Modern warming in perspective

Earthling · Dec 22, 2013

This is why the promise of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is amusing:

jackdog · Dec 23, 2013

Earthling said: ↑

This is why the promise of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is amusing:

Click to expand...

you have to realize the only temps that count are from the end of the Maunder Minimum. Any temperature fluctuation before that are of no consequence

Windigo · Dec 23, 2013

As someone who has long argued for the medieval warm period its always important to remember that relative to the rest of the Holocene the medieval warm period isn't even warm. Its simply warmer than the dark age and little ice age.

Hoosier8 · Dec 23, 2013

Even better. What happens when this interglacial ends?

- - - Updated - - -

It was warmer during the last interglacial.

Hoosier8 · Dec 23, 2013

Sea levels were higher too.

Earthling · Dec 24, 2013

Windigo said: ↑

As someone who has long argued for the medieval warm period its always important to remember that relative to the rest of the Holocene the medieval warm period isn't even warm. Its simply warmer than the dark age and little ice age.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
The Greenland ice sheet survived the approximate 400 year long MWP without completely melting, and it will survive this warm period too.

bobgnote · Dec 25, 2013

Hoosier8 said: ↑

Even better. What happens when this interglacial ends?

It was warmer during the last interglacial.
Click to expand...

That is how CO2 is leading surface temps, as usual.

Temperature should be dropping, while glaciers should all be advancing, NOW, already, since the interglacial should be at an end, TODAY.

Temps are easing up, while perennial ice is melting and evaporating, as GHGs go off the hook.

No other outcome, other than a mass extinction event accompanies a fast rise, in atmospheric CO2.

CO2 is going up, faster, than at any other time, in geologic history, accompanied, by any other natural GHGs, which it triggers, and by industrial GHGs, including many, which do not degrade.

Sorry about the Kochs and Exxon ditching Heartland, after all. What a shame . . . boo-freaking-hoo . . . I guess it's X-mas, anyway . . . hohoho . . .

Hoosier8 · Dec 25, 2013

bobgnote said: ↑

That is how CO2 is leading surface temps, as usual.

Temperature should be dropping, while glaciers should all be advancing, NOW, already, since the interglacial should be at an end, TODAY.

Temps are easing up, while perennial ice is melting and evaporating, as GHGs go off the hook.

No other outcome, other than a mass extinction event accompanies a fast rise, in atmospheric CO2.

CO2 is going up, faster, than at any other time, in geologic history, accompanied, by any other natural GHGs, which it triggers, and by industrial GHGs, including many, which do not degrade.

Sorry about the Kochs and Exxon ditching Heartland, after all. What a shame . . . boo-freaking-hoo . . . I guess it's X-mas, anyway . . . hohoho . . .
Click to expand...

LOL, the usual liberal proxy words and accusations, along with some really uneducated statements. What makes you think the interglacial will end during your lifetime? Oh, that's right, you guys can predict the future, I forgot.

Earthling · Dec 26, 2013

Hoosier8 said: ↑

LOL, the usual liberal proxy words and accusations, along with some really uneducated statements. What makes you think the interglacial will end during your lifetime? Oh, that's right, you guys can predict the future, I forgot.
Click to expand...

Why aren't these people grateful that we've dodged an ice age bullet by pumping out GHGs?

bobgnote · Dec 26, 2013

Hoosier8 said: ↑

LOL, the usual liberal proxy words and accusations, along with some really uneducated statements. What makes you think the interglacial will end during your lifetime? Oh, that's right, you guys can predict the future, I forgot.
Click to expand...

Aw, so much losing . . . since you didn't read my post, before ranting, I guess you should probably get a dog, since you don't have a "liberal."

Oh, that's right. You guys are getting kicked off better science forums, like Reddit. No wonder.

The interglacial won't end, since GHGs proliferate, and the poles are reversing. We'll go hot-house.

Don't (*)(*)(*)(*) off Luck, like you did Mr.Manning.

Hoosier8 · Dec 26, 2013

bobgnote said: ↑

Aw, so much losing . . . since you didn't read my post, before ranting, I guess you should probably get a dog, since you don't have a "liberal."

Oh, that's right. You guys are getting kicked off better science forums, like Reddit. No wonder.

The interglacial won't end, since GHGs proliferate, and the poles are reversing. We'll go hot-house.

Don't (*)(*)(*)(*) off Luck, like you did Mr.Manning.
Click to expand...

LOL, there is no end to the religion banning speech, especially if it is at odds with the religion. Good luck with your prognostication, you will need it.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Click to expand...

bobgnote · Dec 26, 2013

Hoosier8 said: ↑

LOL, there is no end to the religion banning speech, especially if it is at odds with the religion. Good luck with your prognostication, you will need it.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
Click to expand...

What a crock of poo, from Heartland's James Taylor, in non-science zine Forbes, dated 2/13/13!

And then, on February 15, Heartland and Taylor sprung a leak:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-confirms-heartland-weather-stations-project/

Questions about the authenticity of the leaked Heartland Institute documents are fading, as projects described therein are confirmed. Heartlands senior fellow James Taylor confirmed the existence of the climate-denier classroom curriculum project to ThinkProgress Green yesterday. Now, anti-science blogger Anthony Watts has confirmed that Heartland is funding his project to display weather station data, detailed in the leaked fundraising plan. In a comment at Andrew Montfords Bishop Hill blog, Watts claims there are no nefarious motives in his project:

"Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. . . . DeSmog, as part of their public relations for hire methodology to demonize skeptics, will of course try to find nefarious motives for this project. But there simply are none here. Its something that needs doing because NOAA hasnt made this new data available in a user friendly visual format."

The secret Heartland document explains that Watts isnt just trying to present new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form. Watts, the document explains, has been exposing flaws in the current network of temperature stations (work that the Heartland Institute supported and promoted), based on his hypothesis that many of the temperature stations relied on by weathermen are compromised by heat radiating from nearby buildings, machines, or paved surfaces. These stations generate spurious records which are used by environmental extremists as evidence that human emissions are causing either global warming or the more ambiguous climate change.

Like the rest of Heartlands climate denial work, this project is anonymously funded.

Although it is important to calibrate weather stations, Watts idea that the record of rising temperatures is a result of bad data has been repeatedly debunked. In fact, Richard Mueller, a physicist funded by the Koch brothers to study flawed weather stations, confirmed that temperature data is excellent and global warming is real. Watts is now just another conspiracy theorist for hire.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration does not have the resources to present their data in a more public-friendly form because of the endless assault on government by groups like the Heartland Institute and their right-wing funders. Last November, Republicans even killed a no-cost plan to streamline the agency to provide better services to the public.
Click to expand...

Also from February 15:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2...rbes-courtesy-of-heartland-hack-james-taylor/

Its fascinating when you catch the start of a new bogus claim enter the denialsphere, bounce from site to site, and echo about without any evidence of critical analysis or intelligence on the part of the denialists. A good example of this was an article by Heartland Institutes contributor to Forbes, James Taylor, falsely claiming only a minority of scientists endorse the IPCC position on the causes of global warming. This new nonsense meme gets repeated by crank extraordinaire Steve Milloy, bounces the next day to Moranos denialist aggregation site, and before long Im sure well be seeing it on Watts site, Fox news, and in a couple more weeks, in an argument with our conservative uncles.

The claim is, of course, a deception (or possibly total incompetence) on the part of Heartlands senior fellow for environment policy (I wonder if there is significance to the use of environment as opposed to environmental). Linking this paper in the journal Organization studies, Taylor makes a false claim that a mere 36% of scientists, when surveyed, hold the consensus view. Anyone want to guess at the deception? Cherry-picking! It was a survey of largely industry engineers and geoloscientists in Alberta, home of the tar sands. In the study authors words:

To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses professional experts in petroleum and related industries. Not only are we interested in the positions they take towards climate change and in the recommendations for policy development and organizational decision-making that they derive from their framings, but also in how they construct and attempt to safeguard their expert status against others. To gain an understanding of the competing expert claims and to link them to issues of professional resistance and defensive institutional work, we combine insights from various disciplines and approaches: framing, professions literature, and institutional theory.

This is pretty classic denialist cherry-picking and and is one of the most common deceptive practices of denialists like Taylor. By suggesting a survey of industry geoscientists can be generalized to scientists as whole, Taylor has demonstrated the intellectual dishonesty inherent in denialist argumentation. You might as well make claims about the consensus that tobacco causes lung cancer by surveying scientists in the Altria corporation headquarters.

The paper is actually quite interesting, and Im glad I read it, as it is consistent with our thesis that ideological conflicts result in refusal to accept science that contradicts ones overvalued ideas or personal interests. The authors surveyed a professional association of geoscientists in Alberta Canada (APEGGA), most of whom are working for the petroleum industry, and then performed a detailed analysis of their free-text responses on why they accept or reject climate science. What they found was there are 5 general frames used by respondents that their answers conformed to. The most common response was that global warming is real, and we need to act with regulation to address the problem (at 36%, the number quoted by Taylor to suggest there is no consensus), another 5% expressed doubt at the cause but agreed green house gases needed to be regulated. The second most common responses were its nature or its a eco-regulatory conspiracy and these responses showed a great deal of hostility in language towards environmentalism, proponents of global warming, liberalism etc. These came in at about 34% of responses and were more common from older white males in the higher tiers of the oil industry corporate structure. The most common remaining frame was a fatalist frame (17%) which could take or leave the science because hey, were screwed no matter what we do.

The authors werent attempting to validate the consensus with this study, but rather were trying to understand how scientists working in industry justify their position on global warming, as they often reject the consensus view of climate science. When a true cross-section of climate scientists is sampled, agreement with consensus is found among about 90% of scientists and 97% of those publishing in the field. A more appropriate summary of what these authors showed was that oil industry geoscientists and engineers most frequently express a view consistent with the consensus IPCC view and a need for regulation of green house gases. A similar but slightly smaller number express hostility to the consensus view and about half as many as that think were screwed no matter what we do.

It all would have been short-circuited if Forbes had exercised any kind of appropriate editorial control over this crank James Taylor. Or, if the echo chamber had read some of the comments on the initial post before rebroadcasting a false claim far and wide, but then, that would require intellectual honesty and a desire to promote factual information. Does Forbes have any interest that one of their bloggers is misrepresenting the literature in this way? Is this acceptable practice among their contributors? Is this the kind of publication they wish to be?

Finally, I see the authors of the paper (who I alerted to the Forbes articles presence they clearly were not contacted by Taylor for comment) have response. From their comment:

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as respondents believe or scientists dont believe Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except Support Kyoto are against regulation the Regulation Activists mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that among our respondents more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.

Incompetence or deception by Taylor? You tell me. Either way, this is the kind of shoddy, non-academic discourse we get from bogus ideological think tanks like Heartland. They should be embarrassed.
Click to expand...

Four days later, on 2/19/13:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...y-claims-new-study-rejects-climate-consensus/

James Taylor, managing editor of The Heartland Institutes Environment & Climate News, recently wrote a Forbes blog post about a new study of professional engineers and geoscientists involved in Alberta, Canadas petroleum industry. According to the authors of the study, however, Taylor got most of the details in his post wrong, and Taylor has not corrected or retracted the blog post even though his errors have been pointed out to him. Furthermore, Taylor republished his deceptive and dishonest post at The Heartland Institute this morning, three days after the studys authors corrected Taylor. Taylor has a made a habit of distorting scientific studies in the past his new blog post is no different.

Taylor claims in his post that a study of over a thousand professional geoscientists and engineers in Alberta is somehow representative of all scientists in the world. But the authors of the study, Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer, wrote in a response at Forbes (full comment reproduced below) that:

"First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as respondents believe or scientists dont believe (emphasis added)"
Click to expand...

This hack Taylor isn't a climatologist, and his degrees are way off science:

http://www.desmogblog.com/james-taylor

James M. Taylor

Credentials
B.A. from Dartmouth College.
J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law where he was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and founder and editor-in-chief of the Federalist Voice.
Click to expand...

Heartland and Taylor are geeks, tied to ALEC, but they don't get more Koch or Exxon money, as of now:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

The Heartland Institute is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as of 2010-2011.[2] It is a member of ALEC's Telecommunications and Information Technology Task Force,[3] Education Task Force,[4] Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force Financial Services Subcommittee[5] and Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.[6] James Taylor, managing editor of the Heartland publication Environment & Climate News, spoke at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting.[6] Heartland was also an Exhibitor at ALEC's 2011 Annual Meeting.[7]

The Heartland Institute has also functioned as a publisher and promoter of ALEC's model legislation.[8] At the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force meeting of ALEC's 2010 annual meeting, Alan Smith The Hurricane Mitigation Promotion Act and A Resolution Concerning Tax Treatment of Affiliated Reinsurance.[9] Marc Oestreich, who represents Heartland on the Education Task Force, has also sponsored model legislation. Oestreich sponsored the "Parent Trigger Act," which he presented at the 2010 States and Nation Policy Summit,[10] and the "Taxpayers Savings Grants Act," which he presented to the K12 Education Reform Subcommittee during ALECs 38th Annual Meeting.[11]

About ALEC:

ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve model bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.
Click to expand...

Eh? The Kochs and Exxon are cutting your allowance. Science blogs will boot you.

Zombie-infested blogs will put up with you, for now.

Cigarettes cause cancer, unprotected gay sex with needle sharing spreads HIV, the Earth is NOT flat, and sorry about your folks, on the Titanic.

So much losing . . .have you tried hoop? I guess that kid Bobby Knight ran off, on IU, by now, didn't he . . .

Hoosier8 · Dec 26, 2013

bobgnote said: ↑

What a crock of poo, from Heartland's James Taylor, in non-science zine Forbes, dated 2/13/13!

And then, on February 15, Heartland and Taylor sprung a leak:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-confirms-heartland-weather-stations-project/

Also from February 15:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2...rbes-courtesy-of-heartland-hack-james-taylor/

Four days later, on 2/19/13:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...y-claims-new-study-rejects-climate-consensus/

This hack Taylor isn't a climatologist, and his degrees are way off science:

http://www.desmogblog.com/james-taylor

Heartland and Taylor are geeks, tied to ALEC, but they don't get more Koch or Exxon money, as of now:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

Eh? The Kochs and Exxon are cutting your allowance. Science blogs will boot you.

Zombie-infested blogs will put up with you, for now.

Cigarettes cause cancer, unprotected gay sex with needle sharing spreads HIV, the Earth is NOT flat, and sorry about your folks, on the Titanic.

So much losing . . .have you tried hoop? I guess that kid Bobby Knight ran off, on IU, by now, didn't he . . .
Click to expand...

Think Progress? Blogs? You should expand your reading a bit further afield than the true believers. You might learn something.

bobgnote · Dec 27, 2013

Hoosier8 said: ↑

Think Progress? Blogs? You should expand your reading a bit further afield than the true believers. You might learn something.
Click to expand...

Like I wrote, you deniers are banned, from Reddit science.

Since all you do is rant geekery and spam Heartland scat, no wonder it's time for you to move on or just sit there and watch TV.

Your corrupt Heartland toads have lost donors, from their former list.

Gee! Did your clown Taylor spill the beans, to precede this? I learn something new, every day:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/may/06/diageo-end-funding-heartland-institute

http://cjonline.com/news/2013-12-12/public-funding-ends-heartland-visioning

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

Woops. I guess with the sea warming, rats jumping some sinking ship will enjoy their swim!

Hoosier8 · Dec 27, 2013

bobgnote said: ↑

Like I wrote, you deniers are banned, from Reddit science.

Since all you do is rant geekery and spam Heartland scat, no wonder it's time for you to move on or just sit there and watch TV.

Your corrupt Heartland toads have lost donors, from their former list.

Gee! Did your clown Taylor spill the beans, to precede this? I learn something new, every day:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/may/06/diageo-end-funding-heartland-institute

http://cjonline.com/news/2013-12-12/public-funding-ends-heartland-visioning

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

Woops. I guess with the sea warming, rats jumping some sinking ship will enjoy their swim!
Click to expand...

So Reddit moderators are also liberals intolerant of opposing views. Not a surprise.

Earthling · Dec 28, 2013

Putting Modern Climate Change in Perspective

Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier natural climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.

bobgnote · Dec 28, 2013

Hoosier8 said: ↑

So Reddit moderators are also liberals intolerant of opposing views. Not a surprise.
Click to expand...

"Opposing views" are another matter, than the evident spamming, of Heartland Corp. scat, by you and other deniers, which rant, to deflect.

bobgnote · Dec 28, 2013

Earthling said: ↑

Putting Modern Climate Change in Perspective

Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier natural climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.
Click to expand...

This Don Easterbrook guy, who rants up your Carbon Sense geekery is no longer connected, to any university.

He is a Heartland Corp. geek:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carbon_Sense_Coalition

http://www.desmogblog.com/carbon-sense-coalition

Why don't you just post: 'Big Oil sez OINK!'

flogger · Dec 28, 2013

bobgnote said: ↑

This Don Easterbrook guy, who rants up your Carbon Sense geekery is no longer connected, to any university.
He is a Heartland Corp. geek:

Why don't you just post: 'Big Oil sez OINK!'
Click to expand...

Really ? Well lets go through the validity of your sources one at a time then shall we ?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html

You really are a gift for any skeptic please keep it up

bobgnote · Dec 28, 2013

flogger said: ↑

Really ? Well lets go through the validity of your sources one at a time then shall we ?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html

You really are a gift for any skeptic please keep it up
Click to expand...

Your uncredentialed BLOG doesn't like my sources, for true reports! You really do post blog-scat, like a hippo, fouling the Nile.

flogger · Dec 28, 2013

bobgnote said: ↑

Your uncredentialed BLOG doesn't like my sources, for true reports! You really do post blog-scat, like a hippo, fouling the Nile.
Click to expand...

Hilarious stuff !

Please point out where any of them are in error then ?

Hoosier8 · Dec 28, 2013

bobgnote said: ↑

"Opposing views" are another matter, than the evident spamming, of Heartland Corp. scat, by you and other deniers, which rant, to deflect.
Click to expand...

That is the narrative of the true believers.

flogger · Dec 28, 2013

Hoosier8 said: ↑

That is the narrative of the true believers.
Click to expand...

Long experience has proven that a true believer in AGW cannot be reasoned out of their position because it wasn't reason that got them there in the first place

Earthling · Dec 29, 2013

flogger said: ↑

Long experience has proven that a true believer in AGW cannot be reasoned out of their position because it wasn't reason that got them there in the first place
Click to expand...

It's not a problem, they've chosen a path that doesn't include one of the scientific basics, scepticism.
They have no doubt that their science may be flawed, to them it's cut and dried, done and dusted, the science is settled, there are no more questions to ask.

Thankfully, we don't belong to that club.

Earthling · Dec 29, 2013

Earthling said: ↑

This is why the promise of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is amusing:

Click to expand...

A reminder to those who still think current warming will result in a catastrophe.

Log in or Sign up

Modern warming in perspective

Earthling New Member

jackdog Well-Known Member

Windigo Banned

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Earthling New Member

bobgnote New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Earthling New Member

bobgnote New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

bobgnote New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

bobgnote New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Earthling New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

flogger Well-Known Member

bobgnote New Member

flogger Well-Known Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

flogger Well-Known Member

Earthling New Member

Earthling New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Modern warming in perspective

Earthling New Member

jackdog Well-Known Member

Windigo Banned

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Earthling New Member

bobgnote New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Earthling New Member

bobgnote New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

bobgnote New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

bobgnote New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Earthling New Member

bobgnote New Member

bobgnote New Member

flogger Well-Known Member

bobgnote New Member

flogger Well-Known Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

flogger Well-Known Member

Earthling New Member

Earthling New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches