Notices
Results 1 to 53 of 53

Thread: These are also the views of William McCormick: Ban them?

  1. #1 These are also the views of William McCormick: Ban them? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate is hardly about science.” - Computer Modeler and Engineer Allen Simmons, who worked 12 years with NASA's top climate scientists and wrote computer systems software for the world's first weather satellites and aided in the development of computer systems for polar orbiting satellites. Simmons co-authored the new skeptical book The Resilient Earth.

    "Belief in climate models compared to “ancient astrology”… "I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate.” - Award-winning Japanese Physicist Dr. Kanya Kusano, program director of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology who’s research “focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change.” compared climate models to “ancient astrology.”


    “The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.” - Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, specialized in the reconstruction of a variety of proxy data and has worked for the Department of Energy and conducted research for the Arizona State Office of Climatology to investigate the Little Ice Age.

    “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.


    “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities.” - Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers.

    “Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.” - Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and is the current Chair of the U.S. Liaison Committee of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Austin, who won the 2005 Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society

    “If global cooling will come soon -- scientists will lose trust .” - Award-winning Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, was decorated with the Medal of Honor with Purple Ribbon for a major contribution in the field of geology, specializes in the geological evidence of prehistoric climate change.


    “Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it.” - Materials and Research Physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, a former Department of Navy research physicist who has published more than 25 scientific papers specializes in spectroscopy, microscopy, thermal analysis, mass spectroscopy, and surface chemistry.

    “The data which is used to date for making the conclusions and predictions on global warming are so rough and primitive, compared to what’s needed, and so unreliable that they are not even worth mentioning by respectful scientists.” - Award-winning Aerospace and Mechanical Engineer Dr. Gregory W. Moore, who has authored or co-authored more than 75 publications, book chapters, and reports, and authored the 2001 Version of the NASA Space Science Technology Plan which included a comprehensive approach to studying the Sun-Earth connection aspect of space-based research.


    “I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made…Hansen embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming.” - Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, a former supervisor of NASA’s James Hansen, and the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch.

    “I am pleased to be considered a ‘denier’ in this cause if this puts me in the class with those who defied prevailing ‘scientific consensus’ that the earth was flat and that the earth was the not the center of the universe.” – Retired U.S. Air Force (USAF) Meteorologist William “Bill” Lyons, of the USAF’s Global Weather Central at Strategic Air Command.

    “I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues… Curiously, it is a feature of man-made global warming that every fact confirms it: rising temperatures or decreasing temperatures. No matter what the weather, some model of global warming offers a watertight explanation.” - Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros of the UK Natural History Museum, who specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers


    “It is amazing to me, as a professional geologist, how many otherwise intelligent people have, as some may say, ‘drunk the Al Gore Kool-Aid’ concerning global climate change.” - Professional Geologist Earl F. Titcomb Jr. has co-authored analyses of geological and seismological hazards.

    “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics. . . . What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.’” - Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society and specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.


    “Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output.” - Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as a manager for an EPA Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.

    “Whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.” - Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University has authored 58 peer-reviewed publications and five books.

    “My dear colleague [NASA’s James] Hansen, I believe, has finally gone off the deep end... The global warming ‘time bomb,’ ‘disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control.’ These are the words of an apocalyptic prophet, not a rational scientist.” - Chemist Dr. Nicholas Drapela of the faculty of Oregon State University Chemistry Department


    “There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the IPCC…The IPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one…Their leaders betrayed the trust of the world community.” - Chemist Dr. Grant Miles, author of numerous scientific publications who was elected to a Fellowship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, was a member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee.


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,105
    And again I say quoting those who are not trained in the field of science that is being criticizedsi the same as going to your mechanic for a gunshot wound.

    Tallying thing up:

    Total quotes: 18

    Actual Climatologists: 5 (1/3 of total quotes)

    Engineers: 2

    Geologists: 3

    Physicists: 4

    Chemists: 3

    Meteorologists: 1

    Only a third of the quote mined quotes are from experts in the actual field of climate change.

    On a similar not there is the major problem of NO DATES for the quotes so the reader cant tell if they were made 5 day or 5 years ago.

    At this point the post is so much hand waving and woo-woo to get attention without actually bringing any scientific evidence along to support the statement.

    As usual.....


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    And again I say quoting those who are not trained in the field of science that is being criticizedsi the same as going to your mechanic for a gunshot wound.

    Total quotes: 18

    Actual Climatologists: 5 (1/3 of total quotes)
    Engineers: 2
    Geologists: 3
    Physicists: 4
    Chemists: 3
    Meteorologists: 1

    Only a third of the quote mined quotes are from experts in the actual field of climate change.

    On a similar not there is the major problem of NO DATES for the quotes so the reader cant tell if they were made 5 day or 5 years ago.

    At this point the post is so much hand waving and woo-woo to get attention without actually bringing any scientific evidence along to support the statement.

    As usual.....
    Now think, Paleoichneum, what do climatologists do?
    Right, climatoligists try to understand the fluctuations of weather.
    Yes, and our weather is caused by an admix of physics, geology, and chemistry.

    Yes, depending exclusively on climatologists to explain long term climate change would be akin to the storied blind man ahold of an elephant's trunk and then him declaring the beast a snake.


    3/16/09 Washington DC: Fifty nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ˝ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.


    The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,105
    So provide references to these statements so we can check them out ourselves.

    yes climatology is affected by geology, chemistry etc... however this does not automatically mean everyone in said fields is an expert on global warming.
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    So provide references to these statements so we can check them out ourselves.
    Gee whiz, Paleoichneum, did you not discern that the statements quoted were in testimony to the US Senate Minority Committee on Climate Change? Geez!

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Yes climatology is affected by geology, chemistry etc... however this does not automatically mean everyone in said fields is an expert on global warming.
    Semantics, Paleoichneum, semantics. An expert is only an expert if you consider him as such. And if you only consider as experts those who agree with you then no one is an expert...comprehend?
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,105
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    So provide references to these statements so we can check them out ourselves.
    Gee whiz, Paleoichneum, did you not discern that the statements quoted were in testimony to the US Senate Minority Committee on Climate Change? Geez!

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Yes climatology is affected by geology, chemistry etc... however this does not automatically mean everyone in said fields is an expert on global warming.
    Semantics, Paleoichneum, semantics. An expert is only an expert if you consider him as such. And if you only consider as experts those who agree with you then no one is an expert...comprehend?
    I work as Collections manager at an early Eocene fossil site, thus I deal with material dating from one of the warmest periods in earths history the Paleocene-Eocene thermal Maximum, by what you are saying this qualifies me as an expert on Global warming.

    Your the one making the broad statements. Simply stating that someone who works in a vaguely related field qualified to give unbiased expert opinion on the topic is the same as going to a structural engineer for a broken leg. The engineer graduated from college(hopefully) and so by your logic is qualified to fix the broken leg.

    Sorry but I still want to see your actual source for the quotes, so unless you were present at the signing and photocopied the statements I want links to where you got them from.
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    So provide references to these statements so we can check them out ourselves.

    yes climatology is affected by geology, chemistry etc... however this does not automatically mean everyone in said fields is an expert on global warming.
    I have the same general questions. Isolated quotes without any context don't hold much water.

    I tried looking up a few of these, for example:
    “The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.” - Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, specialized in the reconstruction of a variety of proxy data and has worked for the Department of Energy and conducted research for the Arizona State Office of Climatology to investigate the Little Ice Age.
    I couldn't find a single past research paper by any DIANE L. DOUGLAS in climate or meteorology. It might be an accurate quote, but I'm suspect when Paleoclimate is misspelled, and when there isn't a single hit on past papers. I did find one abstract to a conference paper she submitted for an event next week. (this isn't a peer review paper--but I hope leads to one--perhaps her first).

    "DIANE L. DOUGLAS
    Statistical Research Inc., USA

    Global warming is one of the most important and dangerous issues facing man today. Many scientists and politicians have focused on anthropogenic causes of this change and the need to reduce CO2 emissions to limit or slow the process. Major climate changes, however, have occurred throughout earth’s history. The shifting of continental plates, rise of mountains, and cyclical changes in earth’s orbit around the sun are primary forcing mechanisms driving climate change. The complex coupling between the atmosphere, ocean, clouds, ice sheets, volcanoes, earthquakes, and the exchange of carbon within living organisms also affect climate. Over the past two million years, earth’s climate has been punctuated by glacial and interglacial periods—periods when earth’s temperature ranged from 8oC cooler to 4oC warmer than present. Hominids adapted their settlements and subsistence practices to these changes. Modern humans evolved around 40,000 years ago, during the last ice age, and at the end of the last ice age migrated to new lands and new continents. People developed new technologies and adaptive strategies in response to sea level rise and a more productive environment. Today we face climate change of a similar magnitude to the last interglacial. This paper shows how natural forcing mechanisms may drive earth into an interglacial as warm as the last interglacial, regardless of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Sea level may rise 15 – 20 feet, and in some regions storms will increase in frequency and strength, and in others deserts will expand. Many significant heritage resources are threatened by these changes, and those that cannot be saved should be thoroughly documented to share with future generations. Others may be saved through hazard mitigation measures—but the key lies in engaging the public and governments, which requires convincing them that climate change is inevitable and planning for change is essential."
    http://www.enamecenter.org/en/collo_douglas

    Her position seems to be that the current warming is natural and could get worse (far worse than the IPCC has put out). Well, that's a lot different.

    Ok, next I look at William W. Vaughan. He done some good work, especially on upper atmosphere and on remote ways to use radar to detect wind, but alas I couldn't find a single paper, peer-reviewed or even a technical report, on climate. He's not a climatologist for sure. Anyhow here's a list of his work (look at W.W. Vaughan--their search function added some other Vaughan(s))

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...,+W&db_key=PHY

    Anyhow---where is the research that shows there's anything credible to doubt the thousands of papers and observational studies that we are projected to get much warmer? Science isn't done by sound bite.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The report by Inhofe's committee is here. You have to scroll down to page 83 to get to the meat, such as it is.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9

    The statements seem to be cherry-picked from blogs and websites. As far as I can tell there wqs no direct testimony to the committee.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    I work as Collections manager at an early Eocene fossil site, thus I deal with material dating from one of the warmest periods in earths history the Paleocene-Eocene thermal Maximum, by what you are saying this qualifies me as an expert on Global warming.
    Good Grief, Paleoichneum, I hope you manage your collections better than you do your thinking...Good and Holy grief, Paleoichneum, by what great streach of human logic could anyone consider you an expert in global warming? Your onsite experience as a proxy visitor to the high seas and balmy weather of the so-called "thermal maximum" seemed to not have impregnated you with the reality of the extremes of Earth's temperature. Like me you should do your digging back during Pennsylvanian times. Back then, thank God for slimy creatures, the World was really hot!


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Anyhow---where is the research that shows there's anything credible to doubt the thousands of papers and observational studies that we are projected to get much warmer? Science isn't done by sound bite.
    Now, now, Lynx_Fox, where are your logical sequences that summerize the thousands of papers and observersions that proclaim "Global Warming"? Today even the most shrill adherents of man caused Global Warming confess that for the last ten years the Earth's mean temperature has declined.

    But, of course, measurements have never converted a "true believer".
    :-D
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    The report by Inhofe's committee is here. You have to scroll down to page 83 to get to the meat, such as it is.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9

    The statements seem to be cherry-picked from blogs and websites. As far as I can tell there wqs no direct testimony to the committee.
    What are you intimating, Bunbury? Are you suggesting that the comments of these good citizens and these good scientists with regard to their opinions of the political nature of the cabal of Global Warming scientists are wrong?

    Well, fair enough, Bunbury, but then is your job to simply explain why atmospheric CO2 concentrations are slightly rising but worldwide temperatures are falling.

    Inquiring minds want to know. :-D
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,105
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    I work as Collections manager at an early Eocene fossil site, thus I deal with material dating from one of the warmest periods in earths history the Paleocene-Eocene thermal Maximum, by what you are saying this qualifies me as an expert on Global warming.
    Good Grief, Paleoichneum, I hope you manage your collections better than you do your thinking...Good and Holy grief, Paleoichneum, by what great streach of human logic could anyone consider you an expert in global warming? Your onsite experience as a proxy visitor to the high seas and balmy weather of the so-called "thermal maximum" seemed to not have impregnated you with the reality of the extremes of Earth's temperature. Like me you should do your digging back during Pennsylvanian times. Back then, thank God for slimy creatures, the World was really hot!

    Newsflash: The Pennsylvanian, part of the Carboniferous was part of an icehouse planet, eg lots of glaciers and low sea levels, not extreme heat.



    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Anyhow---where is the research that shows there's anything credible to doubt the thousands of papers and observational studies that we are projected to get much warmer? Science isn't done by sound bite.
    Now, now, Lynx_Fox, where are your logical sequences that summerize the thousands of papers and observersions that proclaim "Global Warming"? Today even the most shrill adherents of man caused Global Warming confess that for the last ten years the Earth's mean temperature has declined.

    But, of course, measurements have never converted a "true believer". :-D
    Citation please.......

    or will you bail on this thread like you bailed on the "Global Warming" thread here: http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...5717&start=105

    we are STILL waiting for those references....
     

  13. #12 Re: These are also the views of William McCormick: Ban them 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    The questions are scientific, ...

    ..........................

    ... member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee.
    [moderator mode]
    milum, could you provide exact references to your quotes, not merely who made them, but also where and when they were published
    imo it will help focus the discussion on the facts within their context rather than some random quotes
    [/moderator mode]
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Now, now, Lynx_Fox, where are your logical sequences that summerize the thousands of papers and observasions that proclaim "Global Warming"?


    You mean places like
    International Panel on climate change, which is a combination of World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm

    Or
    UK's Met Office Hadley Centre, which both records, analyzes observations and does climate modeling:
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/

    Or NASA's
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/

    Ok there's a lot more but that's should be enough to answer your question. Excuse us following this subject if we tend to regard many peer review papers and summaries of the research by climate research agencies as being more vetted and more credible than a few non-reviewed, out of context sound bites by non-climatology researchers.

    Today even the most shrill adherents of man caused Global Warming confess that for the last ten years the Earth's mean temperature has declined.

    But, of course, measurements have never converted a "true believer".
    :-D
    Really? Funny the only way to get cooling over the past ten years is to cherry pick from 1998, which was a record El Nino driven high to 2008 (actually eleven years) which should have been far below normal because it was a La Nina. Of course 2008, also at the very bottom of the solar cycle, still turned out to be a top ten high temperature year compared to the past 120. It should have been something like the 50th or more cooling year. From 1999 to 2008 (actually ten years) shows slight warming both for the two points as well as a linear regression line.

    How long should we expect now records based on the natural observed temperature yearly variability (~0.2C) and observed average rise (~0.02C/year)? Well on average we have a 50% chance to set a new record about every six years, with 80% probability to set a new record every twelve years. Our next record hot year will probably happen in the next five or six years as we climb out of lul between solar cycle 23 and 24.

    --
    Alas next on the list of atmospheric scientist is Timothy R. Minnich. Oddly his quote is a rather soft criticism and not really supportive of anything that counters man-made climate change. Good man though, I'd love to hear his opinion about the aerosols that China is producing because, like the heavy industry of post WWII Europe and the US, China might be masking their Co2 warming with particulates. From what I could find, Mr. Minnich has published some good work but none of it is directly about climate change. (sigh). Here's his list of publications.
    http://www.msiair.net/resumes.html
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    The report by Inhofe's committee is here. You have to scroll down to page 83 to get to the meat, such as it is.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9

    The statements seem to be cherry-picked from blogs and websites. As far as I can tell there wqs no direct testimony to the committee.
    What are you intimating, Bunbury?
    Nothing. Draw your own conclusions. You always do, regardless of the evidence.

    Are you suggesting that the comments of these good citizens and these good scientists with regard to their opinions of the political nature of the cabal of Global Warming scientists are wrong?
    No, I'm suggesting that you were wrong when you wrote that the statements came from Congressional testimony. It seems they didn't.

    Well, fair enough, Bunbury, but then is your job to simply explain why atmospheric CO2 concentrations are slightly rising but worldwide temperatures are falling.
    No, that isn't my job.
     

  16. #15 Re: These are also the views of William McCormick: Ban them 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    The questions are scientific, ...

    ..........................

    ... member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee.
    [moderator mode]
    milum, could you provide exact references to your quotes, not merely who made them, but also where and when they were published
    imo it will help focus the discussion on the facts within their context rather than some random quotes
    [/moderator mode]
    Please note, Mister Moderator, that Bunbury has already cited my source. It is in fact an abridge of two hundred anf forty-five pages of testimonies before the US Senate Minority Committee to date. Your posters here do not require the Full Monty do they?


    Quote Originally Posted by as posted by Bunbury and
    "The report by Inhofe's committee is here. You have to scroll down to page 83 to get to the meat, such as it is.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9

    The statements seem to be cherry-picked from blogs and websites. As far as I can tell there wqs no direct testimony to the committee."
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Thanks Bunbury for researching that source and doing Milum’s work.

    Reading the report is revealing though:

    These aren't testimonies in the common use of the word. The quoted individuals didn't appear nor submit these quotes to the Senate, no oaths were taken and none of them were asked to sign the report. Many weren't asked and some people's quotes are listed in the report even when the quoted asked that their quote be removed from an earlier list.

    The report itself is just a collection of unreferenced quotes, many of which are data mined and out of context.
    For example, Dr Joanne Simpson’s quote:
    http://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trm...vate-citizen/”

    Becomes: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical”

    Of course we could quote this part,
    “"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.”

    Both would have been equally wrong, since reading the blog entry makes her position pretty clear that she thinks we must act on what we have but she’s skeptical wants more observational evidence along with suggesting at least one place to get it.

    My question is why the senate "testimony" didn't bother to site the blog, day etc. which I was able to find in a few minutes.

    So here we have a Senate report which is not only misleading in its use of the word “testimony,” but fails to even rate at the level of scholarship of a high school term paper because it doesn't bother to provide references. This isn't the first time Senator Inhofe has done this low quality of work. We all should have higher standards from our leadership, but it is what it is. This report doesn't rate very high in credibility and shouldn't dupe many people.
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    You're welcome. I don't know why milum was so reluctant to share the source with us, but is was easy enough to find. It's pretty meaningless in terms of the overall debate, but obviously designed by the delusional Inhofe to grab a few headlines.
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    You're welcome. I don't know why milum was so reluctant to share the source with us, but is was easy enough to find. It's pretty meaningless in terms of the overall debate, but obviously designed by the delusional Inhofe to grab a few headlines.
    Uh, Bunbury. Don't tell Lynx_Fox but I wasn't "reluctant" to tell him the source of my information, rather I was embarassed that he could not see that my "source" was given by me in an earlier post, viz...

    "Gee whiz, Paleoichneum, did you not discern that the statements quoted were in testimony to the US Senate Minority Committee on Climate Change? Geez!"


    But as for this thread it is at this point making the point made by one of the testifiers before the Senate Committee, namely....

    “Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it.” - Physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson

     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    You've now mentioned testimony before the committee three times. I couldn't find any reference to anyone giving testimony, which is why I wrote above that the statements seemed to be gleaned from blogs and websites. I'd appreciate it if you could show where it's reported that testimony was given.

    Thanks.
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    One of the great strengths of the English language is its versatility, a direct result of an impressively large vocabulary garnered not only from its Germanic roots, with Romance overlay, but from scores of languages of the peoples with whom the British interacted. (Insert oppressed here if it matches your political persuasions better.)

    One can always find a word that captures with precision and passion the sense one is looking for. For some reason the word slimy is rolling around my skull.

    Bunbury and Lynx, I take it from your comments that the subject document is nothing more than a poorly constructed vox populi and as such can be safely ignored.
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Well, the document is the work of the office of Senator Inhofe who is playing a numbers game although his numbers don't add up.

    600 is an impressive number of scientists. I suppose we could all play that game (yawn).

    http://blogs.discovery.com/news_anim...ToCongress.pdf
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    One of the great strengths of the English language is its versatility, a direct result of an impressively large vocabulary garnered not only from its Germanic roots, with Romance overlay, but from scores of languages of the peoples with whom the British interacted. (Insert oppressed here if it matches your political persuasions better.)

    One can always find a word that captures with precision and passion the sense one is looking for. For some reason the word slimy is rolling around my skull.

    Bunbury and Lynx, I take it from your comments that the subject document is nothing more than a poorly constructed vox populi and as such can be safely ignored.
    You dog, John Galt. You banty your oily words about like a snake oil salesman and yet you supine to the likes of Bunbury and Lynx to vet tedious and tiring information that you being a epigonic gentleman can't be bothered to read. Yes, John Galt, you are quite the dandy.

    Please excuse me now while I respond to my goodbuddy Paleoichneum who wrote...

    "Newsflash: The Pennsylvanian, part of the Carboniferous was part of an icehouse planet, eg lots of glaciers and low sea levels, not extreme heat."

    Notso, Paleo, what with the landmass bunched up into Pangea the eustatic changes were minor but the effect was maximised by the vast flatlands of the continent. Besides, CO2 concentrations were three times today's count and does not high levels of CO2 cause "Global Warming"?
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,105
    Quote Originally Posted by milum

    "Newsflash: The Pennsylvanian, part of the Carboniferous was part of an icehouse planet, eg lots of glaciers and low sea levels, not extreme heat."

    Notso, Paleo, what with the landmass bunched up into Pangea the eustatic changes were minor but the effect was maximised by the vast flatlands of the continent. Besides, CO2 concentrations were three times today's count and does not high levels of CO2 cause "Global Warming"?
    Show me your references that say the carboniferous was a hothouse planet.
     

  25. #24  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    would you expect major glaciation in a hothouse earth ?
    because there definitely was a major glaciation in the then southern hemisphere :

    Karoo Ice Age
    the Carboniferous

    your perception of the global climate may be skewed by the fact that the US and western europe were lying near the equator at the time
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichmeum
    Show me your references that say the carboniferous was a hothouse planet.
    :x No! I will not! Instead you show your reference that I said the Earth was a "hothouse planet" during the Carboniferous.

    Now (being conciliatory) I will say that I see in the coal seams of Alabama an Earth that had suddenly exploded with continental vegetation. And a green revolution only occurs when the world is hot as hell and the atmosphere is laden with CO2.

    Sure it got cold later, climate is changing thing.



    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    would you expect major glaciation in a hothouse earth ?
    because there definitely was a major glaciation in the then southern hemisphere :

    Karoo Ice Age
    the Carboniferous

    your perception of the global climate may be skewed by the fact that the US and western europe were lying near the equator at the time
    No, marnixR, I would not expect a major glaciation in a "hothouse earth" because I don't even know what a "hothouse earth" is. Our big beautiful blue world is not Venus. The term, I think, is now passe even among the most static erratics of the changing climate literrai.

    But yes, marnixR, I am skewed. You'd be skewed too if the rock you looked at week by week was deposited in hothouse times.
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    would you expect major glaciation in a hothouse earth ?
    because there definitely was a major glaciation in the then southern hemisphere :

    Karoo Ice Age
    the Carboniferous

    your perception of the global climate may be skewed by the fact that the US and western europe were lying near the equator at the time
    Indeed.

    From what I've read no one climate dominates the Carboniferous period. Hot to start and much cooler towards the end.

    Direct comparisons can be misleading in any case for a variety of reasons including:
    The sun was quite a bit more dim--somewhere between 3-5 % dimmer, which is huge;
    Continents, Ocean currents, Mountains etc are all different configuration;
    Orbital tilt, electricity of orbit around sun etc were all possibly different than today.

    For all intents and purpose it was a different planet. Modeling of these ancient times is a fun and largely academic interest done by a few, though has potential to teach us sensativity to the above and other factors.
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    ...From what I've read no one climate dominates the Carboniferous period. Hot to start and much cooler towards the end.

    Direct comparisons can be misleading in any case for a variety of reasons including:
    The sun was quite a bit more dim--somewhere between 3-5 % dimmer, which is huge;
    Continents, Ocean currents, Mountains etc are all different configuration;
    Orbital tilt, electricity of orbit around sun etc were all possibly different than today.

    For all intents and purpose it was a different planet. Modeling of these ancient times is a fun and largely academic interest done by a few, though has potential to teach us sensitivity to the above and other factors.
    Why Lynx_Fox, what a reasonable response! I will listen closely to you in the future unless for some reason your reason becomes egoistic.

    Good show.
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,105
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Good Grief, Paleoichneum, I hope you manage your collections better than you do your thinking...Good and Holy grief, Paleoichneum, by what great streach of human logic could anyone consider you an expert in global warming? Your onsite experience as a proxy visitor to the high seas and balmy weather of the so-called "thermal maximum" seemed to not have impregnated you with the reality of the extremes of Earth's temperature. Like me you should do your digging back during Pennsylvanian times. Back then, thank God for slimy creatures, the World was really hot!
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichmeum
    Show me your references that say the carboniferous was a hothouse planet.
    :x No! I will not! Instead you show your reference that I said the Earth was a "hothouse planet" during the Carboniferous.
    You made the assertion right here where you state the Pennsylvanian was hotter then the Paleocene-Eocene thermal Maximum was.

    Now show me your references, though it is becoming rather obvious that you are making broad suppositions without any supporting references...

    again as usual....
     

  30. #29 Re: These are also the views of William McCormick: Ban them 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate is hardly about science.” - Computer Modeler and Engineer Allen Simmons, who worked 12 years with NASA's top climate scientists and wrote computer systems software for the world's first weather satellites and aided in the development of computer systems for polar orbiting satellites. Simmons co-authored the new skeptical book The Resilient Earth.

    "Belief in climate models compared to “ancient astrology”… "I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate.” - Award-winning Japanese Physicist Dr. Kanya Kusano, program director of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology who’s research “focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change.” compared climate models to “ancient astrology.”


    “The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.” - Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, specialized in the reconstruction of a variety of proxy data and has worked for the Department of Energy and conducted research for the Arizona State Office of Climatology to investigate the Little Ice Age.

    “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.


    “The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities.” - Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers.

    “Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.” - Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and is the current Chair of the U.S. Liaison Committee of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Austin, who won the 2005 Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society

    “If global cooling will come soon -- scientists will lose trust .” - Award-winning Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, was decorated with the Medal of Honor with Purple Ribbon for a major contribution in the field of geology, specializes in the geological evidence of prehistoric climate change.


    “Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it.” - Materials and Research Physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, a former Department of Navy research physicist who has published more than 25 scientific papers specializes in spectroscopy, microscopy, thermal analysis, mass spectroscopy, and surface chemistry.

    “The data which is used to date for making the conclusions and predictions on global warming are so rough and primitive, compared to what’s needed, and so unreliable that they are not even worth mentioning by respectful scientists.” - Award-winning Aerospace and Mechanical Engineer Dr. Gregory W. Moore, who has authored or co-authored more than 75 publications, book chapters, and reports, and authored the 2001 Version of the NASA Space Science Technology Plan which included a comprehensive approach to studying the Sun-Earth connection aspect of space-based research.


    “I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made…Hansen embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming.” - Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, a former supervisor of NASA’s James Hansen, and the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch.

    “I am pleased to be considered a ‘denier’ in this cause if this puts me in the class with those who defied prevailing ‘scientific consensus’ that the earth was flat and that the earth was the not the center of the universe.” – Retired U.S. Air Force (USAF) Meteorologist William “Bill” Lyons, of the USAF’s Global Weather Central at Strategic Air Command.

    “I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues… Curiously, it is a feature of man-made global warming that every fact confirms it: rising temperatures or decreasing temperatures. No matter what the weather, some model of global warming offers a watertight explanation.” - Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros of the UK Natural History Museum, who specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers


    “It is amazing to me, as a professional geologist, how many otherwise intelligent people have, as some may say, ‘drunk the Al Gore Kool-Aid’ concerning global climate change.” - Professional Geologist Earl F. Titcomb Jr. has co-authored analyses of geological and seismological hazards.

    “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics. . . . What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.’” - Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society and specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.


    “Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output.” - Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as a manager for an EPA Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.

    “Whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.” - Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University has authored 58 peer-reviewed publications and five books.

    “My dear colleague [NASA’s James] Hansen, I believe, has finally gone off the deep end... The global warming ‘time bomb,’ ‘disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control.’ These are the words of an apocalyptic prophet, not a rational scientist.” - Chemist Dr. Nicholas Drapela of the faculty of Oregon State University Chemistry Department


    “There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the IPCC…The IPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one…Their leaders betrayed the trust of the world community.” - Chemist Dr. Grant Miles, author of numerous scientific publications who was elected to a Fellowship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, was a member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee.

    That was some great stuff there Milum. I like to hear from those kind of folk, that are fed up with politics rather then science.

    Each one of them have probably found one hard science fact, that is either being ignored, used incorrectly or in a totally unscientific way. They do not need to be weather experts to know scientific data, procedure, or definition, is being misapplied.

    I had noted global warmers, ignoring facts, and in some cases not even understanding how the world worked for the last couple thousand years. All to promote their view.

    When they claimed global warming over a degree Celsius, and that degree Celsius is not out of the standard deviation of their equipment and procedures. I knew instantly it was just another, scheme. Just like the Brookhaven lab when they applied for a grant. To study subatomic particles in a total vacuum. Claimed we would be able to see one.

    I manufactured heating equipment. I know the standard deviation that can be maintained.

    I would bet that given a chance that many of those that are studying or filming ice or weather patterns. Would much rather know that they are working with weather patterns. And not climate change. So they can get out of the group of poor scientists and back into a group of hard scientists.


    I combat multi subatomic particle scientists all the time. I have to get down in their grime, and confusion, and tackle and explain each and every silly thing they believe. Take it away from them, and replace it with something that works.

    Did the global warmers do that. No. They just stated "Global Warming! Run for your life". Just like the "ice age" scientists in the seventies did. That was stopped cold back then. There were still to many really good scientists.

    The problem with normal sane individuals is that we do not go around communicating so fast, that we cause fear and panic. We do not go around screaming irresponsible things just to be heard.

    Fear and panic seems to sell. I am not recommending it, because it is short lived and usually ends up hurting those doing it. But that is how this nonsense is promoted.

    The ice age scientists, were ridiculed for many years.


    Look at Wall Street. They are screaming more money, or the world will end. And they get it.

    The truth is by getting more money so easy, the world may end as we know it. Everyone is going to get the idea, that money, is not worth as much as toilet paper. Then you will see what happens when no one in charge has a real plan. To change from a Ponzi scheme, to a responsible American system of fair trade.

    They only took down Bernie Madoff to look better. Make it seem like, all is well now. Kind of like Milken the Junk bond salesmen.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Milum must be feeling suicidal around now, with William McCormick his only visible means of support.

    Deeeeeelightful.
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Milum must be feeling suicidal around now, with William McCormick his only visible means of support.

    Deeeeeelightful.
    Do you know, that right now, if the multi subatomic particle scientists. Had answered the question, "How do you propose to create a perfect vacuum?" We would not have a neutron particle.

    Because they would have been shut down.

    If no one checks the global warmers on the most obvious of scientific basics. That one degree Celsius is not even in the realm of, causing alarm. Then it is all just a charade. Not science at all.

    There equipment and procedures are only accurate to about plus or minus 2.5 degrees Celsius. So go ahead, do yourselves in, by putting the stamp of voodoo on your science.

    I don't see why you dislike milum or wish him ill. What are viewpoints without other viewpoints. I only see a problem when someone looks at something blue, and says it is green. Because if it is blue he is a lying poor scientist.

    Global warmers seem to be making a case against reality. We all know innocent people get put in jail from over zealous district attorneys. Why is anyone making a case for or against global warming?

    It is a scientific issue. It needs no debate really. Just a scrutinizing of facts. The methods used to track climate have been around for hundreds of years. It is this data global warmers are using to say there is a change. So their next step will be to either call the past work nonsense, my guess. Or they will try to effect new data in favor of global warming.

    You will not find any global warmer to discuss weather patterns, rather then, or in place of climate change. I find that proof of their inability to face reality. If they just did a little fact finding they would see that ice has receded in the past, and may even recede more. It happens in cycles. However it has nothing to do with global Climate. That is weather patterns.

    Global Climate is much bigger then ice packs. It reaches to the temperature of the core of the earth.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I don't see why you dislike milum or wish him ill.
    He is endagering my children, my grandchildren and generations of my kin not yet borne. As one in a chain of succesful organisms going back over 3.5 billion years I have acquired genetic charcteristics that lead me to be enraged by anyone who threatens the wellbeing of my kin. Purely genetic, nothing personal.

    (You I like. You are crazy and probably certifiable, but I like you.)
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    William McCormick! Man, am I glad to see you. Listen, William, it been tough here without a seasoned voice to add perspective to the bleats and protests about my posts on this thread. Damnnation, McCormick, even MarnixR told me that I should stop the sarcasm. Well, you know me, Mac, I wouldn't knowingly hurt the feelings of even a low life dog much less the boys who have posted in this thread.

    I dunno...maybe a thin skin is de rigueur nowadays, but hey, here in Alabama good natured banter is still the vogue.

    Yeah, Mack, I thought that at least one or two of these faceless fellows could give and take until a semantical divide would render futher discussion moot.

    But no...these guys play discussion extracurriculum (although two, maybe three, might one day rise above their cultivated beliefs and join our little two man club).

    Until then I guess I'll just keep on posting my understandings about the way things are and try to keep from hurting these fellow's fellings. Here, you see, hurting feelings can cause your bannishment.

    And watch that "John Gaut"!
    He is a sneaky one.
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    I don't see why you dislike milum or wish him ill.
    He is endagering my children, my grandchildren and generations of my kin not yet borne. As one in a chain of succesful organisms going back over 3.5 billion years I have acquired genetic charcteristics that lead me to be enraged by anyone who threatens the wellbeing of my kin. Purely genetic, nothing personal.

    (You I like. You are crazy and probably certifiable, but I like you.)

    Take a look at milum. He is honest. He is saying wait a minute, if you guys are really truly caring and honest. You would want to address these holes in global warming. But you do not. So to him actually a very good scientist not allowing even one variable to go overlooked, it spits out Error!

    To him it is not even a personal thing or contest. It is a matter of waking you up and getting you to at least see what he is saying. If he cannot, he feels like he is not being a good friend.

    There is a great article in the farmers almanac about how the Titanic symbolized the coming of the ice age. Before the previous global warming earlier in this century.

    http://www.digital-almanac.com/digit...2009/?folio=68

    It enlarges and you can turn the pages. Very neat link.

    The problem with the modern scientist is that he has been given an ego. That ego was given to him by his poor teacher, that did not want anyone to get through his students defenses, and find him.

    I have watched this global climate change, back and forth, back and forth. It is sillier then the stock market and the "E-conomy".

    Before this there were those that believed that man made fires, brought about volcanic eruptions by warming the earth. There was scientific proof of this. After a camp fire, the ground was very hot.

    But the truth is that we have not come much farther then that. We still fall for the same tricks.

    It looks like global warmers think there is some conspiracy against them. People just keep telling them that their finds are nothing. And we are conspiring to hide global warming from them and others.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Ice has receded before.

    Very obvious things might be effecting ice. Carbon deposits could cause ice to melt faster in the sun. Is this the cause I don't know. But I am not going to run off and claim global warming or carbon deposits until I have some facts.

    These poor scientists might be hiding what really is causing a lot of ice to melt. If the ice melting is in fact an unnatural thing. I am not at all convinced that it is not a totally natural thing.

    If this was the early 1900's you would be accusing milum of killing your family with an ice age. By going along with the popular, unscientific hysteria.

    Milum and I have the weight of history, and scientific accuracy in our pocket. You have a greater share of vocal scientists. If that makes you right and milum and I wrong. Well, I don't know what to say.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  36. #35  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Before this there were those that believed that man made fires, brought about volcanic eruptions by warming the earth. There was scientific proof of this. After a camp fire, the ground was very hot.
    I have previously showed by calculation that the heat produced by burning fossil fuels may be enough to account for the recent warming effect we've been seeing.

    So for once, you have made a serious suggestion (sort of).
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    "I manufactured heating equipment. I know the standard deviation that can be maintained. "

    Then you should already know that 1) meteorology instruments are to much higher quality and 2) the standard deviation is about the range of single observations around an average. The error range of the average taken over thousands of observations is much smaller than the standard deviation of any single observation. This is more true if your measuring a trend over many years, because the bias which applies to past and present is removed.
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    I have previously showed by calculation that the heat produced by burning fossil fuels may be enough to account for the recent warming effect we've been seeing.

    So for once, you have made a serious suggestion (sort of).
    Your previous calculations cannot account for the recent "warming effect" we have been seeing, turtle, because in recent times ( the last ten years) there has been no global warming at all. Read the texts.

    Oh! Now I get it...your calculations account for a recent warming IF there had been a recent global warming that could be measured.

    Well, you got me there, I can't argue with hypothetical math.
     

  39. #38  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    You keep forgetting about solar minimum, milum. We are only now emerging from it, yet the earth has not been cooling down as it should have. Why do you think that is?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You keep forgetting about solar minimum, milum. We are only now emerging from it, yet the earth has not been cooling down as it should have. Why do you think that is?
    See?
    See KALSTER cite!

    KALSTER did not see fit to credit the last Solar Maximum as contributing much to the so-called "global warming" of the ninties. But now he has touted and embraced the Solar Minimum as a strong factor in the causes of the current cool spell. Strange.

    Yes, what goes around comes around, KALSTER, and NASA has predictited that our next Solar Cycle will likely be one of the least active in a long long time.

    Can you say... Maunder Minimun; as in, Little Ice Age?

    Can the people of the World say...brrrr; as in, lynch Al Gore.
     

  41. #40  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You keep forgetting about solar minimum, milum. We are only now emerging from it, yet the earth has not been cooling down as it should have. Why do you think that is?
    See?
    See KALSTER cite!

    KALSTER did not see fit to credit the last Solar Maximum as contributing much to the so-called "global warming" of the ninties. But now he has touted and embraced the Solar Minimum as a strong factor in the causes of the current cool spell. Strange.

    Yes, what goes around comes around, KALSTER, and NASA has predictited that our next Solar Cycle will likely be one of the least active in a long long time.

    Can you say... Maunder Minimun; as in, Little Ice Age?

    Can the people of the World say...brrrr; as in, lynch Al Gore.
    What a hyperbole! Slippery slope pundit! My point stands. The overall trend over more than just 2 decades have indicated an average increase in global temperatures, even when the solar cycles are accounted for. Problems?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    You keep forgetting about solar minimum, milum. We are only now emerging from it, yet the earth has not been cooling down as it should have. Why do you think that is?
    Exactly; when we should be having years that "are the 80th warmest of the past 120 years" etc., instead we're still having top 10 warmest years, even with solar minimums and La Nina, which are nearly always colder than average.

    We've moved the baseline.

    KALSTER did not see fit to credit the last Solar Maximum as contributing much to the so-called "global warming" of the ninties. But now he has touted and embraced the Solar Minimum as a strong factor in the causes of the current cool spell. Strange.
    Kalster doesn't credit the 90's global warming to the last solar maximum because he probably knows that most of the last solar maximum took place after the 90's and peaked earlier in this decade.

    Yes, what goes around comes around, KALSTER, and NASA has predictited that our next Solar Cycle will likely be one of the least active in a long long time.

    Can you say... Maunder Minimun; as in, Little Ice Age?
    Actually NASA is predicting a slightly less intense than the last solar cycle, making it about 7th, or near average, compared to the past 100 years of cycles (first figure). Really nothing like the Maunder Minimum. I included a graph which shows the Maunder Minimum along with cycle 23 which has just ended.

     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Maybeso, Lynx-Fox, but the world shifs and changes and this update might make your NASA graphs obsolete.

    I tell you, Fox. things are looking cold.

    Brrr.

    Recent Changes to Solar Cycle Values and Plots
    March 2, 2009 -- The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has not issued any updates to their prediction. However, the Space Weather Prediction Center, and the Chair of the Prediction Panel decided to implement what they believe to be an obvious change to the plotted data. The two predictions, of maximum being either a SSN of 90 or a SSN of 140 remain intact. Once the date of solar minimum is known, that is all the information needed to arrive at a prediction curve. The panel prediction of solar minimum in March, 2008 has been eclipsed. Minimum will now occur no earlier than August, 2008. For every month beyond March 2008 that minimum slips, it is necessary to shift the prediction curves by the same amount. SWPC commenced doing so in mid-February and will continue to do so, unless or until the prediction panel sets a new predicted date for the time of solar minimum.
     

  44. #43  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    The solar minimum has extended a bit longer than first expected, but, AFAIK, it is slowly starting to move up again. The thing, milum, is that the solar minimum is masking the effects of anthropogenic CO2 and the more extended it is, the more it masks the effects of CO2. Now what do you think will happen while the solar output takes an upward trend? The apparent effects of CO2 will be amplified as the mask is slowly removed.

    Lynx, do you maybe have a graph of estimates where solar forcing is removed plotted along with the actual measurements and predictions? Not sure if you have posted such a graph yet...
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The solar minimum has extended a bit longer than first expected, but, AFAIK, it is slowly starting to move up again. The thing, milum, is that the solar minimum is masking the effects of anthropogenic CO2 and the more extended it is, the more it masks the effects of CO2. Now what do you think will happen while the solar output takes an upward trend? The apparent effects of CO2 will be amplified as the mask is slowly removed.

    Lynx, do you maybe have a graph of estimates where solar forcing is removed plotted along with the actual measurements and predictions? Not sure if you have posted such a graph yet...
    I dunno, KASTER, your use of the term "mask" could be applied to global cooling as well.
    And at the very least the multiple-caused temperature varibles are well within the so-called (by me) "McCormick range" of indec1pherables.
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    Maybeso, Lynx-Fox, but the world shifs and changes and this update might make your NASA graphs obsolete.

    I tell you, Fox. things are looking cold.

    Brrr.
    The NASA's prediction I posted is more current than your reference, it was updated on Mar 4, 2009:
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

    Still nothing like your alarmest statement about the Maunder Minimun.

    Lynx, do you maybe have a graph of estimates where solar forcing is removed plotted along with the actual measurements and predictions? Not sure if you have posted such a graph yet...
    I haven't seen anything like that though I know the solar radiance range during a solar cycle ~0.25 Watts / m^2. Climate sensativity is something on the range of 2 C/Watt. So as a back of the envelop calculation, discounting everything else we should be about 0.25 C below average (half the range x sensativity) instead of remain well above average. Of course that isn't the whole story because when you account for other things, such as El Nino, La Nina, changes in industrial (economic) driven particles, rising green house gases, volcanism, and many other things which add up to ~0.5C annual variability. Note also that simplistic forcing wouldn't work if we did really go into another long multi-decade spell of low solar activity, because it tends to get biological positive reinforcement which quickly lowers CH4 and even slowly lowers Co2. But of course none of the several hypothesis and modeling of solar activity are predicting that.
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Don't look now, Lynx.
    Don't get mad, Kalster.
    But I think that NASA has found the latest solar minimum beyond their understanding. They are now funding a study to find out why the latest solar minimum doesn't match their computer models, in other words, they are covering their ass-sets with last minute studies that can get them out of a box.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASA advertizing the availability of funds for futher study
    =================================


    This is a three year project with funding of 1.5 million dollars per year and total funding of 4.5 million dollars over the life of the project. This is a very good insurance and CYA policy on NASA’s part. They may get some interesting research out of the project and if conditions on the Sun take an unexpected turn, they can always say: “Yes Senator, NASA was right of top of the situation and we funded this new project on 3/5/2009”!

    From the document:

    .9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23
    http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/....9%20CCMSC.pdf

    B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23

    1. Scope of Program

    In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 23. As this cycle comes to an end we are recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in records of both solar activity and the response to it of the terrestrial space environment. For example:
    Causes – Solar output


    Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was created in 1947;
    Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the beginning of the Space age;
    Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the current solar minimum;
    Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum of Solar Cycle 22;
    Effectively no sunspots;
    The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer belt; and
    Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.

    Consequences

    With the exception of 1934, 2008 had more instances of 3-hr periods with Kp=0 than any other year since the creation of the index in 1932;
    Cold contracted ionosphere and upper atmosphere; and
    Remarkably persistent recurrent geomagnetic activity.


    Thus, we have an unprecedented opportunity to characterize the quiet/background state of the heliosphere when the solar source function is as close to the ground state as it has been in the modern era.

    NASA’s Heliophysics Division wishes to facilitate study of this special period. This ROSES element thus solicits proposals to study the Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 23 (CCMSC). Proposals are encouraged that take advantage of this opportunity with studies of domains ranging from the center of the Sun through terrestrial and planetary space environments to the boundary of the heliosphere. High priority will be given to studies addressing the interaction between various regimes.

    Taking maximum advantage of this opportunity will require interaction between specialists in different regimes. Selected Principal Investigators will have responsibilities for both their own specific research and for participation in a yearly workshop where all the CCMSC investigators will be brought together to explore the implications of their own work for other regions. Proposals should address both of these responsibilities.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I bet NASA Director Hanson is crying in his beer as we speak. :-D
     

  48. #47  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Get mad? You are making an absolute fool of yourself, again!

    But I think that NASA has found the latest solar minimum beyond their understanding. They are now funding a study to find out why the latest solar minimum doesn't match their computer models, in other words, they are covering their ass-sets with last minute studies that can get them out of a box.
    Do you really think that NASA claims to know everything about the sun? This is so outrageous that I am totally taken aback! You see a covering up because NASA wants to learn from anomalous solar behaviour?

    We have raw data that show recurring patterns. We have our current understandings of fluid dynamics, etc, etc. So, they try to figure out how the sun works. The recurring patterns are not regular and understanding the dynamics behind them is both of pragmatic and scholarly interest. I fail to see why this has to be explained to you!

    I bet NASA Director Hanson is crying in his beer as we speak.
    Easy bet to take.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Before this there were those that believed that man made fires, brought about volcanic eruptions by warming the earth. There was scientific proof of this. After a camp fire, the ground was very hot.
    I have previously showed by calculation that the heat produced by burning fossil fuels may be enough to account for the recent warming effect we've been seeing.

    So for once, you have made a serious suggestion (sort of).
    I was saying actual carbon particles. Like after a volcano or the Kuwaiti oil field burning, during the Gulf War.

    These particles on the ice may melt ice at a rate of as much as ten times that of clean ice. I have witnessed this in real life. Soiled ice melted much faster the pristine ice.

    We live in a perpetual motion Universe. Burning of fossil fuel in one spot. Creates substances and effects that equalize out the heating. Fire is just an electrical effect at heart.

    Particles of carbon on the snow, I would have to take seriously as a plausible effect, that could cause the polar caps to melt. But I would not run around saying that is what it is. Unless I did some checking.
    If the scientists that are being paid to check what is taking place. Did not check this, or note this. I would say that they would not want it to come out now.

    But still this is not global warming or climate change. This is a weather pattern brought about by some phenomena that could be natural of man made.

    They built a solar powered high pressure carbon particle heat generator years ago that collected concentrated sunlight, and actually melted or disintegrated the carbon particles.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER

    I bet NASA Director Hanson is crying in his beer as we speak.
    Easy bet to take.
    You got that right. While some are so desperate to find NASA wrong they aren't looking at the data, dedicated scientist like Hanson actually looking at the data know the last decade was the warmest of the past 120 years, including 2008 which was 8th warmest despite the quiet sun.

    I'm all for NASA learning more about the sun, we all should be because of its obvious importance. Hard to fault NASA for doing its job.

    But time for a new thread...this one's far off course from the original out of context quote mining report from almost entirely non climate experts that didn't actually give any testimony.
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER

    I bet NASA Director Hanson is crying in his beer as we speak.
    Easy bet to take.
    You got that right. While some are so desperate to find NASA wrong they aren't looking at the data, dedicated scientist like Hanson actually looking at the data know the last decade was the warmest of the past 120 years, including 2008 which was 8th warmest despite the quiet sun.

    I'm all for NASA learning more about the sun, we all should be because of its obvious importance. Hard to fault NASA for doing its job.

    But time for a new thread...this one's far off course from the original out of context quote mining report from almost entirely non climate experts that didn't actually give any testimony.
    I think the "Non Climate Experts" would thank you, for taking them out of a group of Global Warmers. But they might be a little unhappy, because real weather scientists know that climate change is not the cause of melting ice. And they do state that.

    One thing we have not touched on here. Is that even the sun does not cause Climate change. Just weather patterns.

    Because when one type of ray, does not heat the surface of the earth, it may heat the core. When the ray does heat the surface of the earth, it may not get to the core as a ray that heats the core.

    If you do some heating of metal and metal hardening. You would understand how heat travels though metal and substances. Rays carry heat. Basically electrons. So if you take an electron transmitting one type of radiation. And change its velocity, you get another type of radiation.

    That is why we do not discuss an 18 gauge wire carrying 500,000 watts of power, at 110,000 volts. Because it means that electrons had to be moving faster through the smaller 18 gauge wire, then electrons at 120 volts carrying the same amperage.

    Because if we all understood the universe. We would realize we have some serious work to do. There would be very little room for law makers, and poor scientists.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by milum
    William McCormick! Man, am I glad to see you. Listen, William, it been tough here without a seasoned voice to add perspective to the bleats and protests about my posts on this thread. Damnnation, McCormick, even MarnixR told me that I should stop the sarcasm. Well, you know me, Mac, I wouldn't knowingly hurt the feelings of even a low life dog much less the boys who have posted in this thread.

    I dunno...maybe a thin skin is de rigueur nowadays, but hey, here in Alabama good natured banter is still the vogue.

    Yeah, Mack, I thought that at least one or two of these faceless fellows could give and take until a semantical divide would render futher discussion moot.

    But no...these guys play discussion extracurriculum (although two, maybe three, might one day rise above their cultivated beliefs and join our little two man club).

    Until then I guess I'll just keep on posting my understandings about the way things are and try to keep from hurting these fellow's fellings. Here, you see, hurting feelings can cause your bannishment.

    And watch that "John Gaut"!
    He is a sneaky one.
    One thing I have noticed is that, you and I often get a very rude reply. When our intension was a friendly discussion of scientific facts. I rarely start a fight. If I do, it is by accident. Usually while making a joke in an untimely way.

    But the sarcasm is usually from others. Claiming to be experts or working in the same field we are discussing.
    I just do not see myself getting angry or sarcastic, if someone had a view different then the everyday standard I use in my field.

    I would be so happy to discuss in detail how we do it everyday. Why we do it. I do not see that from these other guys. I would like to. I know unfortunately it will expose that their field is in disarray.

    If I started talking about my field, everyone would see my field is in disarray as well. But that is why I like to talk about it. So we can get together and fix it. Science needs to get back to basics. And stick them hard. Slam dunk them. Break the glass on the backboard.

    I hear where you are coming from Milum, your insults are filled with well intention. But trust me they do not get that. You are just trying to short cut a lot of misery for them. I know exactly where you are coming from. But they do not even want to know where you are.

    I no longer expect them to wake up. I am however pleasantly surprised every now and then. So I just systematically bring up things that I know, until they make sense, and start to grow. I have gotten better at not being sarcastic. I sometimes stumble.

    You and I look at the truth, they know it exists. But figure it is not as easy as talking about the truth and making it happen. So they fight it. Because they are pessimistic. We are optimistic so we tackle giant monsters with a toothpick.

    Totally off the subject. This is just something that came to mind about little David. Check this out. I have fired eight inch mortars and they shake the ground. I could not even imagine a 36 inch mortar going off.








    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    But time for a new thread...this one's far off course from the original out of context quote mining report from almost entirely non climate experts who didn't actually give any testimony.
    Sorry, Lynx_Fox, you are but a galley slave on this sinking thead. You can't order it out of order and then call for a new thread. That is the purview of the Moderator or Me - the originator of this exercise in failed communication.

    But you have a point. Willian McCormick has said some nice things about me above and has (somewhat incongruously) ended his comments with nice pictures of mortar shells so maybe it is a timely thing to close this thread. So....
    -
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ______________ THIS THREAD IS OFFICIALLY CLOSED______
    DO NOT ADD COMMENTS BELOW. DO NOT READ COMMENTS ABOVE BECAUSE...

    ____________THIS THREAD IS CLOSED____________
    ************************************************** ********
     

  54. #53  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    since it appears to be the wish of the OP to close this thread, i'm willing to grant him his wish
    should anyone feel strongly about re-opening it, feel free to PM me
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •