• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Is global warming just another ‘End-of-the-World’ delusion?

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Greatcloud, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. Smidlee

    Smidlee Veteran

    +736
    Baptist
    Married
    What if AGW is true then what are we going to do? Kill people? In the end it doesn't matter how little we pollute as there will be those who will to their advantage. China has really benefited from our anti-pollution laws.
    AGW is all about some people gaining more power and less about saving the planet.
     
  2. pjnlsn

    pjnlsn Newbie

    421
    +1
    Messianic
    Single
    It just (by the abstract) doesn't say that the primary cause of climate change is a thing other than human activities.

    Being critical, as you say, is simply what the scientific process is all about, and so it's hardly surprising that the paper is critical of some model or other.
     
  3. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    +272
    United States
    Charismatic
    Single
    US-Republican
    Like I said there are many peer reviewed papers against AGW. The paper picked out is critical and even says that the models are wrong it needed to be said and was worth a paper on it.

    My main point here is that there are two sides to the issue of AGW. You alarmists are so insular and yet act so supierior that you deny two sides to the issue.

    There has always been another side to AGW and many credible scientists who are esspousing it. You pick on the other view whenever you can and never concede the question that you may be wrong.
     
  4. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +1,112
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    As Skeptical Science already said.....
    http://skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html

    [​IMG]
    Meet The Denominator

    Posted on 13 February 2011 by Rob Honeycutt

    As most here have followed the climate issue for some time I'm sure we have each been faced with climate skeptics throwing out big numbers related to different aspects of climate science.
    There is the ever present "31,000 Scientists Who Challenge Global Warming," the infamous Oregon Petition.
    And then many of us have run into the ever ravenous PopTech (Andrew) and his, now, 850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
    These folks have yet to meet…. The Denominator!


    [​IMG]
    Fig 1 - Okay, this is really the Terminator but bear with me, the effect is about the same.
    In this exercise we are going to give both the Oregon Petition and PopTech's 850 papers the benefit of the doubt. We know there are many many reasons to challenge the assumptions of their claims but there is one thing they can not defend. They are only presenting one side of the equation.
    First, let's look at the Oregon Petition. They define "scientist" as anyone with a BS degree or better. They state, "This includes primarily those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines." Thus, 31,000 is their numerator.
    According to the US Census for 2000, 28 million people had bachelors degrees and 16 million had graduate or professional degrees. We'll safely assume that half of the bachelor degrees are BA's and not BS degrees. In 2000 that represented about 10% of the population. If the proportions hold today it leaves us with a total of 31 million people of the current US population of 312 million (Note: the Oregon Petition is limited to the US).
    Numerator, meet The Denominator! 31,000 over 31,200,000 comes to 0.00099. Or roughly 0.1% of persons holding a BS or better have signed the petition challenging anthropogenic global warming, assuming that every single signature on the list is legitimate. This is what The Denominator does. He crushes big numbers into itty-bitty numbers.
    Now let's look at PopTech's 850 papers. Even mainstream skeptics like Roger Pielke Jr. as well as others have taken exception to PopTech's list but again, we're going to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him the concept that 850 peer reviewed papers actually do challenge AGW alarm. (I know it's a stretch but we're going to cut him a break, this time.)
    Here I just went to Google Scholar. I limited the search to the term "climate change" and only searched articles in the subject areas of 1) Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science, and 2) Physics, Astronomy and Planetary Science. That returned 954,000 articles. I did a pretty thorough perusal of 200 articles of the 100 pages of results and it looks like they are all actual papers and not just references to any blogs or websites. A number are listed as "[citation]" so we might pull out about 10% for good measure. But everything else looks to be published works in a very wide variety of scientific journals. I intentionally left out the 177,000 papers that result when I do the same search on "global warming" since I don't know how many of those will be duplicate hits.
    Numerator, meet The Denominator! What we are left with is about 850,000 peer reviewed papers on climate change for the 850 peer reviewed papers that PopTech presents. That leaves our friend with 0.1% of peer reviewed papers that challenge AGW alarm, as defined by him.
    I'm sure some folks will find ways to quibble about the numbers but I don't think even the very best debater can appreciably alter the resulting percentages. And if they try…
    "I'll be back."
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2013
  5. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    +272
    United States
    Charismatic
    Single
    US-Republican
    THEY ARE ALL PEER REVIEWED !
     
  6. pjnlsn

    pjnlsn Newbie

    421
    +1
    Messianic
    Single
    No, again: It just (by the abstract) doesn't say that the primary cause of climate change is a thing other than human activities.

    Being critical, as you say, is simply what the scientific process is all about, and so it's hardly surprising that the paper is critical of some model or other. And, incidentally, it's not critical of the idea that the primary cause of climate change is human activities.
     
  7. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +1,112
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    ARE THEY FROM CLIMATE PEER-REVIEW OR SOMETHING LIKE IAN PLIMMER'S GEOLOGIST'S CLUB OF PEER REVIEW!
     
  8. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    +272
    United States
    Charismatic
    Single
    US-Republican
    You are continuing to be picky this is just one of the papers about anti-AGW and why don't you see that it doesn't have to say that it specifically is against AGW to be against it. If I say I don't like you that is pretty straightforward but if I am non-specific I could say I don't like the coat you are wearing. That is what this article is saying it is saying one part of the AGW theory is wrong. The paper is saying the models are wrong, that is anti-AGW.

    Now why don't you pick out a paper that is more specific in its anti-AGW stand ?
     
  9. pjnlsn

    pjnlsn Newbie

    421
    +1
    Messianic
    Single
    No, again: It just (by the abstract) doesn't say that the primary cause of climate change is a thing other than human activities.

    Being critical, as you say, is simply what the scientific process is all about, and so it's hardly surprising that the paper is critical of some model or other. And, incidentally, it's not critical of the idea that the primary cause of climate change is human activities.

    The way things are is that the vast majority of scientific papers on climate change and related topics, if they take a stand on the primary cause of it at all, is that they suggest the cause is human activities. It is not mutually exclusive that the vast majority of items in a set have a characteristic and that a number of them smaller than a majority do not.
     
  10. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    +272
    United States
    Charismatic
    Single
    US-Republican
    OK if you won't pick another paper I will. This paper is much more pointed in its stance against AGW.

    S Fred Singer1
    1 University of Virginia/SEPP

    Abstract
    The US Climate Change Science Program [CCSP, 2006] reported, and Douglass et al. [2007] and NIPCC [2008] confirmed, a "potentially serious inconsistency" between modeled and observed trends in tropical surface and tropospheric temperatures. However, Santer et al. [2008: hereafter "Santer"], though sharing several co-authors with CCSP [2006], offered "new observational estimates of [tropical] surface and tropospheric temperature trends", concluding that "there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends." Santer's key graph [shown here as Fig. 5] misleadingly suggests an overlap between observations and modeled trends. His "new observational estimates" conflict with satellite data. His modeled trends are an artifact, merely reflecting chaotic and structural model uncertainties that had been overlooked. Thus the conclusion of "consistency" is not supportable and accordingly does not validate model-derived projections of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

    Again it is critisizing the models but is much more straightforward in its stance on anti-AGW views.
     
  11. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +1,112
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    As Skeptical Science already said....

     
  12. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    +272
    United States
    Charismatic
    Single
    US-Republican
    I am not impressed with the number of papers for AGW what counts is that there is a credible group of scientists who disagree with AGW. You are called out on the models and the lack of warming in 14 years and the lack of proof for the theory since its inception even way back. There will always be people lay persons and scientists who disagree with AGW, give up trying to stop us ;AGW is bad science plain and simple.
     
  13. pjnlsn

    pjnlsn Newbie

    421
    +1
    Messianic
    Single
    The way things are is that the vast majority of scientific papers on climate change and related topics, if they take a stand on the primary cause of it at all, is that they suggest the cause is human activities. It is not mutually exclusive that the vast majority of items in a set have a characteristic and that a number of them smaller than a majority do not.
     
  14. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +1,112
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    No, I'm sure that you'll agree that what counts is the evidence for and against in each and every case and what the demonstrable, repeatable, testable TRUTH is on each matter. Global warming wouldn't be disproved if, for example, there were 300,000,000 papers confirming that 'Glaciergate' was indeed an embarrassment to the climate community. I concede Glaciergate was a mistake, and that the glaciers will not all disappear in about 50 years. However, I do NOT concede that this one instance of correcting the IPCC disproves all the other repeatable, demonstrable physics of Co2's heat trapping properties, how much energy is being trapped, and all the efforts to map where that extra heat goes and how it affects our climate. So the sheer number of papers is not the issue: the arguments in each case are. And as you and I are not trained climatologists, I'm arguing for a little respect for the peer-review process that eventually reveals problems like glaciergate. For when the accusation is REAL, and the data sticks, the truth shall be known. But just because Denialist claptrap might appeal to your political presuppositions doesn't mean to get to dump whatever conspiracy theory you wish over the MAJORITY peer review.

    If you have a specific problem with climate science that you wish do discuss, then that's OK. Until then, the DENOMINATOR RULES! ;) :thumbsup:

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Lucy Stulz

    Lucy Stulz Well-Known Member

    +53
    Other Religion
    Married
    There are some small number of scientists who disagree with AGW. As was pointed out some of your 11,000+ papers were actually just disagreeing on smaller points or sub-sub-subpoints.

    Generally there's almost no disagreement within the community of professionals in this area.

    But there is never 100% perfect agreement in science.

    However, the fact that AGW has, at its core, essentially 95% or above agreement puts it in pretty strong footing.

    You are called out for your failure to know the actual 20th century trends either. Perhaps you missed the mid-century cooling which was thought due to air pollution and sulfate aerosols. During that time the warming was offset by a negative forcing, and when we cleaned up the air in the 1970's the warming started up again just as it was supposed to.so

    The current flat region is pretty short in the overall scheme of things and for people to draw big conclusions on it is statistically uncalled for. The data is noisy so a region of imperfect monotonic climb is understandable. I've even read on article that found reason to believe that Chinese coal burning and air pollution may be offsetting the upward tend.

    It's like having a progressive disease but then breaking your arm. The underlying disease is still ongoing but you have to deal with the broken arm as well and you may feel that pain right now moreso.

    LOL! Sorry but way back it's been pretty incontrovertible since about 1850 that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. We know how those things work. In addition the isotopic data on atmospheric carbon are pretty clear and the 20th century temperature trends kinda speak for themselves.

    There's been plenty of proof of concept. At least enough "proof of concept" for about 95-97% of the earth's climate professionals to disagree with you.

    AGW is good science. The lay people who are skeptics by and large have no means of understanding the science sufficient to "disagree" in any meaningful way.

    As for the 3-5% of scientists who disagree, well, indeed, they have a tough row to hoe considering that the vast majority of the science disagrees with them.
     
  16. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    +272
    United States
    Charismatic
    Single
    US-Republican
    ^_^ I will have the last laugh when the temperatures continue to drop globally. The sunspot cycle # 25 with virtually no sunspots and the 200 year cycle of a slowdown of the suns deep currents and a La Nina all coming together create cooling. You may in the face of that evidence say AGW is still valid but you will be in a shrinking select group of fanatics. Even climate scientists are recounting there former stance:
    Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )

    Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.

    Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link )

    Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

    Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.”

    Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

    Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

    Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."
     
  17. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    +272
    United States
    Charismatic
    Single
    US-Republican
    In my previous post I listed many scientists who converted from alarmist to skeptic but that was not the complete list here is a link to the PDF version of the list :http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

    Can any alarmist show a list of prominate skeptics that have switched to AGW belivers ? I don't think such a list exists because of the evidence......the skeptics are growing in number as the years of no warming continue.

    Here is another site that is predicting cooling in the near future. Russian Academy Of Sciences Experts Warn Of Imminent Cold Period: “Global Warming Is A Marketing Trick”
     
  18. pjnlsn

    pjnlsn Newbie

    421
    +1
    Messianic
    Single
    The way things are is that the vast majority of scientific papers on climate change and related topics, if they take a stand on the primary cause of it at all, is that they suggest the cause is human activities. Specifically that most of the warming from the mid-20th century on is primarily caused or influenced by human activities. It is not mutually exclusive that the vast majority of items in a set have a characteristic and that a number of them smaller than a majority do not.
     
  19. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    +272
    United States
    Charismatic
    Single
    US-Republican
    pjnlsn you are like a broken record ...........you must like repeating yourself.:doh:
     
  20. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    +272
    United States
    Charismatic
    Single
    US-Republican
Loading...