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 Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
S
scpg02 Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged


From The Sunday Times
February 11, 2007

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months? time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains ?very likely? as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain?s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter?s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Ad?lie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you?re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is ?Why is east Antarctica getting colder?? It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you?re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it?s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun?s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun?s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark?s idea ? apart from its being politically incorrect ? was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark?s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it ?A new theory of climate change?.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark?s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature?s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece


It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.
.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Thank you for pointing out the reason why science works the way it does ... and how poor the popular press is about communicating this to the public.

Lets take just one paragraph of what you copied and examine it:

"The small print explains ?very likely? as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain?s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion."

Note how in this paragraph they are attempting to juxtapose the considered judgment of essentially every climatologist and researcher on the planet saying it is "very like" that something is true with a single incident involving the poor judgment of a single individual?

Too bad ... because you should have.

Individual scientists are human, make errors, and are thus required to submit to peer review as a way of (we hope) catching those errors quickly. Sometimes we don't. But the point is that we don't accept the word of a Newton or Einstein without pointing out their errors. And thus it is with a single or a small group of scientists in any discipline whether climatology or gerontology or with your example, above, of Sir Cockcroft.

If it doesn't meet this test:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
It isn't science.
Which is precisely the problem with the agenda you seem to be sneaking up on promoting.

BTW: Knock off the shouting. We are not impressed by colors, bold face, italics, exclamation marks, etc. Keep it up and we know precisely how to mark your posts *** Ignore ***.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Originally Posted By: scpg02
While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.


"Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.

Global average air temperature near Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) during the last century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations," which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950. These conclusions have been endorsed by at least 20 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the G8 states. Some scientists disagree with parts of this conclusion as does the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Only a few of these dissenting scientists specialize in climate science."


scpg02,

No one expects a uniform rise in temperatures across the earth's surface. Due to increased weathering and local climate effects, we will see rises and falls in temperature in different places. Ice appearing at one locale does not a complete picture make and we need to focus on the overall temperature.

Again, it shows that those who deny AGW will focus in on a small number of facts to build a case, whilst ignoring the bigger picture.

No one is denying the solar effect or volcanic activity, they are obviously a big part of the picture. Hence, nothing is gained by pointing to these effects to deny AGW.

I'll have your solar activity and I'll raise you a carbon emission.

The sun's activity may well bring a welcome cooling cycle, but we still have to be sure that it will counteract the effects of the continued rise of CO2 emissions and the positive feedback mechanisms that have started and may run away with themselves such as clathrate release.

Are you sure that it will?

Blacknad.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
S
scpg02 Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
BTW: Knock off the shouting. We are not impressed by colors, bold face, italics, exclamation marks, etc. Keep it up and we know precisely how to mark your posts *** Ignore ***.


Is this the way you treat new people to this forum? I have not shouted etc. I did bold the headline of the article which is standard practice. No wonder this forum is dead, you are extremely rude. You said you wanted to stick to science. I see none of that hear. Your bully behavior is childish and unacceptable. I'll save you the trouble of putting me on ignore. Please delete my account.



It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3
B
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3
Climate change is real. The causes and solutions may be "hot-aire" but climate change is real, alright.

The face of the Earth is changing at a pace far more rapidly than ever understood before. As a single example, glaciers are melting nearly everywhere, nearly 5Bn people have been added to the planet since 1920 and socialism is rampant to save the world's human condition when in fact the problem is about too many people on the planet.

But the truth is: The Earth is being raped of resources at an escalating rate as with the birth rat of humans. No science or technology can cope with this phenomena unless government intervenes and subdues individual determinism.

And those are the simple facts, laid out in stark naked truth on the table for discussion.

buckeroo

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
S
scpg02 Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
Originally Posted By: buckeroo
Climate change is real. The causes and solutions may be "hot-aire" but climate change is real, alright.

The face of the Earth is changing at a pace far more rapidly than ever understood before. As a single example, glaciers are melting nearly everywhere, nearly 5Bn people have been added to the planet since 1920 and socialism is rampant to save the world's human condition when in fact the problem is about too many people on the planet.

But the truth is: The Earth is being raped of resources at an escalating rate as with the birth rat of humans. No science or technology can cope with this phenomena unless government intervenes and subdues individual determinism.

And those are the simple facts, laid out in stark naked truth on the table for discussion.

buckeroo


LOL! Buck, if I had known you were going to beat up on me I wouldn't have brought you over here.


It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
S
scpg02 Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
Blacknad-

My problem is not with the science. While it's true that man may be having an effect I have doubts that he is the main cause. However, my problem is with the politics. Government is never the answer and more government control will not help climate change.

I don't come at this from a science background but from a political background. It wasn't by accident that Kyoto didn't include China and India even though they are major polluters. I don't see European countries living up to their commitment on Kyoto either.


It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Originally Posted By: scpg02
Government is never the answer and more government control will not help climate change.


Government may well be part of the answer. A recent poll in the UK shows that only 4% of the population have made any change to the way they live in the face of climate change.

If individuals are too stubborn/selfish/ignorant (delete as applicable) then maybe government can force the issue.

Such as more taxes on air travel and so on.

Black.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
Originally Posted By: scpg02
Is this the way you treat new people to this forum? I have not shouted etc. I did bold the headline of the article which is standard practice.


As much as I love ya Dan, I gotta say: They've gotta point on this one. When I saw your post about yelling, I scrolled back up the thread to see what the heck you were talking about. I couldn't find any and assumed the post you were referring to must have been edited or deleted. It wasn't until I saw this reply that I realized you were talking about their headline.

Get a grip, man. The formatting options are there for a reason. As misused as they frequently are, this time they were used exactly as they should be. You do have a tendency to tromp on people in the name of science and to dismiss ideas disdainfully just because they don't happen to agree with your world view. Sure, you typically (and rightly) demand extraordinary proof to go with extraordinary claims, but sometimes you just come down out of nowhere as in this case.

It's really not appropriate behavior for a moderator of the board. And you're smart enough to behave more intelligently.

w

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3
B
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3
This is a serious issue affecting all of us. I rarely laugh about the issue of ALL or ANY humans dying.

Where are you going to run or hide as you can not find food, shelter or clothes? Do you think the UN shall set a "refugee camp" as in the ME that has never performed its function?

I believe you are smarter than that. There is no way out. There is only yourself digging in and surviving based upon your own individual resources.

Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3
B
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3
<blockquote><i>"Government may well be part of the answer." --Blacknad</i><hr></blockquote><hr><p>Exactly how? Where within mankind's performance record upon this planet can you substantiate your vile optimism? So far, in life all we have is a few folks kill most of the rest of us upon mere whim.

buckeroo

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Originally Posted By: buckeroo
Where within mankind's performance record upon this planet can you substantiate your vile optimism?


Buckeroo,

I presume that on this showing you are not here to make friends. I am not really sure what I have done for you to label my optimism as vile.

You may be in the USA, in which case I understand your cynicism. Here in the UK we generally have slightly higher expectations of our government.

My position on this, however, is ambiguous. If the human race is responsible for the degree of GW that we are seeing, then I do not have any great hope that we can rein in our selfish consumer lifestyles for long enough to affect a solution. I also see massive parts of the developing world that will follow in our footsteps and exact their share of damage upon the environment.

All of this, however, does not make me want to give up and I exhibit hope as an act of the will and not a philosophical position. I have, and am still, attempting to change my lifestyle by using less electricity, driving a smaller engined car, and recycling whatever I can. I am actively trying to reduce my carbon footprint and I encourage my friends to do likewise.

But while I have bought a smaller car, I still see the trend in the UK is towards larger cars like SUVs. If individuals will not do anything about that, then the government can. They have already started with a large increase in road tax for bigger cars. If they make it financially painful enough and incentivize people to drive cleaner cars, then people will switch.

So my vile optimism is based, in part, upon a cynicism about individuals who need to be coerced into doing the right thing by statute.

I don?t see that as unrealistic and certainly not vile.

Welcome here, by the way, relax a little and we can have a great debate.

Blacknad.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: DA Morgan
Thank you for pointing out the reason why science works the way it does ... and how poor the popular press is about communicating this to the public.

Lets take just one paragraph of what you copied and examine it:

If it doesn't meet this test:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
It isn't science.
Which is precisely the problem with the agenda you seem to be sneaking up on promoting.

BTW: Knock off the shouting. We are not impressed by colors, bold face, italics, exclamation marks, etc. Keep it up and we know precisely how to mark your posts *** Ignore ***.


I'm afraid I must agree with others Daniel.
You were too quick off the mark to criticise.
Most of us can post in Colors and Bold face, so I dont see why you should complain. Its allowable so why jump down a new users post?
Its also wrong to threaten, by writing:-
"and we know precisely how to mark your posts *** Ignore ***."

Moderators should moderate, not fly off the handle.

You said yourself a couple of years ago that 'scienceagogo' was here to make money, irrespective of its Forum writers , which you stated was secondry aspect, if I remember correctly.

There are others who write here that also write in other (very interesting, colourful Forums) some even have their own Web site.

I might add that YOU ARE NOT a MODERATOR for CLIMATE CHANGE
So what you said was uncalled for in the circumstances

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror."

.....Mike Kremer.
.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
As radical as our new member Buckaroo sounds, he is, in all probability, right.
The numbers don't lie; there are already far too many of us on Spaceship Earth. And, if you want to be analytical about it, that's not such a bad thing. Those of us who do survive a Global Calamity, be it Famine, War or Pestilence, should be the the best ones to mentor the surviving generation.

I know, it sucks, but, hey, 20,000,000,000 people on this world all well-fed and happy? I just can't see it.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Ok: My sincere apology to those who post in color.

It is considered rude in most forums to SHOUT and that was how I was interpreting it.

Again my apology.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
S
scpg02 Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
Apology accepted.


It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Well, what have we here...? That's beautiful...

Where was I? Oh, yes:

Wolfman: "Those of us who do survive a Global Calamity, be it Famine, War or Pestilence, should be the best ones to mentor the surviving generation."

I hope you're right, but I have my doubts that events would discriminate in such a desirable way.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 120
For the very long term, the best thing that could possibly happen to the Earth is an asteroid collision wiping out 75% of the population.

It would be terrible to live in the times following it, and there would be much anguish. And it would be unimaginably awful, to be sure. But five hundred years later the descendants of the survivors would be living practically in paradise. They would have all the technology and knowledge that we have today (plus any that are discovered in the meantime, though the discovery rate would be seriously slowed), and amounts of resources that haven't been seen in centuries. They would look back on the event as the collision that saved their world.

Some scientists want to bring about such a thing by engineering a disease that will kill a huge portion of the population, but that reeks of evil to me - that implies a group of people deciding where to unleash it and which population segments will be hit hardest. The random occurrence of an impartial asteroid would be far better.

And short of something like that happening, I think Earth is about to become a very hot place to live. The warming and it's effects are going to kill off just as many of the population before things come back into equilibrium. The only differences are that the deaths will be slower and more painful and the survivors will have to wait a whole lot longer for paradise to show itself.

Given the choice between a bullet and a slow poison, I'll take the bullet. Given the choice between an asteroid and just waiting it out, I'll take the asteroid. Even if it's my house it touches first.

w



Last edited by Wayne Zeller; 04/09/07 09:27 PM.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Wayne wrote:

"But five hundred years later the descendants of the survivors would be living practically in paradise."

I think five hundred years would be long enough for them to stuff it up again. From a small founding population Maoris destroyed most pre-existing ecological systems in NZ within two hundred years. The first Americans may have taken five hundred years to achieve the same there, but achieve it they certainly did. Certainly both groups developed a conservation conciousness eventually but it was through necessity.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
I don't think the asteroid will do it. Its prevention is politically viable. I think the most devastation will be from pandemics through overcrowding, malnutrition, pollution, climate change etc. I also think it will be recurrent until such time as bonobo type cooperation kicks in and political one-upmanship comes to an end.

Coming back to the original topic:
As much as I think it most probable that Climate-Change/Global-Warming is to a significant degree attributable to human activities, I don't see it as an absolute certainty. So long as a number of respected experts have doubts, there's also room in my mind for doubt, however eclipsed that doubt may be by other information as interpreted by the non-expert (i.e. me and company). I hope, however, that human activities are part of the problem - and the bigger the part, the better - because it's probably the only part that could be tackled.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Again I don't think you can separate the multitude of things we are doing to mess our own nest.

Can you separate global politics in the Middle East, and the related warfare, from the oil being oxidized into CO2?

Can you separate the global warming and pollution issues from the lack of drinking water and water for food crops?

Can you separate the damage being done to the oceans and fisheries from pollution and warming?

The list is long and ugly.

In the end there really is only a single root cause: Over population.

And this will continue unchecked until we decide that we control our DNA rather than our DNA controlling us. DNA doesn't give a damn about our happiness nor does it find war something to be feared.


DA Morgan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
My reply to each of the three questions is 'No', DA. What you imply is unquestionably right, and certainly none of those effects would be so marked if world population were less.

Your last sentence brings to mind R. Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". I haven't read it, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were relevant to the point. Any comments on the book?



"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I find Dawkins a bit of a zealot but generally speaking, if one gets past the hyperbole he seems to be on a solid footing.

I am going to start a new thread based upon your question and a discussion I just had over lunch with a former instructor here at the U. Look for "Population and DNA" in the subject.


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
S
scpg02 Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
S
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 217
LOL! DA, you need to come play on LibertyPost.org. They would eat you alive.


It's not Global Warming, it's Ice Age Abatement.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I'm 20 years too old for that to happen.

As the Mexican saying goes:
"The devil isn't knows more because he is old than because he is the devil."


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 11
S
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 11

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5