?
How bout the scientists follow the evidence where it leads,
allowing for full and complete transparency of their work,
and leave the politics to the politicians.
I think they were just human.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostNowhere does he claim hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy. He does claim (accurately) that liberals will use the hurricane as "proof" of global warming.
The reality is by the present evidence scientists believe that the evidence indicates that this no evidence, at present that the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes nor East Pacific cyclones increase through the influence of global warming.
The scientific evidence, at present, the evidence supports that the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones in the West Pacific and Indian Ocean possibly increase, but at present this is inconclusive, and scientists make no claim that there is proof of anything either way. In the past some scientists Warming seas cause stronger hurricanes, [Mega-storms are set to increase as the climate hots up. Michael Hopkin believed warmer seas generate stronger but fewer hurricanes (2006)], but recent research this case 'only possibly' holds in the West Pacific nor the Indian Ocean tropical cyclones. Even scientists that proposed this in the past never claimed there was any 'proof.'
Again can you cite who is making this claim of 'proof' at present? This is important, because scientists do not believe anything can be 'proven' by scientific evidence.Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-17-2017, 03:48 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostYou do understand that they had a full account, of all the data sources used right. Before we move on I want to be absolutely certain that you understand that. No data source was hidden, no model used was hidden, everything was accounted for an explained. What wasn't brought with were the specific FORTRAN77 computer programs that had been written, nor the intermittent data produced by those programs. In the later reports and assesments those have been made available, so now they are. This was also stated in the Final Investigation Report.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThe science of Anthropogenic Climate Change isn't contentious in the scientific community. Its only contentious in the political arena. None the less, politicians who aren't going to explore the models, or use the computer programs, or do anything of that sort have successfully pressured the scientists to even going to the effort of making that available. It is available now. Nothing is hidden.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostDo you understand what he meant by 'intermittent data'? That's the things derived from the source data, but not something that's finalized. Its still being reviewed, the programs generating it, the calibrations, everything, is still being tweaked. I did this for data from Scanning Tunnel Microscopes back when I wrote my thesis. I had the raw data filed and stored, but I was working on extracting a source of noise in the image. So I did a set of 2D fourier transformations and worked out the noise in the picture, a set of vibrations whose harmonics were similar to the the noise given off by a turbopump connected to the chamber. I then carefully subtracted that noise, did a reverse 2D fourier transformation, documented how I had done it, and promptly deleted that data. It'd have been similar if I had written a Phd thesis. And heck, in just about any field of research I don't know of anyone who wants the intermittent data which might have quirks known only to the scientists carefully working with it.
The only thing you want access to, if you're going to replicate the findings (something which isn't done enough in science imho), is the raw data. And all the raw data is available to anyone who wants it on request. Again, for the third time, the Berkeley Surface Temperature (BEST) reconstruction effort to try to replicate the hockey stick graph, while carefully vetting the surface temperature stations on a suspicion that heat island effects were plaguing the data sets did just that. They took the raw data, analyzed it and wound up almost exactly replicating it with only negligible differences.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostPersonally I don't know what research grants they were protecting. That's the fishy part if you ask me.
Well..yeah. That's kinda why this is a big deal I think.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostBecause I had quoted very specifically the claim that Jim Taylor made. I told you that in my former post. His claim that they had openly talked about data manipulation. Mountain Man challenged me on that, so gracefully went back over the post with a comb, trying to find a single thing about data manipulation.
It was the whole point of the post.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThat was already in agreement by that time. These scientists were used to working on their own, quietly, behind a wall of peer-reviewed journals in intense competition to be the first people to publish their results. However, like it or not, and they certainly didn't like it I know from personal contact with one who was involved in it, they had to not only finish a detailed scientific report. Which they did finish, and is openly available. That one represents all the detailed discussions, the bare bones, scientific questions of global warming. They were also to write a summary report, made for easy reading by politicians.
They were commissioned to do that.
And it also makes perfect sense because if all they did was write a scientific paper then hardly any politician would read it. So they condensed the message down to a 17-page summary of the state of the field, and there aren't any problems with this summary. Or are you indicating that there are? If you want the full deal you can read the 2000+ page tome of a report, I finished a few hundred pages of various parts of it. There's interesting details in that report you won't find the summary, such as dangerous possible developments regarding sea level rise, that were possible, but not deemed likely enough to make it into the summary, which was highly conservative picking only the things deemed most certain.
I'm not handwaving here either, this was basically what they were doing. The politicians had asked the scientists to summarize their results in a way that they could easily read. And the scientists offered that. I can't see anything unreasonable about that request.
I will agree that the scientists talk with urgency. But I really can't get my blood up and boiling about two dozen emails plucked from a list of thirty thousand emails, all picked because of specific words used that would scandalous in isolation. That was exactly my point in the beginning about quote mining.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostExpose 'Steven McIntyre', not a skeptical scientist. He isn't a climatologist. There were plenty of discussions about results in those emails. All scientists are skeptical by nature. McIntyre is a crank, who was bombarding them with Freedom of Information requests, namely for their work in progress. Since they knew that he wasn't interested in any scientific discussion, but just wanted a half-finished graph, or a broken model, or anything he could use as a gotcha and launch on his website, they weren't exactly eager to fulfill his request. And I don't blame them.
They had discussion with lawyers about what they were and weren't allowed to share. After several investigations going over those leaked emails, nothing has come out about them having deleted something they were obligated to share.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostYou don't believe cranks exist? He was very active in trying to descredit them. He was not acting in good faith.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostBut they aren't a big deal. They might be shocking to you, but none of them have anything to do with the science. There wasn't a single email talking about data fraud, or data manipulations, despite the allegations made by Mountain Man's sources. That's why I went over that post in the first place. No data sources were deleted, or left out, everything is explicitly stated, ready for replication by any group who want to do that. Which the Berkeley Surface Temperature group did. A full and total report was published, along with summaries for easier reading, so if you want to know just the climate science you have access to that.
And even then, following these events the IPCC have made effort to explicitly include the source code for the software used to calibrate things, as well as all the sources, so that you can reproduce the calculations on your computer, get all the graphs, and get into complete detail about the calibrations made. Each program is stored with an explanation of why the calibrations were made the way they were. So now everything is completely transparent.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI appreciate your concern. I guess I just view scientists as human, capable of getting into all sorts of dirty business. The science is fairly straight forward, has been replicated, and is now published with almost complete transparency.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostNo.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThey were commissioned to make a summary, hence they have to worry about the message it sends and how to be clear, wanting it to reflect as much as possible the big report, which was also made available. Climate change is also very real it turns out, and the models predict somewhat severe results. These are important results. I don't think these researchers should be vulcan like in the face of that. It was very much important for them to finish this work and publish it.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThey did.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThey have.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI'm not sure what to say to that one. All they've done is publish some reports on the research they've done. They really haven't done anything more than that. This work was important to them (its important to me as well), because of the dangers of climate change, and underlines importance of us transitioning to renewables to avoid some of their more severe scenarios. This importance is reflected in their emails.
I think they were just human.
Comment
-
As it is futile for me to replicate my arguments, I'll just state some final points and leave. I'll let Mountain Man have both the first and final word, and you can make a final statement as well if you want.
Originally posted by Adrift View PostWhy would anyone hide any data ever, but especially work that was collected on the back of research grants?
The data that was hidden - and if you want I can provide citation but at the moment its late and I'm kinda exhausted - was the intermittent work. Work in progress. Going forward, extraordinarily, all will be made available, both the raw data and the programs that can transform that data to all the graphs, figures, and statistical analysis used. This wasn't done because had done anything wrong, they've been cleared by multiple independent inquiries, of any academic wrong doing. It was done because of political pressure, so now Rush Limbaugh can finally access the matlab code for the GISS reconstruction.
Should there not always be full transparency when doing scientific work, especially when big money is involved?
I don't believe full transparancy is useful in all cases. A lot of partially finished work could be taken out of context, cited, instead of citing the actual results. Badly configured, or miscalibrated datasets, programs with errors in them. The only people who'd benefit from that kind of work, are coworkers called in to fix or advice on something. Who else needs the unfinished works?
The raw data is what is of interest if you want to try to do replication, and as they are available, they can be used for that, and were used for that.
If that data was no big deal, and they now show up in the later reports, why would he feel the need to hide it earlier?
Oh, stop. You knew exactly what I meant.
However, the IPCC has caved and going forward they'll include both the raw data, as well as complete programs that take that data and produce everything that was used in the report. Its an impressive amount of extra work to do, but they're doing it.
I've never heard of the phrase until this thread. Is it very common in scientific literature?
Honestly, you should have left it out then, because it just worked against your point. ... Wow. Again, your argument here is not at all convincing. But your argument, ... is just nuts man.
....
You replied to his post in an effort to show him (and I'm assuming other readers) how wrong he was, and instead you got one of your readers who is on your side thinking "wow, that's not good." It obviously wasn't your intention, but I wanted you to know that you ended up hurting your point rather than helping it, at least in my case anyways.
...
You did more harm to your argument than you helped
If seeing this was such a shock to you, that scientists are human, that there's competitive streaks to them, that they don't take kindly to people who want to abuse their work and they can be affected by urgency in reporting things, then I think it was a healthy thing for you. Scientists are humans, that's the entire point of having a scientific process. Of having peer review and collaboration. Of having access to the raw data, of sharing and publicizing work and vetting it.
I might just be more used to than you. I'm not sure if I'm sorry that its shaken your confidence in things. Its more important you understand the state of the matter, than that you agree with me. You're an intelligent and rational person Adrift, more so than most, you're well equipped to figure out the answers on your own..
MM is just flinging poo here, hoping to discredit the people, and by extension discredit their work. At the end of the day, regardless of how little they liked McIntyre FOI requests, the question remains about the science. MM, in this entire thread, hasn't shown just a single instance of data manipulation or fraud. At best he's shown that recent calibrations have been made, ignoring that (thanks to the complete transparancy in place now), he and others can get to know exactly why those calibrations were made, what computer programs did them, everything. He hasn't discussed any of that.
In fact MM hasn't really discussed anything, except linking to more stuff. Its been kinda tedious to reply to, and then to be told I'm handwavy, so that's another reason I'm backing out of this thread.
That may not be technically "manipulating data", but it certainly offers motivation to manipulate data.
No.
Jim Taylor specifically charged them with admitting to having manipulated data, and relying on doing that. There's nothing like that in the emails. You haven't seen anything like that, nor have I, and I've read dozens, upon dozens of them. More than there were in the Forbes article. There's just nothing like that. Several inquires have vetted them finding no academic fraud.
First, let me repeat, again, that I am not an AGW denier. I am an AGW believer. ... Again, I'm not abandoning AGW
But your argument, that because there's agreement among the majority of scientists, that that means the science is settled, ... is just nuts man.
If that's what you mean by "talk with urgency", I guess that's good,
And there's just no smoking gun. And people who have vetted the emails, and the multiple investigations that followed haven't found any academic fraud going on. If data was deleted, it was data they weren't obligated to share in the first place.
Huh!? Of course I believe cranks exist. You honestly believe that it's fine for scientists to sick investigative journalists on people who disagree with their work to discredit them in return? Really? You honestly don't see a problem with that, and how it might look to anyone who is attempting to view the whole subject objectively?
You "don't think researchers should be vulcan"?
That is to say, you don't think researchers should be logical, neutral, stoic even when it comes to agendas and research?
I think that objectivity and neutrality ought to be the rule of the day when it comes to science. I just find it absolutely bewildering that a scientist would not agree with that.
No. They hadn't. I literally saw scientist telling some scientists that they should hide data. Literally. It's in a post where you yourself cited it. It might have not seemed like important data, and it might have been data that they eventually did reveal, but don't tell me "they have" when you know full well they hadn't.
The data is there. And I'll say this for the last time, because this was the testimony Dr Mann gave, as well as what inquiries have found, only intermittent work was deleted.
With this I leave. I'll leave Mountain Man to mock if he wishes and you to have final words if you want.
It was nice talking to you Adrift. Cheers.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIn regards to research grants, I don't know what the deal with that was. However no source of data was hidden. The raw data is available. ...
The data that was hidden - and if you want I can provide citation but at the moment its late and I'm kinda exhausted - was the intermittent work.
I don't care if was "raw" data, or "intermittent" data. Data was hidden. You keep acting like "intermittent" data isn't actually data. It is data. It's data that was apparently important enough to be tied to grant money.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostAre we talking science or politics here?
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThe stakes are high on climate science, we all agree with that. US Conservatives, and that's mostly because they run a platform based on 'whatever liberals say we'll say the opposite of', stand to lose face if climate science is vindicated. That's their fault for betting on the wrong horse. Various industries stand to win or lose depending on how governments would shift subsidies around. The coal and oil industry have obviously vested interests in these matters.
I don't believe full transparancy is useful in all cases. A lot of partially finished work could be taken out of context, cited, instead of citing the actual results. Badly configured, or miscalibrated datasets, programs with errors in them. The only people who'd benefit from that kind of work, are coworkers called in to fix or advice on something. Who else needs the unfinished works?
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThe raw data is what is of interest if you want to try to do replication, and as they are available, they can be used for that, and were used for that.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI still have no idea what the talk about grants were about, but no data source was hidden. Again, all the emails, all of them, have been combed over by lawyers by several independent investigations launched by conservatives to find evidence of academic fraud. Nothing was found.
If NO data was hidden, then what is this particular email referring to? Intermittent data? Intermittent data is still data. So you can't say "no data", because we have an example of...data here.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostHowever, the IPCC has caved and going forward they'll include both the raw data, as well as complete programs that take that data and produce everything that was used in the report. Its an impressive amount of extra work to do, but they're doing it.
That sounds to me like a very good thing. Something they should have probably been doing from the start especially if it was going to effect millions of people. We're not talking about the next iteration of the iPhone, we're talking about research that effects entire industries and the economies tied to those industries.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostFrankly it basically never happens that people want the work in progress. There is such a thing as preliminary reports submitted for review, but people almost never cite them, its considered bad form to do with something that isn't finished.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostYou're a serious and dedicated person Adrift, so I know this isn't concern trolling, but it certainly sounds like that to my ears.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIf seeing this was such a shock to you, that scientists are human, that there's competitive streaks to them, that they don't take kindly to people who want to abuse their work and they can be affected by urgency in reporting things, then I think it was a healthy thing for you. Scientists are humans, that's the entire point of having a scientific process. Of having peer review and collaboration. Of having access to the raw data, of sharing and publicizing work and vetting it.
I might just be more used to than you. I'm not sure if I'm sorry that its shaken your confidence in things. Its more important you understand the state of the matter, than that you agree with me. You're an intelligent and rational person Adrift, more so than most, you're well equipped to figure out the answers on your own..
MM is just flinging poo here, hoping to discredit the people, and by extension discredit their work. At the end of the day, regardless of how little they liked McIntyre FOI requests, the question remains about the science. MM, in this entire thread, hasn't shown just a single instance of data manipulation or fraud. At best he's shown that recent calibrations have been made, ignoring that (thanks to the complete transparancy in place now), he and others can get to know exactly why those calibrations were made, what computer programs did them, everything. He hasn't discussed any of that.
In fact MM hasn't really discussed anything, except linking to more stuff. Its been kinda tedious to reply to, and then to be told I'm handwavy, so that's another reason I'm backing out of this thread.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostNo its not, consensus is important within science. We can't claim provisional assent until most sides have agreed on a theory. Until then the question is up for grabs. A consensus has now existed for quite some time on whether mankind if predominately responsible for global warming, which is why its fair to say with provisional assent that this is the best knowledge we have. And to then proceed to react responsible to this knowledge.
But your argument, that because there's agreement among the majority of scientists, that that means the science is settled, and that there's nothing wrong with about scientists condemning other scientists for not "helping the cause", and for sicking investigative journalists on dissenters is just nuts man
The whole sentence is what I was declaring nuts, not just that agreement among the majority of scientists means that science is settled. And anyways, it was my understanding that science can never be settled. The very nature of science means that there's always room to reassess the data as new data comes in or new ways of looking at the same data. We can be very confident, but the word "settled" has an air of permanency that seems to me would be wrong to apply to the sciences.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI'm not saying that what they were doing was something you couldn't be critical of. Nor that they did everything right. If that's all you want me to say, then yes, they could have been more like angels and less like humans.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThey weren't. The question to me is whether there's anything truly incriminating there. Not just something that sounds scandalous, but something that really shows signs of data manipulation, fraud, hoaxing, conspiracy, anything of the things MM and others readily claim that place.
And there's just no smoking gun. And people who have vetted the emails, and the multiple investigations that followed haven't found any academic fraud going on. If data was deleted, it was data they weren't obligated to share in the first place.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostIf a crank was working tirelessly to dig up dirt up on me, discredit the work, and was just sitting harmlessly out in the fringe I wouldn't care. But if he's made a front figure, and readily cited by several uncritical newspapers, I might do something. I'm human, though I wish I was more like an angel and completely impassible.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostNo, they should continue to do their work. They shouldn't speak to each other robotically and artificially. That would be bordering on true madness.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI didn't say anything like that. If you're misunderstanding what I write so severely, I think its best if I stop writing at this point.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostAgain, anyone can reproduce their work if they want.
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostSo what sort of data could they have hidden?
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostThe big stick for climate dissenters is the hockey stick graph, and that was easily and readily reproduced by the Berkeley Temperature Surface group. The basic climate models about carbon dioxide, and the other feedback mechanisms are also readily available. There's not really anything to be hidden.
The data is there. And I'll say this for the last time, because this was the testimony Dr Mann gave, as well as what inquiries have found, only intermittent work was deleted.Last edited by Adrift; 09-17-2017, 05:53 PM.
Comment
-
"I've discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data."
There's the smoking gun. They don't want to release the raw data (referred to here as "original station data"), only the data after it has been "adjusted". I can't believe Leonhard would quote this and then say with a straight face that this is all perfectly acceptable.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI can only speculate why they would, but the evidence shows rather conclusively that they are.
See, the thing is, science isn't a religion for me, so when I'm confronted with evidence of scientific fraud, I can accept it. It's no big deal to me. But you guys? It's basically proof that your "god" doesn't exist, which is almost fatal to your worldview. This is why you guys are reacting so strongly.
There is no doubt about climate change. None! http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/17/us...ntv/index.html
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassmoron View PostThere is no doubt about climate change.
If you mean that man can essentially control the weather then the evidence is pretty conclusive that he can't. The only way to "prove" that sort of "climate change" is to play fast and loose with facts and hope people are so devoted to their science god that they'll never question it.
As for Tyson, he's an idiot if he thinks devastating weather is a recent phenomenon. But of course as an atheist, he has the same desperate need as you for "science" to be omniscient. I don't, so I have no problem with accepting that "The Consensus" got this one wrong. :
Having an open mind is a freeing experience. You should try it sometime.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostNeil deGrasse Tyson, huh. I guess that settles it, then. He's as much of a practicing scientist as Richard Dawkins.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 06:29 AM
|
32 responses
167 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 07:40 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 08:13 PM
|
13 responses
80 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 10:31 PM
|
||
Started by eider, Yesterday, 12:12 AM
|
27 responses
150 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 08:54 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-15-2024, 12:53 PM
|
52 responses
273 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 11:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 06-14-2024, 08:57 PM
|
107 responses
498 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Terraceth
Today, 11:14 PM
|
Comment