Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 436 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#16953 - 11/21/06 09:35 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Is that all you have Morgan? All you have?

The full quotes were:
"I am currently in the process of making a paper about the results thru my PhD in statistical analysis of climate science."

and "I have completed 2 years of my PhD in sports statistcial analysis...."

These are not contradictory. I have completled 2 years of my Phd in sports statistics before I stopped, and am currently looking towards making a paper in my current PhD in climate science. I still say these two things honestly.

Now, can you please find the paper that replies to those points made above, tell me how I have I have made up, manipulated and concoxed the results and also tell me how I have crossed the line to pseudo-science, otherwise I wil be expecting an apology from you.

Top
.
#16954 - 11/21/06 09:49 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Well said Count.

And since we know nothing of the data set Jonathan Lowe claims to have purchased, or what he did with that data to achieve his "published" result what is null and void is any ability to draw a reasoned conclusion.

What is most telling, however, is that CSIRO, NOAA, and NASA have been able to draw conclusions based on the data available. And that conclusion has universally been one of climate change.

If someone is going to claim Einstein wrong they need to deliver the goods. If someone is going to claim CSIRO wrong the same holds true. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution ... not the defense.
Thanks, Dan! I agree that the burden of proof is on Jonathan.

Top
#16955 - 11/21/06 10:19 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Thank you.

What is amazing is that he still doesn't get it.

He wrote: "my PhD in statistical analysis." Good grief!

It is a monstrous breach of ethics. At the University of Washington doing this would be grounds for a disciplinary proceeding. And I've no doubt that in Australia, had he not dropped out of school, he'd have an opportunity to an their ethics policy.

But PhD or not (and it is NOT). Sports or climatology. The raw data he used, from the standpoint of climatology is worthless, his methodology hopelessly inadequate, his ability to describe his work muddled.

But worst yet is that google has the following:
SportPunter.com - Predictions and Profitable gambling in Sport As shown by his credentials, Jonathan Lowe, manager of Sportpunter has obtained a Bsc (hons) (Monash), MSc (Stats) in statistics and started a PhD in sports ...
www.sportpunter.com/tennis/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

and

SportPunter.com - Predictions and Profitable gambling in Sport Jonathan Lowe is the managing director of sportpunter. ... He completed a Bachelor of Science at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. ...
www.sportpunter.com/cred.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.sportpunter.com ]

and what does TrendMicro's PC-cillin Internet Security 2006 have to say about sportpunter.com?
Let me quote:

"The Web site that you are trying to access has been blocked following the configurations set for the Web Site Filter.
Type: Gambling"

Yep ... an uncompleted PhD in something related to sports and academic failure turned into running a gambling website. Now if those aren't the credentials for a climatology expert I don't know what are.

Research Note: I was pretty sure I had him tracked down a few weeks back but I needed the Monash reference to be sure.

So tell me JLowe ... who's going to win the Stanley Cup in 2007?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16956 - 11/21/06 10:20 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Johnathan, all you need to do is to calculate confidence intervals for the rate at which Australia is heating. All we've heard from you is that a rate of zero is within your confidence interval. But to say that Australia is not heating at the rate the rest of the world is, you must show that the global heating rate is outside the 95% confidence interval of your study.

Top
#16957 - 11/21/06 10:39 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Quote:
But PhD or not (and it is NOT). Sports or climatology. The raw data he used, from the standpoint of climatology is worthless, his methodology hopelessly inadequate, his ability to describe his work muddled.
That seems to be the case, or he is making propaganda. Look here how he misleads a lay person asking a question about the p value:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=36333052&postID=116364805993268226

Quote:
Hi Dazz, a p value is the result after a statistical test to prove one thing or another. the p value represents the probability that the result is due to chance or natural variation.
Which is wrong because it is not one thing or another, it is only one thing: If you have a significant result then the probability that you would have seen a larger deviation assuming the null hypothesis is so low that you reject the null hypothesis.

If you don't find low probabilities that doesn't mean that you have found a significant result disproving some alternative hypothesis. For that you must show that the other hypothesis lies outside your confidence interval.

I've asked Jonathan a few times to do that, but so far no serious response.

Top
#16958 - 11/22/06 12:42 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Quote:
Thanks, Dan! I agree that the burden of proof is on Jonathan.
I think you misunderstand. The dataset is exactly the same as those in previous research, done by the CSIRO and ABM etc. I conclude similar results to them as I have mentioned before about maximum and minimum temperatures.

?But to say that Australia is not heating at the rate the rest of the world is?

I have never said this as I have never calculated the heating rate of the rest of the world. I have only said that there is no significant evidence to suggest that Australia and parts of Antarctica are heating up. Please do not misquote me. I have provided the evidence and the confidence intervals for this that you request.

?prove one thing or another?

Please. There was no misleading there. It was trying to explain it to a layman who has never probably heard of a scientific test. I know that you are only testing for one thing. But there are many tests that test for more than one thing. So my comment stands.

Morgan, please, character assignation after assignation. I would prefer if you gave critical evaluation of my work, but otherwise obviously not. Gambling is a massive business if in case you didn?t realize, and apart from retail has the biggest turnover. In fact, what I do with gambling is nothing unlike what people do at the stock exchange or the currency exchange ? finding value and then buying shares in that.

My method is very scientific and is so far different from any other previous method of ?gambling? that I prefer to call it investment. I don?t and have never gambled in my life.

Perhaps, before you decide to claim that my business is useless, do some research into my website first. You ignorance in the area and then quick ability to denounce anything that you don't like has amazing resemblance to your confrontation of my research in Australian temperatures.

?academic failure turned into running a gambling website.?

No I shall repeat. My business was growing so strongly, as I am amongst the worlds leaders in Scientific Sports Modelling and prediction, that I either had the choice of continuing my PhD in Sports Analysis or forwarding my business, which I started from scratch. I chose the latter. There was no academic failure.

You on several occasions, have just assumed many things here Morgan. You have assumes with out any proof that I ?failed? that I ?manipulated data? and that I ?crossed the line?.

I repeat and I will continue to do so until you do: can you please find the paper that replies to those points made above, tell me how I have I have made up, manipulated and concoxed the results and also tell me how I have crossed the line to pseudo-science, otherwise I will be expecting an apology from you.

Top
#16959 - 11/22/06 12:49 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
To be honest I find it hard to believe he earned a degree in statistics: The claim is probably just part of his sports gambling promotion.

Given the number of things he has said about himself that are provably wrong I have a strong suspicion his claim to knowledge of statistics similarly will not hold up if scrutinized. A statistician would know the proper names of statistical methods and correctly apply the terms.

If he has the nerve to come back here, yet again, and claim he is defending himself he will find that I can easily contact Monash and the University of Melbourne.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16960 - 11/22/06 03:36 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Feel free to look me up. My monash university number was: 11914513. DO you want me to scan my academic record for you? lol!

I repeat and I will continue to do so until you do: can you please find the paper that replies to those points made above, tell me how I have I have made up, manipulated and concoxed the results and also tell me how I have crossed the line to pseudo-science, otherwise I will be expecting an apology from you.

Top
#16961 - 11/22/06 04:51 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
In fact, no, why give you the pleasure if thinking that I might be wrong. The top half of the first page of my academic record: http://www.sportpunter.com/weather/acrec001.jpg

Geez, looks like another assumption of yours is wrong again Morgan.

5 Icon 1 posted November 21, 2006 10:36 PM Profile for JonathanLowe Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote Feel free to look me up. My monash university number was: 11914513. DO you want me to scan my academic record for you? lol!

I repeat and I will continue to do so until you do: can you please find the paper that replies to those points made above, tell me how I have I have made up, manipulated and concoxed the results and also tell me how I have crossed the line to pseudo-science, otherwise I will be expecting an apology from you.

Top
#16962 - 11/22/06 07:49 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
JLowe asks:
"can you please find the paper that replies to those points made above"

You have discredited yourself. I've no interest in wasting my time demonstrating what everyone already knows. The obligation here is for you to show where and how CSIRO is incorrect. It is not anyone else's burden to do your research for you.

Why don't you go back to what you do best: Gambling on sports teams?

I'll no longer waste SAGG bandwidth responding to your nonsense.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16963 - 11/23/06 12:48 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Morgan,
It looks as though you have lost the argument fair and square.

You first attempt to discredit me, unsuccessfully with no proof. You claim that I have crossed the line into pseudo-science with no proof of this what-so-ever. Furthermore when questioned on your comment you refuse to reply. It is quite obvious to me and to all reading that you simply made up this judgment solely to appease your point of view.
You said that I manipulated data with no proof what-so-ever of me doing so. Once again, your unsubstantiated claim is wrong. You don't have a good track record here do you?
You challenged me to provide details of my academic record, because you had serious doubt of it, quite possibly because my results disagreed with your thought pattern. You lost this challenge as well.

I am expecting 3 apologies from you for being terribly wrong and offensive. What is quite funny is of your claim of me being wrong, however the opposite seems to have occurred.
It is quite clear, that you have a problem with the results that I am finding. Like I said previously, my results actually agree with some previous research done by the ABM and CSIRO in regards to maximum and minimum data. But when you dig a little deeper, the conclusions drawn from them do not.
I have asked you to find any sort of evidence that goes against what I have said on my blog and you have found none. Absolutely none.
Thereby, the only form of attack that you are left with is character assignation. Hardly great science. In fact, such an argumentive ploy is to be frowned on. I feel sorry for you that you have to stoop so low to attempt to discredit the research that I have done.

I still ask you again. Can you tell me of a paper that analyses Australian data to the extent as that what was written above? The truth of the answer is that you can't. You claim that I have discredited myself, because by asking you it looks as though I have not done research in this area. But the fact of the matter is that I have, and both you and I know that there has not been statistical analysis done on Australian temperatures to this extent. Almost all research is done solely on maximum and minimum temperatures.
Does it bother you that the statistical analysis done on my blog, yes just a blog, is more in depth than any statistical temperature analysis done in peer-reviewed journal papers? It obviously does.

You can't prove me wrong, because my analysis has exceeded that done before. We are after all, all trying to find the truth aren't we? Irrespective of what it is?

So once again, I am expecting 3 apologies from you. Or are you not man enough to give them?

Top
#16964 - 11/26/06 07:35 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
Wolfman Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/06
Posts: 264
Loc: Pago Pago, American Samoa
J-Lowe, enough with the Cyber-challenges questioning someone else's manhood, don't be a cyber-sheilah.

I lived in Oz, it was hotter in the North than where I now live (Samoa). Oz has always been hot. I suggest you have a look at the annual snowdrift measurements for Mt. Kosciuszcko. Try "Austral Ecology" on your Search Bar.

Top
#16965 - 11/27/06 01:07 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Wolfman , That's ok. I was meerly backing up the false accusations of Morgan. And to be honest, I chose to you temperature data to see if the temperature is increasing rather than how one feels.

Top
#16966 - 12/14/06 01:01 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Still waiting for the apology Morgan...

Top
#17331 - 12/19/06 12:28 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it [Re: JonathanLowe]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Still waiting for the apology Morgan...

Top
#17344 - 12/19/06 05:35 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove it [Re: JonathanLowe]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Lets review this thread and see what there is to apologize for.

JLowe: #16900 - October 31, 2006 05:19 PM
Hmm no idea how monte carlo simulations has anything at all to do with temperature analysis

JLowe: #16911 - November 01, 2006 05:19 PM
I do know about Monte Carlo Simulation. I actually use Monte Carlo Simulations in my work all the time, almost every day. I studied them in one of my 8-9 years at university studying statistics and the analysis of data.

Count Iblis / #16921 - November 13, 2006 12:01 PM As long as the measured temperature increase of 0.6? C +/- 0.2 ?C per century falls within your confidence interval, your results are worthless. You could only have detected a statistically significant temperature increase with your limited amount of data if Australia had warmed up at five times the rate of the rest of the world.

JLowe: #16923 - November 13, 2006 08:03 PM
the fact that you say I am "lacking in credibility in climatology". This is true

JLowe: #16928 - November 15, 2006 10:32 AM
... thru my PhD in statistical analysis of climate science.

Nothing there, pigs still can't fly, and hell has yet to freeze over. Perhaps you should consider an apology for lying about having a PhD in climate science.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17363 - 12/20/06 03:35 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: DA Morgan]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
Lets review this thread and see what there is to apologize for.

JLowe: #16900 - October 31, 2006 05:19 PM
Hmm no idea how monte carlo simulations has anything at all to do with temperature analysis


If you are going to statistically analyse temperature data, you do not need monte carlo simulations.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan

JLowe: #16911 - November 01, 2006 05:19 PM
I do know about Monte Carlo Simulation. I actually use Monte Carlo Simulations in my work all the time, almost every day. I studied them in one of my 8-9 years at university studying statistics and the analysis of data.


Yes that is correct. I use monte carlo simulations all the time, so much so that I know that they are not necessary for a statistical analysis of temperature data. What's your point here?

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
Count Iblis / #16921 - November 13, 2006 12:01 PM As long as the measured temperature increase of 0.6? C +/- 0.2 ?C per century falls within your confidence interval, your results are worthless. You could only have detected a statistically significant temperature increase with your limited amount of data if Australia had warmed up at five times the rate of the rest of the world.


Completly not true, in fact Count doesn't really know what he's talking about here. We could throw out the entire scientific method and conclude that the world is going to increase at a certain temperature irrespective if the result is insignificant and there is no significant evidence to suggest that it is. But hey, lets just say it is.

As far as him saying that we would have to have an increase 5 times the amount to obtain significance, this is also completly false. In fact using a simulation (note not for analysing temp data, but to prove count wrong), the last post here shows a very significant result from just a 0.5 degree increase per year:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23336&page=3&highlight=JonathanLowe

And lets just hypothetically say that count was right (even though he isn't), is he suggesting that we should ignore the scientific method solely because we don't have enough data? Should we spend godzillions on information which has limited data that is interpreted completly wrong?


Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
JLowe: #16923 - November 13, 2006 08:03 PM
the fact that you say I am "lacking in credibility in climatology". This is true


Taken out of context. I do not have a degree in climatology, however am very qualified in statistics (you seem to have amzingly forgotton that on another thread?), which is as we discussed the best qualification to have when analysing temperature data.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
JLowe: #16928 - November 15, 2006 10:32 AM
... thru my PhD in statistical analysis of climate science.

Nothing there, pigs still can't fly, and hell has yet to freeze over. Perhaps you should consider an apology for lying about having a PhD in climate science.


Huh? I never have said that I have completed a PhD. I'm sorry, your comments in attempt to prove that I have contradicted myself have failed. You in fact have only made yourself look completly incompatent. I pity you.

And on you:

You first attempt to discredit me, unsuccessfully with no proof. You claim that I have crossed the line into pseudo-science with no proof of this what-so-ever. Furthermore when questioned on your comment you refuse to reply. It is quite obvious to me and to all reading that you simply made up this judgment solely to appease your point of view.

You said that I manipulated data with no proof what-so-ever of me doing so. Once again, your unsubstantiated claim is wrong. You don't have a good track record here do you?

You challenged me to provide details of my academic record, because you had serious doubt of it, quite possibly because my results disagreed with your thought pattern. You lost this challenge as well.

Top
#17369 - 12/20/06 05:09 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: JonathanLowe]
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
JLowe wrote:
"If you are going to statistically analyse temperature data, you do not need monte carlo simulations."

I didn't say you did. What I pointed out was that you stated that you: "... no idea how ...." The point is that YOU HAD NO IDEA HOW!

JLowe wrote:
"We could throw out the entire scientific method"

You already have: Past tense. You responded to Count Iblis as a layperson would ... argumentative, posturing. If you've got that treasured Masters Degree why can't you step up to the plate and argue as a statistician? I certainly have already drawn a conclusion. I expect everyone else has reached the same one.

JLowe wrote:
"Taken out of context."

Nonsense. I quoted you exactly. You wrote that you are lacking in credibility in climatology and no one is going to disagree with you on that point.

JLowe wrote:
"I never have said that I have completed a PhD"

Yes you did. You wrote (and I quote):
"thru my PhD in statistical analysis of climate science."

Perhaps English is not your primary language but otherwise which part of "my PhD" is incomprehensible to you? It was a gross misrepresentation and you got caught!
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#17373 - 12/20/06 05:50 AM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: DA Morgan]
JonathanLowe Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 87
Loc: Melbourne
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
I didn't say you did. What I pointed out was that you stated that you: "... no idea how ...." The point is that YOU HAD NO IDEA HOW!


Correct, i have no idea how they have any relevance because they don't. If the main thrust of your arguement is on a Pedantic dictionary definition of words used, then you've got no case to answer for.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
JLowe wrote:
"We could throw out the entire scientific method"

You already have: Past tense. You responded to Count Iblis as a layperson would ... argumentative, posturing. If you've got that treasured Masters Degree why can't you step up to the plate and argue as a statistician? I certainly have already drawn a conclusion. I expect everyone else has reached the same one.


Hmm. I have. I have given my research with associated statistical results. I am not argueing here, I am proving scientifically and statistically. If someone ridiculed your analysis ("meaningless") by suggesting that it is using the wrong statistical method, despite the fact that it isn't, don't you think that I should at the very least show him why he is wrong in his arguement?

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
JLowe wrote:
"Taken out of context."

Nonsense. I quoted you exactly. You wrote that you are lacking in credibility in climatology and no one is going to disagree with you on that point.


I shall repond the same way that you refuse to answer: I do not have a degree in climatology, however am very qualified in statistics (you seem to have amzingly forgotton that on another thread?), which is as we discussed the best qualification to have when analysing temperature data.

In case you didn't know, there are only a handful, like less than 5 people in Australia that have a PhD in climate science, being such an immature science. Almost all climate scientists are physicists, earth scientists or believe it or not?.statisticians. Amazing.

Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
JLowe wrote:
"I never have said that I have completed a PhD"

Yes you did. You wrote (and I quote):
"thru my PhD in statistical analysis of climate science."

Perhaps English is not your primary language but otherwise which part of "my PhD" is incomprehensible to you? It was a gross misrepresentation and you got caught!


Once again, we are talking about pedantic dictionary definitions of english words. If you want to look at the whole quote it was:

"I am currently in the process of making a paper about the results thru my PhD in statistical analysis of climate science."

which if I was making a paper thru my PhD, that would mean that the PhD is not finished. I have never said that I have completed my Phd and I stand by that.

Now, at least I answer the questions that you raise. How about you raising the one's that I have questioned of you:

1. You claim that I have crossed the line into pseudo-science with no proof of this what-so-ever.
2. You said that I manipulated data with no proof what-so-ever of me doing so.
3. You challenged me to provide details of my academic record, because you had serious doubt of it, quite possibly because my results disagreed with your thought pattern. You lost this challenge as well.
4. Despite my reponses to your pedantic challenges, you refuse to answer mine.

I'm looking forward to the reply from the 4 comments above.

Top
#17379 - 12/20/06 02:38 PM Re: Australia hasn't even warmed up: stats prove i [Re: JonathanLowe]
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Jonathan, let's focus on the science and not on disputes about academic records etc. Even though I agree with some of the sentiments expressed by Daniel, this is not how one can discuss things.

I may well have been wrong about the factor 5. But my point all along is that to claim that X is not as warming as fast as the rest of the world you would have to detect a significant departure from the global rend. But what you have done is to try to detect a significant departure from a null trend. Failing that, you say that that's evidence that X is not warming as fast as the rest of the world. But that is not true unless your data places the global trend outside the, say, 95% confidence interval of what the trend at X could be.

Your objection seems to be that this is contrary to the scientific method. But that's simply false. We do have a lot of data that shows that the world is warming. And there is strong scientific evidence that it is linked to CO_2 emissions. You can say that maybe Australia is not warming. OK., but show that the data compels one to believe that. You cannot turn things around and say that just because a trend of zero is inside your confidence intervasl Australia is not warming. Especially not is the gobal trend on 0.6 ?C per century is also inside your confidence interval.

I'm not an expert in data analysis and I don't know a lot about how the trend of 0.6 ?C per century was measured. But it seems to me that this is visible only if you average over a lkarge number of data from many hundreds of weather stations and other data. All this data pooled together produces a significant result of (0.6 +/- 0.2) ?C per century.

But if you pick any individual station from the data they averaged over, then I would guess that the confidence interval for that station would be much larger and that a trend of zero would be well inside it. You could play this game for all the stations, and then say: "See, no global warming at station 1, no global warming at station 2, etc. etc." But in most of these cases the (0.6 +/- 0.2) ?C per century would be well inside the confidence interval as well.

Top
Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.