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.
See more
See less

CO2 Good

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CO2 Good

    The left has been very successful in demonizing any person or organization that disagrees with any tenet of AGW orthodoxy, so that the very fact that the following comes to us from James Delingpole via Breitbart London is ipso facto reason enough to totally dismiss it without reading it ― unless only to debunk it.

    I am far from persuaded that the atheistic ideological left has exclusive ownership of reliable science and opinion on this issue or any other issue, and I find voices that dissent from the reigning, rigidly enforced, and lavishly funded orthodox dogma to be quite refreshing and interesting to consider.

    "Climate change" is a theory for which there is "no scientific proof at all" says the co-founder of Greenpeace. And the green movement has become a "combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one."


    Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method.

    "The certainty among many scientists that humans are the main cause of climate change, including global warming, is not based on the replication of observable events. It is based on just two things, the theoretical effect of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide, and the predictions of computer models using those theoretical calculations. There is no scientific "proof" at all."

    Moore goes on to list some key facts about "climate change" which are ignored by true believers.
    1. The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.

    2. The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.

    3. There was an Ice Age 450 million years ago when CO2 was about 10 times higher than it is today.

    4. Humans evolved in the tropics near the equator. We are a tropical species and can only survive in colder climates due to fire, clothing and shelter.

    5. CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth. All green plants use CO2 to produce the sugars that provide energy for their growth and our growth. Without CO2 in the atmosphere carbon-based life could never have evolved.

    6. The optimum CO2 level for most plants is about 1600 parts per million, four times higher than the level today. This is why greenhouse growers purposely inject the CO2-rich exhaust from their gas and wood-fired heaters into the greenhouse, resulting in a 40-80 per cent increase in growth.

    7. If human emissions of CO2 do end up causing significant warming (which is not certain) it may be possible to grow food crops in northern Canada and Russia, vast areas that are now too cold for agriculture.

    8. Whether increased CO2 levels cause significant warming or not, the increased CO2 levels themselves will result in considerable increases in the growth rate of plants, including our food crops and forests.

    9. There has been no further global warming for nearly 18 years during which time about 25 per cent of all the CO2 ever emitted by humans has been added to the atmosphere. How long will it remain flat and will it next go up or back down? Now we are out of the realm of facts and back into the game of predictions.

    Moore makes his remarks in the foreword to a new book by bestselling Australian geologist Dr Ian Plimer called Not For Greens. The book describes the various, complex industrial processes which go into the making of just a single teaspoon, starting with the mining of various metals [a process which the "Greens" adamantly oppose -JR; see here].

  • #2
    On the other hand:
    http://mediamatters.org/research/201...r-green/198266
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
    “not all there” - you know who you are

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post


      Media Matters is a George Soros funded organization that Hillary Clinton co-founded to monitor all non-leftist communications organizations for the purpose of taking things out of context in order to smear what Hillary called the "vast right wing conspiracy" that, according to Hillary, was responsible for Bill Clinton's sexual escapades with women such as Monica Lewinsky et al.

      I read the whole link, but I may have missed the substantive rebuttal to Moore's nine points. I don't recall anything other than a smear piece against Moore. No surprise: that is all Media Matters exists to produce.

      I read rather carefully this Wikipedia article on Moore, which affirms that Moore was indeed one of the founders of Greenpeace ― a fact that is denied in the Media Matter hit piece: "Patrick Moore Is Not A Co-Founder Of Greenpeace. Moore frequently portrays himself as a co-founder of Greenpeace, a title often repeated by the media. But Moore was not a co-founder, as explained by Greenpeace".

      From the Wikipedia article:

      Furthermore, promoting nuclear energy is a good thing from my perspective. The nuclear plant just up the road from my house provides clean energy that mitigates the nearly 50% dependence of the nation's electric power grid on coal fired power plants, which the EPA is trying to eliminate by means of regulatory mandates to fulfill Obama's stated goal of getting rid of this source of energy. What is going to replace this nearly 50% source of all the electric power production in the USA?
      Last edited by John Reece; 06-24-2014, 08:38 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Patrick Moore is a paid lobbyist.
        http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...d-information/
        See "own words" on trusting lobbyists.

        Have a look at his statement of Feb 25, 2014.
        http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...5-ae3951197d03

        Para 4 – Nobody claims scientific proof. We are actually watching an experiment in progress and trying to discover trends by using computer models. The experiment is not repeatable and it cannot be stopped. In that situation, it is important not to be reckless.
        Last edited by firstfloor; 06-25-2014, 03:14 AM.
        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
        “not all there” - you know who you are

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
          Good for Patrick Moore; no crime or sin in being a lobbyist for a good cause (i.e., nuclear energy).

          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
          Have a look at his statement of Feb 25, 2014.
          http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...5-ae3951197d03
          Wow! Thanks for the link, ff. That is a marvelous contribution to this thread:
          Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D.

          Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight
          February 25, 2014

          “Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”

          Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.

          In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.

          After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.

          There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)

          “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

          These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

          Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

          Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5oC. This compares with a low of about 12oC during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22oC during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

          Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5oC over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57oC during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

          The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?

          It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2oC rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

          I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.

          If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.

          Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.

          Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”. I would request it be made part of the record.

          Note: The book chapter referenced by Patrick Moore ― at the end of his testimony above ― is reproduced immediately after said testimony at the link so helpfully provided by firstfloor: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...5-ae3951197d03.

          Thanks, firstfloor!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by John Reece View Post


            Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5oC over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57oC during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

            The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?
            Now this is interesting. If the increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was not man made, then what did cause it? And could that be the same reason for the temperature rise between 1970-2000?
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              I propose to reproduce serial excerpts from the chapter in Patrick Moore's book to which firstfloor so helpfully linked (here).
              Excerpted from:

              Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist

              Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Published 2013 chapter twenty-one

              Climate of Fear
              If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. 
—Sir Francis Bacon

              The global media tells us plainly and bluntly that the vast majority of the world’s scientists believe we are headed for a climate catastrophe that will devastate human civilization and the environment. We have no choice but to act immediately to save ourselves from this apocalypse. The greatest threat is the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels and cutting forests. Fossil fuel use must be cut by 80 percent or more, and we must stop cutting trees. How should we react to this warning?

              The subject of climate change, also referred to as global warming, is perhaps the most complex scientific issue we have ever attempted to resolve. Hundreds, possibly thousands of factors influence the earth’s climate, many in ways we do not fully understand. So, first, let us recognize that the science of climate is not settled. In fact, we are only beginning to understand how the earth’s climate works.

              To be continued...
              Last edited by John Reece; 06-25-2014, 04:38 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                Thanks, firstfloor!
                You are entirely welcome Mr. Reece.
                “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                “not all there” - you know who you are

                Comment


                • #9
                  Continued from post #7 above ↑

                  Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted]:
                  It is not correct to use the terms global warming and climate change as if they were interchangeable. Global warming is a very specific term meaning exactly what it says, that the average temperature of the earth is increasing over time. Climate change is a much more general term that includes many factors. For one thing the climate is always changing, whereas it is not always getting warmer. The old maxim “the only constant is change” fits perfectly here. And as the belief in human-caused global warming has come into doubt the term climate change has been adopted as a substitute, even though it means something completely different.

                  It is one thing to claim increases in CO2 cause global warming and quite another to claim increases in CO2 cause:
                  • Higher temperatures
                  • Lower temperatures
                  • More snow and blizzards
                  • Drought, fire, and floods
                  • Rising sea levels
                  • Disappearing glaciers
                  • Loss of sea ice at the poles
                  • Species extinction
                  • More and stronger storms
                  • More storm damage
                  • More volcanic eruptions
                  • Dying forests
                  • Death of coral reefs and shellfish
                  • Shutting down the Gulf Stream
                  • Fatal heat waves
                  • More heat-related illness and disease
                  • Crop failure and food shortages
                  • Millions of climate change refugees
                  • Increased cancer, cardiovascular disease, mental illness, and respiratory disease
                  • And, a devastating effect on the quality of French wines

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Oh NOOOOO! Not the French wine!!!!!


































                    Sorry, couldn't resist...

                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      Oh NOOOOO! Not the French wine!!!!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted; color emphasis added by JR]:
                        The science of climatology is only a few decades old. It is not a single science but rather an interdisciplinary cluster of sciences. These include meteorology (the study of weather), atmospheric chemistry, astrophysics and cosmic rays, geology and other earth sciences, oceanography, carbon cycling through all living species, soil science, geology, climate history through the millennia, ice ages and greenhouse ages, study of the sun, knowledge of earth wobbles, magnetic fields and orbital variations, etc. All of these disciplines are interrelated in complex, dynamic patterns that cannot be reduced to a simple equation. That is why climatologists have built very complicated computer models in the hope of predicting future climatic conditions. .... The most prominent and formally structured group is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the scientists, scholars, activists, and politicians who associate themselves with this organization. The IPCC was created in 1988 as a partnership between the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, put simply, meteorologists and environmentalists. Members of this group generally believe humans are causing global warming, that we are changing the climate, and this will generally be negative for civilization and the environment. They claim to represent an “overwhelming consensus among climate scientists.”

                        The IPCC is rather insular, believing its members are the only true climate scientists and that those who disagree with them are either some other kind of scientists, or not really scientists at all. Thus there is a self- defined overwhelming, even unanimous, consensus because they don’t recognize the legitimacy of those who disagree with them. In 2007 the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report, which stated, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human- caused) greenhouse gas concentrations.”

                        At the other end of this spectrum there is a considerable contingent of scientists and scholars, largely schooled in the earth and astronomical sciences, who believe climate is largely influenced by natural forces and cycles. They were not organized into an official body until 2007 when the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was formed in Vienna. Led by atmospheric scientist Dr. Fred Singer, the NIPCC published “Climate Change Reconsidered,” a comprehensive scientific critique of the IPCC’s findings, in 2009. This report was signed by more than 31,000 American scientists and concluded, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Clearly there is no overwhelming consensus among scientists on the subject of climate. In my opinion the believers and the skeptics of human-caused, catastrophic climate change can be roughly divided between those who see history in very recent terms (years to thousands of years) and those who see history in the long term (thousands to hundreds of millions of years). Both meteorologists and environmentalists tend to think about weather and climate in terms of recent human history. Geologists, evolutionary biologists, and astrophysicists tend to think of climate in the context of the 3.5 billion-year history of life and the 4.6 billion-year history of the Earth.

                        To be continued...
                        Last edited by John Reece; 06-27-2014, 05:38 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                          In that situation, it is important not to be reckless.
                          I agree with something ff said? To take all the stupid actions the warming fanatics want, and liberals are already taking is stupidly reckless. As a self proclaimed wise man once said "We are actually watching an experiment in progress . . . "
                          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Continued from last post #12 above ↑

                            Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted; color emphasis added]:
                            The various camps have invented some names for each other and for themselves. Pretty much everyone involved thinks they are “climate scientists.” But people who are convinced we are the main cause of climate change have been dubbed “true believers” and “warmists,” highlighting what are seen to be religious and ideological orientations, respectively. People who are undecided, critical, or questioning are called “skeptics.” The skeptics are happy with this description as it indicates they have an open mind and as scientists they believe they have a duty to challenge un-proven hypotheses. The true believers use the word skeptic as a slur, as in “unbelievers,” as if it is unacceptable to question their beliefs. Then there are the “climate deniers,” or “denialists,” terms invented by the true believers, and characterized by skeptics as associating them with Holocaust deniers. Much of this is just name-calling, but it is useful in the sense that it defines the battleground.

                            Over the years the media have largely ignored the scientists and organizations that remain skeptical of human-caused global warming and climate change. The public has been inundated with alarmist headlines about catastrophic climate change and many governments have bought into the belief there is a global emergency that must be addressed quickly and decisively. As with fear of chemicals, fear of climate change results in a convergence of interests among activists seeking funding, scientists applying for grants, the media selling advertising, businesses promoting themselves as green, and politicians looking for votes. It may not be a conspiracy, but it is a very powerful alignment that is mutually reinforcing.

                            To be continued...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Continued from last post above ↑

                              Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted; color emphasis added]:
                              In 2007 the IPCC and one of its main champions, Al Gore, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for alerting the world to the dire threat of human-caused climate change. One would imagine the public would strongly support this alarmist position, having been exposed to such one-sided media coverage and the news of prestigious awards. Amazingly this is not the case, even in countries such as the United States and England, where the official government positions are sharply accepting of catastrophic human-caused warming.

                              A Pew Foundation poll conducted in October 2009 found only 36 percent of the general public in the United States believes humans are the cause of global warming, whereas 33 percent does not believe the earth is warming and 16 percent believe the earth is warming but that it is due to natural causes. Public opinion was sharply divided along partisan lines: 50 percent of Democrats believe global warming is caused by humans, while 33 percent of independents, and only 18 percent of Republicans agree with this. The trend since 2007 is decidedly downwards with about 10 percent fewer people believing in human-caused global warming in all categories.

                              Another Pew Foundation poll taken in May 2010 asked Americans to rank priorities for Congress. It found only 32 percent think it is very important for Congress to address climate change in the coming months, including 47 percent of Democrats, 29 percent of independents, and 17 percent of Republicans.

                              The partisan spread mirrors the poll on belief in human-caused climate change almost perfectly. This is a strong indication that the reason a majority is not concerned about climate change legislation is because it doesn’t believe in human-caused climate change in the first place.

                              A poll taken by Ipsos Mori in June 2008 found 60 percent of Britons believed, “many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change.” Clearly a majority of the British public does not believe there is a scientific certainty on the subject.

                              A more recent British poll in February 2010, again taken by Ipsos Mori, showed that only 17 percent of Britons put climate change in their top three most important issues facing them and their families.

                              In one of the most surprising surveys taken, 121 U.S. television weather presenters, all members of the American Meteorological Society, were asked their opinions on climate change in April 2010. Ninety-four percent of those surveyed were accredited meteorologists. When asked about the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s statement, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced,” a full 50 percent either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Twenty-five percent were neutral and only 24 percent said they agreed or strongly agreed.

                              In April 2013 a US Department of Agriculture-funded survey of US Midwest corn farmer’s beliefs in climate change was published. 18,800 farmers with an income of US$100,000 or more were polled, of whom 26 percent responded (4,778). Only 8 percent of these farmers, who spend their lives in the weather and the climate, agreed with the statement, “Climate change is occurring and it is caused mostly by human activities.” In other words, 92 percent of corn farmers do not believe humans are the main cause of climate change. I say give them all honorary doctorates of science.

                              To be continued...

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by LiconaFan97, Today, 04:56 PM
                              15 responses
                              51 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Started by Juvenal, Today, 11:08 AM
                              8 responses
                              47 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Juvenal
                              by Juvenal
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 08:52 AM
                              6 responses
                              56 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 10:59 PM
                              11 responses
                              262 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:50 PM
                              24 responses
                              152 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Working...
                              X