Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 19-01-2016, 03:29   #1951
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43
Posts: 6,715
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Or a group that says both the models and the sat data are good, for that matter. Do you suppose that's why it's so often referred to as a "discrepancy?"
Isn't that the "who defends the sat data by disputing the surface readings"
That implies that they agree with the models.
__________________

__________________
StuM is offline  
Old 19-01-2016, 06:31   #1952
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Penobscot Bay, Maine
Boat: Tayana 47
Posts: 995
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike OReilly View Post
I skipped the last few recent pages of posts. Sorry if I missed anything important (ha!). But since you're referencing my last post Exile I thought I'd jump back in.

LE can certainly speak for himself, but you are correct; I am in the camp that says we must seriously disrupt out current economic and social system to address climate change. THAT is the reason the those who benefit from the status quo are fighting so hard to obfuscate the research, and sow doubt at the political level. Just like they did with tobacco research, they know that accepting what the science is telling us about climate change, and more importantly about our role in it, could (should) lead to serious disruptive change to our current systems and way of life -- most especially for those of us in the rich developed world.

It's kinda funny, but I suspect that most of the status-quo denier crowd actually understands this better than many of my climate change colleagues. I get frustrated with too many on the so-called "green" side who accept the science, but say we can continue to have it all; all we have to do is recycle better, put up more wind mills and turn down the thermostat. In many ways I think the deniers do see the real implications of accepting what science is telling us -- and they're scared, b/c they understand it means we all have to make real changes to our way of life.
Or maybe those who conform to AGW theories do so primarily because they WANT to "seriously disrupt out current economic and social system" and this is as good as an excuse to do that as any that might come along, because while they can't really prove their claims, it's just about as tough to disprove them? So for many people who last studied anything to do with science in about the 8th grade, it comes down to who do you believe much more than what do you believe and with most of the press and academia at liberal arts colleges firmly on your side, that's a LOT easier battle to win than if the discussion were strictly based on proven science that was actually understood by most of those speaking loudest.

As one of the status-quo denier crowd, I can tell you that I surely have no ulterior motives other than that AGW and the supposed "impact" we have been told to dread so much simply hasn't been proven to me, certainly not to the level where we should even be considering "seriously disrupting our current economic and social system!"

For some reason this discussion reminds me of my 12th grade sociology class back in the 70's when the "back to the land" movement was big in rural Maine. The sociology teacher actually stated that due to overpopulation and scarce resources, that we would all soon be living that way and by the time we were established as adults, we'd be living in teepee's. Probably because most students were half asleep, but also partially because he was the "expert" in the room, nobody disagreed or even questioned what he said, just nodded their heads and accepted it. I raised my hand and told him that I didn't know about his vision of a teepee, but MY teepee would have to come with at least a hot shower and a flush toilet and windows to look out of, and BTW, even IF the current back to the land movement caught on as big as he thought it would, what did he think was going to happen to all the existing homes around town? I know this sounds ridiculous now but back then, I was the ONLY one in the room to disagree with the "expert." I suspect that there's a better than even chance that in 40-50 years from now, folks will look back on the "AGW hysteria of the new millennium" as a rather odd trend that almost caused a huge overreaction to an insignificant impact caused by rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere. If/when it is proven in a scientifically rigorous manner that AGW is indeed happening AND it is having a net negative impact AND there is something we can do to avert that net negative impact without hurting even more folks than what we do will help, THEN I will agree that it's time to act. But that's not now.
__________________

__________________
jtsailjt is offline  
Old 19-01-2016, 06:36   #1953
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,943
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect:

...what serious proposed changes to our socio-economic system, specifically, are we to take as given?


You can't be serious, L-E. Weren't you just bemoaning the fact that low oil prices were not creating enough of a deterrent to reduce fossil fuel demand? [yes] That a sufficiently high carbon tax should be imposed? [no, haven't really commented on carbon tax or cap/trade in this thread] That society needs systemic solutions in moving to more renewables?[yes] And the best of all -- your praise for China's system of (tyrannical) centralized control that would more efficiently expedite emissions reductions and clean up their horrendous pollution. [my praise?? It's not incorrect to note that they have more levers to pull when they want to do something. This was to counter the "...but China!" denier argument] If you're still confused, then go back & read Mike's last post about what sorts of changes he thinks are needed. Maybe you agree with him and that's fine, but don't suggest that the sorts of solutions being proposed by the alarmist crowd wouldn't be seriously disruptive to our current system and way of life.

And you think putting a solar panel up on your roof is too expensive???
[har har]

The question of what proposals YOU believe are on the table is important because I'm interested in exactly what you fear, and also because as far as I know, just about nothing is on the table, apart from some high-minded platitudes coming out of Paris.


From the above:
  • deterrent [and /or incentive] to reduce fossil fuel demand
  • systemic solutions in moving to more renewables
  • nuclear (which I agreed with)
  • western leadership in developing renewable technology (which I mentioned earlier)
... what's so scary about those? Hardly the serious proposed changes to our socio-economic system you maintain is threatened.

The truth is closer to the fact that ANY 'green' changes are considered suspect by a certain demographic which apparently aligns closely with yacht ownership . If it wasn't AGW you'd be railing against disposal charges, or EPA, or bike trails, or food stamps, or unions, or a livable minimum wage, or universal health care...
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 19-01-2016, 07:09   #1954
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 570
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike OReilly
...they're scared...I am in the camp that says we must seriously disrupt out current economic and social system...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect
...what you fear...If it wasn't AGW you'd be railing against...food stamps, or unions, or a livable minimum wage, or single-payer health care...
Heh.

I keep seeing this "fear" meme from the warmistas, suggesting that skeptics are afraid of the future.

Yet it's the warmistas who seem to be afraid of the future, and trying to create fear...The Day After Tomorrow, anyone?

Perhaps there's something to jsailjt's "Or maybe those who conform to AGW theories do so primarily because they WANT to 'seriously disrupt out current economic and social system' and this is as good as an excuse to do that as any that might come along..."
__________________
fryewe is offline  
Old 19-01-2016, 07:14   #1955
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Slidell, La.
Boat: Morgan Classic 33
Posts: 1,106
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
I'm still waiting for Jack and Lake-effect to locate the missing water? If sea levels are rising at an alarming rate as they claim, why is the shoreline in Newport Beach in exactly the same location in these two photos taken 75 years apart? One taken in 1940 and the other in 2015.
Well, I can' stay away. This thread, like CF in general, is addictive...

I'll bite.

In no particular order, chose whichever you want, or any combination:

That is a particularly valuable stretch of land you show in the pictures;
it is in the owners interest to make sure that the shoreline remains in place. (And before you protest that lowly humans surely couldn't have manipulated the surface of the earth in such a manner, I suggest you look at the area about 5 miles away, a little to the north of northwest of Newport Beach, on Google Earth. There you'll find large sections of Huntington Beach very close to sea level, protected by 15-20 foot levees. Who'da thought those smart Californians would build houses in a coastal flood plain?

The land is higher than the (averaged, global) 8" sea level rise in the 20th century.

Natural beach replenishment.

Artificial beach replenishment.

Different interpretations of the word 'alarming'.

Crustal deflection as the North American Plate tries to ride over the Pacific Plate



Shown in the following 6 pictures are different aerial views of 3 different undeveloped areas near where I live, I have intimate knowledge of all three, they're all within 5 miles of each other. The first picture in each pair is from 1989. the second, 2015. The yellow outline shows the shoreline in 1989, the second picture shows how far the shoreline has moved/disappeared. And that's only three examples, I know personally of many dozens.

So what is causing this? As above, chose one or as many as you like.

Crustal tilt as the northern part of the North American plate isostatically rebounds from the last ice age. (Though it seems odd that it's rate of rebound would increase in the last 26 years.)

Subsidence caused by oil and gas extraction. (Maybe, though I've not seen any numerical representations scaling the volume of products produced against the volume of land lost. It would be a difficult calculation, but the data to do it probably already exist.)

Natural coastal erosion. (Though historical and pre-historical data doesn't support this.)

Coastal erosion induced and/or exacerbated by human activities. (This is strongly supported and well documented, and ranges from logging, dam building, leveeing, and canal cutting, to incremental increases in sea level (however they're caused).

The point is, once again, that all these processes are complex and difficult to understand, even by those who study them. It appears that it takes a reasonable amount of study even to begin to realize how complex these systems and processes are.

Unless you're just showing a bit of twisted irony, to ask 'Where's the missing water' suggests either an ignorance of the subject, or a disregard of and for the existing and well supported science.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1g.jpg
Views:	41
Size:	342.7 KB
ID:	117035   Click image for larger version

Name:	2g.jpg
Views:	47
Size:	238.2 KB
ID:	117036  

Click image for larger version

Name:	3g.jpg
Views:	46
Size:	304.7 KB
ID:	117037   Click image for larger version

Name:	4g.jpg
Views:	50
Size:	318.2 KB
ID:	117038  

Click image for larger version

Name:	5g.jpg
Views:	48
Size:	255.7 KB
ID:	117039   Click image for larger version

Name:	6g.jpg
Views:	48
Size:	244.6 KB
ID:	117040  

__________________
jimbunyard is online now  
Old 19-01-2016, 07:15   #1956
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 570
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
The truth is closer to the fact that ANY 'green' changes are considered suspect by a certain demographic which apparently aligns closely with yacht ownership.
Heh. Many of us would probably characterize our boats as scows, tubs, or rag-bags rather than yachts, but you go right ahead with your preconceived notions.

You got boat envy, bro?
__________________
fryewe is offline  
Old 19-01-2016, 07:25   #1957
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 570
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
Shown in the following 6 pictures are different aerial views of 3 different undeveloped areas near where I live, I have intimate knowledge of all three, they're all within 5 miles of each other. The first picture in each pair is from 1989. the second, 2015. The yellow outline shows the shoreline in 1989, the second picture shows how far the shoreline has moved/disappeared.

How much of the 1989 shoreline was landfill that occurred prior to 1989? How much was changed by storm effects?

Were the pics on the left taken at low tide and those on the right at high tide?/jk


Coastal erosion induced and/or exacerbated by human activities.

And coastal buildup can be exacerbated by human activities. Large islands have been built from the dredging along both the AICW and GICW, for example.

Unless you're just showing a bit of twisted irony, to ask 'Where's the missing water' suggests either an ignorance of the subject, or a disregard of and for the existing and well supported science.

I think it's a good question. Have you seen that river that flows to southern Louisiana, emptying the rain runoff from the Rockies to the Appalachians?
It is a good thread, isn't it?
__________________
fryewe is offline  
Old 19-01-2016, 07:32   #1958
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,517
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard View Post
Well, I can' stay away. This thread, like CF in general, is addictive...

I'll bite.

In no particular order, chose whichever you want, or any combination:

That is a particularly valuable stretch of land you show in the pictures;
it is in the owners interest to make sure that the shoreline remains in place. (And before you protest that lowly humans surely couldn't have manipulated the surface of the earth in such a manner, I suggest you look at the area about 5 miles, a little to the north of northwest of Newport Beach, on Google Earth. There you'll find large sections of Huntington Beach very close to sea level, protected by 15-20 foot levees. Who'da thought those smart Californians would build houses in a coastal flood plain?

The land is higher than the (averaged, global) 8" sea level rise in the 20th century.

Natural beach replenishment.

Artificial beach replenishment.

Different interpretations of the word 'alarming'.

Crustal deflection as the North American Plate tries to ride over the Pacific Plate



Shown in the following 6 pictures are different aerial views of 3 different undeveloped areas near where I live, I have intimate knowledge of all three, they're all within 5 miles of each other. The first picture in each pair is from 1989. the second, 2015. The yellow outline shows the shoreline in 1989, the second picture shows how far the shoreline has moved/disappeared. And that's only three examples, I know personally of many dozens.

So what is causing this? As above, chose one or as many as you like.

Crustal tilt as the northern part of the North American plate isostatically rebounds from the last ice age. (Though it seems odd that it's rate of rebound would increase in the last 26 years.)

Subsidence caused by oil and gas extraction. (Maybe, though I've not seen any numerical representations scaling the volume of products produced against the volume of land lost. It would be a difficult calculation, but the data to do it probably already exist.)

Natural coastal erosion. (Though historical and pre-historical data doesn't support this.)

Coastal erosion induced and/or exacerbated by human activities. (This is strongly supported and well documented, and ranges from logging, dam building, leveeing, and canal cutting, to incremental increases in sea level (however they're caused).

The point is, once again, that all these processes are complex and difficult to understand, even by those who study them. It appears that it takes a reasonable amount of study even to begin to realize how complex these systems and processes are.

Unless you're just showing a bit of twisted irony, to ask 'Where's the missing water' suggests either an ignorance of the subject, or a disregard of and for the existing and well supported science.
3-4 miles north is where I grew up and where I frequently visit. There are no 15-20 foot levees anywhere in the area. In fact, I don't know of even a single 2-3 foot levee. The land and channels around Huntington Harbor Residential development remain as it was back in the early 1960's when my parents looked for a house in the area. The street along PCH highway flooded the same during unusually high tides back then, just as it does today. No difference.

Nice try.

Please show us even a single picture of a 15-20 foot levee holding back the ocean along the Huntington or Newport Beach coastline. Those homes in Newport harbor were built 50-60 years ago only three feet above the high tide level. Today, they remain at three feet above high tide... Nothing has changed.

Your google pictures show a marsh area that I also know very well, which show a flushing channel that was newly created only five years ago to allow seawater to flush out the stagnant backwater on a daily basis. Before the channel was built, only ground seepage could cross the 400 meters under the Pacific Coast hwy. So now... Unlike 6 years ago, the area can receive a complete tidal flow.

Again, nice try at manipulating the data.
__________________
Kenomac is offline  
Old 19-01-2016, 07:51   #1959
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,943
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by fryewe View Post
Heh.

I keep seeing this "fear" meme from the warmistas, suggesting that skeptics are afraid of the future.

Yet it's the warmistas who seem to be afraid of the future, and trying to create fear...The Day After Tomorrow, anyone?
I know the convenience of generalizations (and strawmen), but I have gone to the trouble of stating and restating what I am actually thinking about. Rather than retreat behind "alarmist!" "warmista!"... what DO YOU fear will happen if we choose to act to minimize AGW?
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 19-01-2016, 07:55   #1960
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Boat: Sandpiper 565
Posts: 2,943
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by fryewe View Post
Heh. Many of us would probably characterize our boats as scows, tubs, or rag-bags rather than yachts, but you go right ahead with your preconceived notions.
Are they any more preconceived or unhelpful than the repetition of "alarmist" or "warmista"?

Quote:
You got boat envy, bro?
I envy those out cruising fulltime, sure. Otherwise, I'm absurdly happy with our current boat.
__________________
Lake-Effect is offline  
Old 19-01-2016, 07:57   #1961
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,048
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
I'm still waiting for Jack and Lake-effect to locate the missing water? If sea levels are rising at an alarming rate as they claim, why is the shoreline in Newport Beach in exactly the same location in these two photos taken 75 years apart? One taken in 1940 and the other in 2015.
Same height of tide?
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 19-01-2016, 08:00   #1962
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,048
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
So should I ask JD yet again whether it is the models or the surface data with which he has problems?

(Not that I would expect an answer)
Show me where I said I has a problem with either.

I ask of you, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 19-01-2016, 08:19   #1963
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,517
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Same height of tide?
The last time I checked, the buildings and pier do not rise and fall. Check out the buildings and boats and compare their relationship with the water in the black and white photo from 1940. Our O'Day 20 was stored on a dry lot exactly where the launch ramp exists in those pictures back in 1978. I assure you, the water level is the same today as it was back then.

The buildings and street level haven't risen up to keep pace with your rising water. Street level remains at about 3ft above the high water mark. Oh yeah... Look at the high water marks in both pictures.... It's the same. No need to know what time of day and the height of the tide when the pictures were taken.

The high water mark tells us all we need to know. I know it's inconvenient for you when your scientific facts, charts and graphs don't match the truth our eyes can see in the pictures, or upon first hand examination.
__________________
Kenomac is offline  
Old 19-01-2016, 08:22   #1964
Registered User
 
Mike OReilly's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Good question
Boat: Rafiki 37
Posts: 4,040
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
I don't doubt the sincerity of your view that "we must seriously disrupt our current economic and social system to address climate change." But assuming, hypothetically, that the threat from MMGW turns out to be proven false, would you still hold the same position about needed changes to our socio-economic system? I think it's a valid question because CC seems to be embraced by many with a political perspective often similar to yours, and I suspect that's what drives much of the unquestioned acceptance of the science.
It's a good question Exile. I certainly won't deny that I believe the current economic and social models our globalized planet is operating on needs serious reform. From the growing totalitarian tendencies of the leading western democracies, to the massive redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich (socialism for the rich), to the seemingly insatiable greed for more, more, more ... yes, I think there are plenty of reasons that new ways of living on this planet needs to happen. And just like with climate change, they will. History teaches us that when enough people become disenfranchised from the current economic and social systems, things will change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
You are correct that there are powerful interests that will stand to lose should MMGW ultimately be proven and it induces societal change. But there are also many others who try and look at both sides of the evidence, and simply don't believe that the science is as settled as you do. And many of those same people recognize the negative impacts many of these changes would produce, not just on the big oil cos. or the rich & powerful, but on ordinary middle & lower class people throughout the world. My own view is that a real consensus around settled science should drive the politics and any needed reforms, not the other way around.
As you can tell, I'm not hear to debate the status of the science. Whether you choose to believe it is established in the scientific community is, to me, irrelevant. It's on the level of those who question evolution or the big bang. That's why I don't participate in this faux science debate.

But I fully agree that what isn't settled is how large an impact rapid climate change will (is) hav(ing) on our global civilization. And more importantly -- and this is the domain of politics, NOT science -- what do we do about it. Climate science can point to the future given what we know of today and yesterday. But science doesn't tell us how to respond. That is a political and social decision. Every action, or inaction (in this case), comes with different outcomes; some are positive some are negative. It's a complex calculus, and not one that science can lead in.

This is why I get frustrated with all this faux science debate. Stop pretending. Get on with the real task of facing reality and deciding what to do. It may still be that we as a society say, screw it! We like our currently lifestyle, and the future generations can all go to heck. Or to ease our mind with this, (and to bring this back to the OP), we can tell ourselves not to worry b/c some new amazing technology will save our grandchildren, so therefore we can all carry on doing what we're doing. After all, humans hate change.

I approach most things in life with the attitude that you do the best you can with the what you have and know. There are plenty of ways we could make real changes that would mitigate the effects of climate change on us. And the childish claim about learning to make stone tools is just that, childish. But to be slightly less juvenile, 'doing things' does mean we who have lived so far off the fat of the planetary hog will have to learn to live with less.

But this is where we run into the politics of climate change. Those on top cannot conceive of living with less. It's part of human psychology that we feel a loss greater than the equivalent gain, and this is magnified in this case b/c the gain we're talking about is around the globe, and generations into the future. Our species may simply be evolutionarily unable to make this leap.
__________________
Why go fast, when you can go slow.
BLOG: www.helplink.com/CLAFC
Mike OReilly is offline  
Old 19-01-2016, 08:46   #1965
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,048
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
. I know it's inconvenient for you when your scientific facts, charts and graphs don't match the truth our eyes can see in the pictures, or upon first hand examination.
I think I will go with the science.



The mean sea level trend is 2.22 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 1.04 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1955 to 1993 which is equivalent to a change of 0.73 feet in 100 years.

Sea Level Trends - State Selection
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	9410580.png
Views:	142
Size:	44.6 KB
ID:	117043  
__________________

__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cruising and the Coming Storm ~ Recession, Depression, Climate Change, Peak Oil jtbsail Off Topic Forum 162 13-10-2015 13:17
Weather Patterns / Climate Change anjou Off Topic Forum 185 19-01-2010 15:08
Climate Change GordMay Off Topic Forum 445 02-09-2008 08:48
Healthiest coral reefs hardest hit by climate change GordMay Off Topic Forum 33 11-05-2007 03:07



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:37.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.