It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World's largest science group rejecting man-made climate fears

page: 8
58
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa


You got me on that one. I missed typed myself. Hey it was three in the morning here.

My other stuff stands. You don't know what you are talking about. Please read the Foukal paper linked above. Even if you all you do is look at the pretty pictures you can see that they are addressing exactly what you say they are not.


No it doesnt, your other stuff was also wrong. BTW you made that same statement about with more Sunspot the Sun is cooler, and with less sunspots the Sun is hotter twice.

You had the wrong information, just admit it. i also admit when I am wrong, and I know that I don't know it all so I can be wrong also, but in this particular topic I decided to do a lot of research on my own, and informed myself as much as possible because at first I actually BOUGHT the lies just like almost everyone else did.

Then you made the statement on how the upper layers of the Earth's atmosphere is where CO2 causes heat, which again is wrong. First of all in the upper layers there is BARELY any CO2, or water vapor, but up there these gases cool the atmospheric layers.

The layer of Earth's atmosphere which controls surface temperatures is the Troposphere, and that is where most, almost all weather events occur also.

The Troposphere is around 4.3 miles at the poles, and up to about 12 miles in tropical regions.

The Troposphere contains 75% of the atmosphere's mass and 99% of water vapor, aerosols, and every other atmospheric gas INCLUDING CO2.

The Troposphere is the atmospheric layer closest to the Earth's surface and it is this atmospheric layer where WATER VAPOR, and not CO2, controls the temperature of Earth's surface, from 95% - 98% of the greenhouse effect is caused by WATER VAPOR, meanwhile the rest 2% -5% is caused by CO2 AND EVERY OTHER GREENHOUSE GAS.

BTW, when I type in caps is not to yell but to show the most relevant point of my argument.




posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I am going to wade into the debate with why I am a skeptic.

First “Follow the Money":
In the USA there has been a lot of money spent on trying to blame Mankind (CO2) for climate variability instead of asking the question what causes climate to vary. Research on anything besides CO2 is despite political pressure. Many papers have a half hearted blurb stating that whatever their research found it is not as big a factor as Man made CO2. Al Gore, Maurice Strong and Obama are all part of the Chicago Climate Exchange
africanpress.wordpress.com... trong/

www.foxnews.com...
And the investment bankers are in the act too.

The graph Fig 2.1 (pg 6) is the Spectrum of incident solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere and at sea level. “Because UV radiation is absorbed in the stratosphere, the temperature increase in this altitude range. Located at about 50 km altitude, the stratopause is the top boundary of this layer. ” graph pg 3 fig 1.1 Atmospheric temperature profile and layering

The above graphs shows why I can not understand why any one would think CO2 is the main driver of climate. If someone told me it was oxygen, water (Atmospheric and seas) and the sun, I would be more inclined to believe them. CO2 is such a small blip on the energy absorption scale you can barely see it. Also as you proceed from left to right the energy per unit wavelength decreases. This makes the CO2 contribution even less
There is no more energy to be absorbed at the CO2 wavelengths. Which agrees with Fig 2.1

This image, courtesy of Dr. Judith Lean at the US Naval Research Laboratory, shows the same graph as Fig 2.1 with energy variability overlaying the spectrum of solar radiation from 10 to 100,000 nm (dark blue). The variability between Solar Maximum and Solar Minimum is in green and the relative transparency of Earth's atmosphere at sea level is in light blue. Source

UV can vary up to 10% and effects the ozone and stratosphere: “UV variability between 200 and 400 nm is almost a factor of 10 larger than was estimated from earlier satellite data.”




Abstract"
The Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) on-board the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite provides the first multi-year continuous measurements of solar spectral irradiance (SSI) variability from 200–2400 nm, accounting for about 97% of the total solar irradiance (TSI). In addition to irradiance modulation from active region passage, the SSI values for wavelengths with a brightness temperature greater than 5770 K show a brightening with decreasing solar activity, whereas those with lower brightness temperatures show a dimming. These results demonstrate that different parts of the solar atmosphere contribute differently to the TSI with the behavior in the deep photospheric layers giving an opposing and nearly compensating trend to that in the upper photospheric and lower chromospheric layers. These findings need to be incorporated into Earth-climate assessments since the solar forcing induced by these differential trends are inherently different from the relatively flat spectral contributions employed in the IPCC assessments. Source


Even David Hathaway of NASA agrees the UV and X-ray are more variable than TSI. Of course there is the required blurb on man made CO2.




“The Sun is a powerful and highly variable source of ultraviolet and X radiation, which has major effects on our environment.”Author: David H. Hathaway





“While total solar irradiance changes by 0.1 percent, the change in the intensity of ultraviolet light varies by much larger amounts, scientists have discovered. Research shows such variations in the Sun's emissions can affect the ozone layer and the way energy moves both vertically and horizontally through the atmosphere.”




“This is the quietest Sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” says NASA solar scientist David Hathaway. But this is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on Earth and force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming.”


AND Hansen


“A good correlation exists between the long-term smoothing of the sunspot cycle, and Greenland temperatures – with cool temperatures corresponding to long-term sunspot minima..... We acknowledge valuable discussion with R. W. Decker, J. E. Hansen [James Hansen] and J. E. Sanders. Work was supported by NASA.”


It looks like Nigel Weiss was correct when he wrote:




“If you look back into the sun’s past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity. Periods of high solar activity do not last long, perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash. It’s a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon.” –NigelWeiss, University of Cambridge, 16 September 2006





“The upcoming sunspot crash could cause the Earth to cool.” –Leif Svalgaard, Stanford University, 16 September 2006


An article has appeared in a recent issue of Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics with the title “Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years.” … …”Despite the increasing trend of atmospheric CO2 concentration, the components IMF2, IMF3 and IMF4 of global temperature changes are all in falling”… …”the effect of greenhouse warming is deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate change in the coming 20 years. Consequently, we believe global climate changes will be in a trend of falling in the following 20 years.”… …”The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate changes is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the global climate changes.”
Reference
Zhen-Shan, L. and S. Xian. 2007. Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 95, 115-12

Politics at work:
This graph shows the adjustment (amount ADDED to the temperature by NOAA) It must be to compensate for moving 89% of the thermometers from grassy areas to black top parking lots next to AC units.
Graph showing additional temp adjustments
www.culture24.org.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Roman coastline in England discovered inland from current coast

CONTINUED



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Continued
Then there is the Magnetic Fields



“The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s … the speed of the million mph solar wind hasn't decreased much—only 3%. The change in pressure comes mainly from reductions in temperature and density. The solar wind is 13% cooler and 20% less dense. The solar wind isn't inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to … That means less shielding against cosmic rays. Ulysses also finds that the sun's underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s”.....The magnetic pole in Northern Canada has been weakening as it shifts across the Arctic to Siberia.....The overall intensity of the magnetic field has decreased. “Measurements have been made of the Earth's magnetic field more or less continuously since about 1840. If we look at the trend in the strength of the magnetic field over this time (for example the so-called 'dipole moment' shown in the graph below) we can see a downward trend. ... We also know from studies of the magnetisation of minerals in ancient clay pots that the Earth's magnetic field was approximately twice as strong in Roman times as it is now.”

The Earth’s magnetic field “acts as a shield against the bombardment of particles continuously streaming from the sun. Because the solar particles (ions and electrons) are electrically charged, they feel magnetic forces and most are deflected by our planet's magnetic field. However, our magnetic field is a leaky shield and the number of particles breaching this shield depends on the orientation of the sun’s magnetic field. … Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” Source

The suns effect on Length of Day



Abstract
The long-term fluctuation of the Schwabe period (LSP) of sunspots number (SSN) has been found to have high correlation with the variation of the length-of-day (LOD) in low frequency by using the data of smoothed monthly mean SSN during 1818–1999 and the method of wavelet transform. Analyses indicate that the maximum correlation coefficient between the series of LSP and LOD during 1892–1997 is about 0.9, with a time lag of about 5 years for the LOD related to the LSP. Though the maximum correlation coefficients between the LSP and the other two LOD series (1818–1997) reduce to about 0.4, they remain over the thresholds of 95% confidence level. This suggests new evidence for possible impact of solar activity on the long-term fluctuation of the earth rotation. Source


Not to mention the oceans



Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans': 'Surge in global temps since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean' Source


And undersea volcanoes:



“....The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.
The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed....” Source


Volcano Outgasing of CO2


“The primary source of carbon/CO2 is outgasing from the Earth's interior at midocean ridges, hotspot volcanoes, and subduction-related volcanic arcs....” Source





The global annual energy of earthquakes on Earth began increasing very fast since 1990. It was not until the late 1970s that scientists discovered the existence of vast plumbing systems under the oceans called hydrothermal vents. The systems pull in cold water, superheat it, then spit it back out from seafloor vents--a process that brings up not only hot water, but dissolved substances from rocks below. Unique life-forms feed off the vents' stew, and valuable minerals, including gold, may pile up. Source


Undersea Volcanoes may be affecting ice at both poles.



Research on collapse of the Larson B ice shelf in Antarctica resulted in the discovery of an undersea volcano in the vicinity. Source





Other recently discovered mud volcanoes are in the Arctic Ocean. Source


Any heating of the water under ice could increase melting because water melts ice faster than air and ice is a good insulator. Heat under the ice would not move through the ice to be lost upon coming in contact with the cold air above the ice.
Sea water temp Volcanoes?

CONTINUED



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Continued

And finally there is CO2

"Now CO2 levels are lower than ever." This would be in agreement with plants response to CO2. Plants prefer much higher CO2 levels and absorb less water at the higher levels (more drought resistance)


"Page 446 of the IPCC 4AR has the following text, “Ice core records show that atmospheric CO2 varied in the range 180 to 300 ppm over the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last 650kyr …. The quantitative and mechanistic explanation of these CO2 variations remains one of the major unsolved questions in climate research.”
The answer is the level never got to 180 ppm if it had the plant life on the planet would have been died and the animals would have starved. “As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels – below 200 ppm – will cease to grow or produce.” In other words they die. Trees first grasses last. Source

Stomata data by Wagner, Aaby and Visscher prove conclusively that the ice core data is seriously in error. The ice core data can be corrected using J.J.Drake’s correlation, the profile does not change but the ppm values do. More info here


Click down three screens to the CO2 graph over geological time. Article: Climate, CO2 Geology and Ice

CO2 measured up to 640PPM in 1939/1940

CO2 temp chart by Beck from 1800'swww.biokurs.de...

CO2 graph 1812 to 1961


Paper on accuracy of CO2 levels in the 19th and 20th century.


Do not forget Termites are a big (biggest?) contributer to CO2! So not only do oceans release CO2 as the temperature increases, termites and swamp bacteria (methane) also become more active.

Milankovitch Cycles


A census of Plio–Pleistocene (5–0 Ma) terrestrial palynomorph assemblages from ODP Site 1123, located 1100 km offshore eastern New Zealand and in a water depth of 3290 m, reveals marked variations in warm- (Cyathea, tall tree Podocarpus/Prumnopitys, Dacrydium cupressinum) and cold- (Halocarpus, Phyllocladus, Nothofagus fusca type, Coprosma) climate indicator species at Milankovitch-scale periodicities. Time series analysis indicates that the vegetation record is covariant with marine climate proxies (carbonate content) and is strongly coherent at the 40-ka and 100-ka orbital frequency. www.sciencedirect.com... Source


Other cycles



Abrupt and sudden climatic transitions and fluctuations: a review: A number of persistent oscillations exist, particularly one about 1500 years, but their amplitudes vary considerably between time periods. The Holocene appears to be no more climatically benign than the similar period in the Eemian. The importance of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation for generating abrupt climatic changes in Europe, particularly in association with sudden pulses of fresh water, is illustrated. The concept of antiphase temperature changes between the North and South Atlantic is discussed. Externally generated abrupt climatic deteriorations owing to explosive volcanic eruptions and variations in solar irradiance are also discussed. Copyright © 2001 Royal Meteorological Society:


Irrigation:
No one sees a word in the press about irrigation increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases (H2O) even though it is reported by IPCC.

According to IPCC


“…Knowledge about changes in water vapour at upper tropospheric and lower stratospheric levels is of great importance because strong alterations in radiative forcing can result from small absolute changes in water vapour at these levels…Specific humidity trends over the United States were overwhelmingly positive for the period 1961 to 1995, with magnitudes of several per cent per decade” IPCC

“SEVERAL PER CENT PER DECADE!!!” yet it is completely left out of the IPCC “Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases”

“the most potent greenhouse gas is water" according to Shaidurov”

Why is irrigation left out? First it would completely bury the effects of CO2. Second the World Bank, IMF, Monsanto (85% controlled by financial interests) Cargill, Andre, Bunge et al are all making money hand over fist as they consolidate control of food into the hands of private corporations and banks. Thanks to the “Green Revolution”. “Global Warming” is set to do the same thing. It consolidates control of energy into the hands of a few multi-billionaires. FOLLOW THE MONEY




“I bring you good news from the U.S….Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill…very much a step in the right direction….“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” Al Gore


David Rockefeller puts it even more bluntly




“The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” David Rockefeller speaking at the Bilderberger meeting in June 1991 in Baden Baden


The move to completely wreck/take over the USA is a foot and progressing by leaps and bounds thanks to those blind socialists who can not understand it is NOT socialism it is FASCISM with the bankers and private corporations in complete control..

In Sept. 14, 1994 David Rockefeller, speaking at the UN Business Council.



“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long – We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”




And for what it is worth Polar Bears are doing fine. Their eminent extinction was just another lie by the elite. “Polar bear expert barred by global warmists: Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful” From a conversation with Dr Taylor:

IN CONCLUSION
Given the number of variables that can effect climate and the complexity of weather systems, I do not think a computer model can realistically predict climate change. I also do not think anyone has a really good understanding of what all the factors are that drive climate, how they interact and the "Percent Contribution" of each.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I would like to thank you crimvelvet (and ElectricUniverse) for your informative posts. You've probably summed it all up better than I could, and I applaud you for that.

I do know though, that some people will find this a little too hard to handle, and try their hardest to shoot it down. It's sad that so many people have complete faith in organizations such as the UN and IPCC, and use that faith to dismiss any information which contradicts their belief. Hell, I used to believe that CO2 was responsible for global warming, until I actually did my own research into the topic, which you have clearly done as well.

It does seem that more and more people are becoming aware of the misrepresentations and fallacies which riddle the AGW movement.

But will it be too late before enough people recognize this?

In December, the worlds leaders will be convening in Copenhagen to discuss the new "kyoto treaty". The UN and elite bankers will hope to have the world signed up to compulsory carbon taxes, and put far more wealth into the carbon trading market.

I hope it's not too late. Thanks again.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Curious and Concerned
 

I put up such a long post so others will have ammunition to fight the elite.

As you said once you start looking into it the whole hypothesis falls apart. The only way they could get the results they wanted was to say CO2 is linked to and driving the water response! It is the SUN that is linked to water and driving the climate, CO2 has very little to do with it.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


You do realize you just admitted that co2 is not the controlling factor for global warming. And by the way the graph goes back further that 2007 so el nino wasnt a contributing factor either since the graph shows it trended before that downward and after it was over hmmmm.

So i do appreciate you proving my point that co2 and global temp are not linked.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 

I have done fractional design experiments in chemical plants. Multilevel interactions of several parameters are a royal pain to untangle. If I,the research chemists and engineers had a tough time untangling the parameters in a simple reaction vessel, then I find it tough to believe IPCC has the answer to what "drives" climate. The system is much more complex than IPCC makes out with lots of different parameters that have not even been identified yet. You can not make a good model without knowing ALL the parameters. Been there done that and fell flat on my face because the important parameter was not included in the experimental design. Humility is good for scientists (and politicians)



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Thanks for the info. We have got to fight this hoax.

Now even the UN claims "we have got only 4 months to secure the future of our planet"......

These evil a--holes are trying to scare people into accepting whatever new controlling laws they will implement.



As we move toward Copenhagen in December, we must “Seal a Deal” on climate change that secures our common future. I'm glad that the Chairman of the forum and many other speakers have used my campaign slogan “Seal the Deal” in Copenhagen. I won't charge them loyalty. Please use this “Seal the Deal” as widely as possible, as much as you can. We must seal the deal in Copenhagen for the future of humanity.

We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.

Any agreement must be fair, effective, equitable and comprehensive, and based on science. And it must help vulnerable nations adapt to climate change.

www.un.org...

First of all Ban Ki-moon explains how cities are going "greener" without any fearmongering, and all of them making changes at their own pace without any extreme "Global Taxes" or any such hoax being used, and then he claims "we have got 4 months to secure the future of our planet and we have to make a decision based on science"... when they have already made up their minds, and distorted science to fulfill their Global Agenda.

This is nothing more than a continuation of the Global Warming hoax.

They can tax anything, and anyone just because "we all emit CO2 as well as methane"...

There are already on the works taxes for farm animals, as well as pets, and a myriad of other "CO2 taxes" which eventually will just give power to the elite over the "little man", which is us, or at least most of us.



[edit on 13-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Articles like this obviously need to be bumped...

Let's see what the AGWers have to say about the claims that "all scientists agree with the IPCC...



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Your OP is wrong. Point blank lies.
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Firstly,
You really should highlight the BIAS in the site you use as a source. The author of your piece is a former REPUBLICAN communications director, runs an anti-global warming website and belongs to a right wing anti-environmental think tank. www.sourcewatch.org..., hardly independant.

The article is about members of a group who disagree with an editorial in a magazine. That is it. It is not a DECLARATION from that body that states that Anthropogenic Global warming is wrong.

It is spin like that that highlights the desperation of certain groups and the lengths they will go to to try and discredit anthropogenic global warming.
Science should be enough, should it not!

If you actually go to the ACS website and do a search on Global warming you will fing many, many, many, many articles and published works acknowledging Global warming.
portal.acs.org...:/portal/acs/corg/memberapp?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=mapp_search


Those pioneers are chemists, chemical engineers, and other scientists who are searching for solutions to the challenges of global warming. The United States Congress got that stark assessment of global warming’s potential impact in June 2008.



Today’s global challenge in this ongoing saga of chemistry for life: The quest for permanent solutions to global warming. We will talk about advances toward permanent solutions to global warming.



*American Chemical Society Reducing Your Carbon Fo...
American Chemical Society 6 Human Activity and Greenhouse Gases – Estimation Using 2000 Data Global greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000 weighted by their global warming potential and organized by sector. The sheer size of cow herds makes a significant contribution to global warming.” Source: Reducing Other Greenhouse Gases – Exhibit on Global Warming at Koshland Science Museum www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes04.jsp Livestock lead rice-growing, gas-flaring, and mining in global emissions of this highly potent greenhouse gas.



Global Climate Change Article
ACS Journals C&EN CAS ACS Position Statement Global Climate Change ACS Statement on Global Climate Change Summary The ACS statement on global climate change reviews the science and recommends action on global climate issues. Letter from Katie Hunt to Reps Udall & Inglis on Global Change Research 6/19/07


ACS also publish a teacher guide every month, in most issues they raise Global Warming. Where are the letters regarding this? If the general consensus as painted by Morano in your OP think tank piece is correct, why is this teacher aid promoting and educating Global Warming as being real?

What about this article on the American Chemical Society from April,09.

WASHINGTON, April 9, 2009 — In celebration of Earth Day, the American Chemical Society and the Koshland Science Museum invite the public to attend a special Science Café session on global climate change, including what we know, what we don’t know, and a look at possible solutions.........
Why: A community outreach program designed to raise awareness of the importance of chemistry to everyday life, including the human dimension of climate change and how we can find solutions to the problem.
portal.acs.org:80... &sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=5133d235-492e-4414-b219-5ea99f03cfd9

This is an invite to the PUBLIC to hear ACS discuss Climate Change.



I agree that debate on this topic is needed and scrutiny and caution in reviewing ALL opinions is required.

But in the case of the OP, this is just SPIN.

ACS clearly has a position on Global Warming that is quite different to that Opinion as stated by in the OP source by Marc Morana. Yes, some member will disagree but in General the WOrlds Largest group of scientists clearly say something different.

GO TO THE SOURCE.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Everytime is the same thing.. . When you can't debate the topics being presented someone has to come along and claim "they have some agenda"...

I gave a direct link to the letters, and the response from the editor in chief who he himself states most scientists who wrote responses, and there are many, do not agree with the claim posted by the editor in chief, and the "policymakers...

The only BS comes from people like you who don't want to accept what has been really happening...

I gave excerpts and links to the responses from scientists, and even what Baum had to say about it...

pubs.acs.org...


The letters in this issue of C&EN, all six columns of them, address my editorial “Climate-Change News” that appeared in the June 22 issue. Most of the letters disagree sharply with the editorial. Many more letters on climate change appear in the letters section of this week’s issue of C&EN Online. Most all of the printable letters we received about the June 22 editorial are either printed in this issue or posted on C&EN Online.

cenblog.org...

But of course, instead of bothering yourself with reading what the letters have to say, and even what the editor in chief has to say you come up with another BS excuse "oh he is Republican, and he is right-wing"..... That is not an argument, it only shows that you have no idea how to respond to an argument with a concise intelligent response....

Your response only shows your own ignorance...

Perhaps i should respond with "what are you, a Democrat/Liberal and a leftwinger?... we shouldn't be listening to you because of your political afiliation....


[edit on 21-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join