RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: Climate Genocide, global warming is gonna be bad< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2018,13:42   

Quote
LIFE AFTER WARMING OCT. 10, 2018

UN Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It’s Actually Worse Than That.

By David Wallace-Wells

Just two years ago, amid global fanfare, the Paris climate accords were signed — initiating what seemed, for a brief moment, like the beginning of a planet-saving movement. But almost immediately, the international goal it established of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius began to seem, to many of the world’s most vulnerable, dramatically inadequate; the Marshall Islands’ representative gave it a blunter name, calling two degrees of warming “genocide.”

The alarming new report you may have read about this week from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which examines just how much better 1.5 degrees of warming would be than 2 — echoes the charge. “Amplifies” may be the better term. Hundreds of millions of lives are at stake, the report declares, should the world warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which it will do as soon as 2040, if current trends continue. Nearly all coral reefs would die out, wildfires and heat waves would sweep across the planet annually, and the interplay between drought and flooding and temperature would mean that the world’s food supply would become dramatically less secure. Avoiding that scale of suffering, the report says, requires such a thorough transformation of the world’s economy, agriculture, and culture that “there is no documented historical precedent.” The New York Times declared that the report showed a “strong risk” of climate crisis in the coming decades; in Grist, Eric Holthaus wrote that “civilization is at stake.”

If you are alarmed by those sentences, you should be — they are horrifying. But it is, actually, worse than that — considerably worse. That is because the new report’s worst-case scenario is, actually, a best case. In fact, it is a beyond-best-case scenario. What has been called a genocidal level of warming is already our inevitable future. The question is how much worse than that it will get.

Barring the arrival of dramatic new carbon-sucking technologies, which are so far from scalability at present that they are best described as fantasies of industrial absolution, it will not be possible to keep warming below two degrees Celsius — the level the new report describes as a climate catastrophe. As a planet, we are coursing along a trajectory that brings us north of four degrees by the end of the century. The IPCC is right that two degrees marks a world of climate catastrophe. Four degrees is twice as bad as that. And that is where we are headed, at present — a climate hell twice as hellish as the one the IPCC says, rightly, we must avoid at all costs. But the real meaning of the report is not “climate change is much worse than you think,” because anyone who knows the state of the research will find nothing surprising in it. The real meaning is, “you now have permission to freak out.”
link

   
Lethean



Posts: 246
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2018,14:59   

Hey, the President of the United States says that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by and on behalf of China so the Chinese can Make China Great Again. Also, vaccines cause autism. Many such cases.

I mean, he has all this access to the best scientists and advisors and intelligence and governmental whatnot so he should know. Right?

You aren't fooling anybody, Steve. So, nice try.

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2018,11:06   

I was supposed to spend all last week and this upcoming week in Tallahassee repairing some equipment. Then the Giant Chinese Hoax arrived on Wednesday. Bigly. :-P

   
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2018,10:06   

partly because politics is so horrible lately I've been paying more attention to Global Warming. The interesting aspect to me is Geoengineering--which to be clear I'm not a happy optimist about, I bet it will suck in numerous ways--but humans don't have the political ability to deal with something like GW until shit like that is necessary.

   
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2018,15:21   

Quote
There is a Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. Take a moment to consider the implications of that fact. The inhabitants of what, under other circumstances, would be an obscure academic backwater need legal defense. Non-scientists have convinced themselves so thoroughly that these experts have to be wrong that they claim the whole field is swimming in fraud and have engaged in legal assaults to try to confirm their beliefs. The scientists need legal defense because their opponents are convinced they can provide evidence of the fraud—if only they could see every email the scientists have ever sent.

Climate scientists may suffer from an extreme example of this sort of vilification, but they're hardly alone. The US has had a long history of mistrust in highly educated professionals, but we seem to have shifted to a situation in which expertise has become both a disqualification and a reason for attack.

That's the central argument of Tom Nichols' recent book, The Death of Expertise, which has recently come out in a paperback edition. Nichols is a professor at the Naval War College and an expert himself, having done graduate studies about the former Soviet Union. While he's gained some prominence as a never-Trump conservative, the arguments in his book are evenhanded at distributing blame. And they make disturbing reading for anyone in science who's interested in engaging the public—especially in the science arena.


READ MOAR

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3228
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2018,17:22   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 21 2018,13:21)
Quote
There is a Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. Take a moment to consider the implications of that fact. The inhabitants of what, under other circumstances, would be an obscure academic backwater need legal defense. Non-scientists have convinced themselves so thoroughly that these experts have to be wrong that they claim the whole field is swimming in fraud and have engaged in legal assaults to try to confirm their beliefs. The scientists need legal defense because their opponents are convinced they can provide evidence of the fraud—if only they could see every email the scientists have ever sent.

Climate scientists may suffer from an extreme example of this sort of vilification, but they're hardly alone. The US has had a long history of mistrust in highly educated professionals, but we seem to have shifted to a situation in which expertise has become both a disqualification and a reason for attack.

That's the central argument of Tom Nichols' recent book, The Death of Expertise, which has recently come out in a paperback edition. Nichols is a professor at the Naval War College and an expert himself, having done graduate studies about the former Soviet Union. While he's gained some prominence as a never-Trump conservative, the arguments in his book are evenhanded at distributing blame. And they make disturbing reading for anyone in science who's interested in engaging the public—especially in the science arena.


READ MOAR

"This anti-expert attitude, that's the way back to the cave." -- Brian Cox.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Lethean



Posts: 246
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2018,11:36   



--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3228
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2018,17:56   

Quote (Lethean @ Oct. 22 2018,09:36)

I'm really tempted to sign up for Twitter just so I can call him a fucking imbecile.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2018,13:06   

Climate Change Keeps Looking Worse and Worse

   
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2018,04:49   

how extreme weather is shrinking the planet

   
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2019,09:29   

Years ago a guy created a website that documented all 600-plus creationist arguments, with their refutations, so we don't have to keep arguing from scratch with those people. Looks like somebody did a similar thing with global warming. This site should be spread far and wide.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argumen....ent.php

   
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2019,09:57   

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 22 2018,18:56)
Quote (Lethean @ Oct. 22 2018,09:36)

I'm really tempted to sign up for Twitter just so I can call him a fucking imbecile.

That idiocy continues:

Quote
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!

9:28 PM · Jan 28, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone

   
JohnW



Posts: 3215
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2019,12:43   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 30 2019,07:57)
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 22 2018,18:56)
Quote (Lethean @ Oct. 22 2018,09:36)

I'm really tempted to sign up for Twitter just so I can call him a fucking imbecile.

That idiocy continues:

Quote
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!

9:28 PM · Jan 28, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone

During the 2106 election debates, I mentioned to a friend that the Republican candidate was the daft old bugger who'd been sitting at the end of the bar since the Nixon administration.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1949
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2019,17:28   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 30 2019,12:43)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 30 2019,07:57)
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 22 2018,18:56)
 
Quote (Lethean @ Oct. 22 2018,09:36)

I'm really tempted to sign up for Twitter just so I can call him a fucking imbecile.

That idiocy continues:

 
Quote
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!

9:28 PM · Jan 28, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone

During the 2106 election debates, I mentioned to a friend that the Republican candidate was the daft old bugger who'd been sitting at the end of the bar since the Nixon administration.

Ironic, since the daft old bugger’s recently indicted sidekick was part of the Nixon administration.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2019,09:11   

Well this is good news:

Quote

A Record Number of Americans Understand That Global Warming Is Happening

The findings show that national comprehension of climate change as an urgent problem is very much on the rise.

BY ALLISON ECK FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 2019

A major new survey about attitudes toward climate change in the U.S. is giving experts and policymakers a chance to breathe a sigh of relief—and think about next steps.

Conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, the survey found that 73 percent of Americans—a record high and a jump of 10 percentage points since 2015—believe global warming is real and is happening. In addition, 72 percent say that the issue of climate change is personally important to them, and 86 percent don’t think it’s too late to do something about it.


exxon propaganda finally wearing off

   
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2019,09:12   

So 27% still believe the dumb lies? That sounds exactly right, actually.  :p  :p  :p

   
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2019,17:10   

Ken Ham: Hell is the only kind of climate change AOC needs to worry about.

:D  ;)

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1773
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2019,09:44   

I think one reason people reject climate change as reality is the way it has been politicised.
Look at the green new deal championed by AOC. Does anybody think that would be a good thing to implement?

  
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2019,10:29   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,10:44)
I think one reason people reject climate change as reality is the way it has been politicised.
Look at the green new deal championed by AOC. Does anybody think that would be a good thing to implement?

It's a vague set of initiatives that at least begins to deal with the problem on the scale it would require. If you have better ideas, we're all ears.

FWIW I don't think groups of humans are intelligent enough to deal with the problem successfully, and the next century will be a series of catastrophes.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1773
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2019,11:06   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2019,10:29)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,10:44)
I think one reason people reject climate change as reality is the way it has been politicised.
Look at the green new deal championed by AOC. Does anybody think that would be a good thing to implement?

It's a vague set of initiatives that at least begins to deal with the problem on the scale it would require. If you have better ideas, we're all ears.

FWIW I don't think groups of humans are intelligent enough to deal with the problem successfully, and the next century will be a series of catastrophes.

I am not claiming to have the answers, just that the way it has been politicised is harmful to people accepting it.

BTW, I do consider global warming/climate change to be a threat to global civilisation. I also think that there is no way to address it without a reduction in population. At least for the foreseeable future.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2019,12:18   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,12:06)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2019,10:29)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,10:44)
I think one reason people reject climate change as reality is the way it has been politicised.
Look at the green new deal championed by AOC. Does anybody think that would be a good thing to implement?

It's a vague set of initiatives that at least begins to deal with the problem on the scale it would require. If you have better ideas, we're all ears.

FWIW I don't think groups of humans are intelligent enough to deal with the problem successfully, and the next century will be a series of catastrophes.

I am not claiming to have the answers, just that the way it has been politicised is harmful to people accepting it.

BTW, I do consider global warming/climate change to be a threat to global civilisation. I also think that there is no way to address it without a reduction in population. At least for the foreseeable future.

in the late 70s and early 80s Exxon scientists and Exxon executives had meetings where they discussed global warming, because they knew it was an existential threat to their industry. They decided that there were enough people out there who are scientifically illiterate, that if they spent a few million dollars in propaganda they could confuse the issue for the indefinite future and keep making money. They literally hired the same PR firms that the tobacco companies hired when they were pretending that cigarettes don't cause cancer.

The carbon merchants have been politicizing this since I was in kindergarten.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1773
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2019,12:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2019,12:18)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,12:06)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2019,10:29)
   
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,10:44)
I think one reason people reject climate change as reality is the way it has been politicised.
Look at the green new deal championed by AOC. Does anybody think that would be a good thing to implement?

It's a vague set of initiatives that at least begins to deal with the problem on the scale it would require. If you have better ideas, we're all ears.

FWIW I don't think groups of humans are intelligent enough to deal with the problem successfully, and the next century will be a series of catastrophes.

I am not claiming to have the answers, just that the way it has been politicised is harmful to people accepting it.

BTW, I do consider global warming/climate change to be a threat to global civilisation. I also think that there is no way to address it without a reduction in population. At least for the foreseeable future.

in the late 70s and early 80s Exxon scientists and Exxon executives had meetings where they discussed global warming, because they knew it was an existential threat to their industry. They decided that there were enough people out there who are scientifically illiterate, that if they spent a few million dollars in propaganda they could confuse the issue for the indefinite future and keep making money. They literally hired the same PR firms that the tobacco companies hired when they were pretending that cigarettes don't cause cancer.

The carbon merchants have been politicizing this since I was in kindergarten.

I don't doubt that. What I do doubt is that more taxes will solve anything WRT global warming.

As for the green new deal, all I can see that doing is causing massive harm to the USA, without doing very much to reduce global carbon emissions unless most of the world does the same. Is it even possible to fear down and rebuild almost every building in the USA within 10 years? I seriously doubt that.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12154
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2019,13:44   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,13:52)
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2019,12:18)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,12:06)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2019,10:29)
   
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,10:44)
I think one reason people reject climate change as reality is the way it has been politicised.
Look at the green new deal championed by AOC. Does anybody think that would be a good thing to implement?

It's a vague set of initiatives that at least begins to deal with the problem on the scale it would require. If you have better ideas, we're all ears.

FWIW I don't think groups of humans are intelligent enough to deal with the problem successfully, and the next century will be a series of catastrophes.

I am not claiming to have the answers, just that the way it has been politicised is harmful to people accepting it.

BTW, I do consider global warming/climate change to be a threat to global civilisation. I also think that there is no way to address it without a reduction in population. At least for the foreseeable future.

in the late 70s and early 80s Exxon scientists and Exxon executives had meetings where they discussed global warming, because they knew it was an existential threat to their industry. They decided that there were enough people out there who are scientifically illiterate, that if they spent a few million dollars in propaganda they could confuse the issue for the indefinite future and keep making money. They literally hired the same PR firms that the tobacco companies hired when they were pretending that cigarettes don't cause cancer.

The carbon merchants have been politicizing this since I was in kindergarten.

I don't doubt that. What I do doubt is that more taxes will solve anything WRT global warming.

As for the green new deal, all I can see that doing is causing massive harm to the USA, without doing very much to reduce global carbon emissions unless most of the world does the same. Is it even possible to fear down and rebuild almost every building in the USA within 10 years? I seriously doubt that.

I think you might have been misled about what exactly the plan says.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1773
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2019,14:11   

Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2019,13:44)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,13:52)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2019,12:18)
   
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,12:06)
     
Quote (stevestory @ Mar. 16 2019,10:29)
     
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,10:44)
I think one reason people reject climate change as reality is the way it has been politicised.
Look at the green new deal championed by AOC. Does anybody think that would be a good thing to implement?

It's a vague set of initiatives that at least begins to deal with the problem on the scale it would require. If you have better ideas, we're all ears.

FWIW I don't think groups of humans are intelligent enough to deal with the problem successfully, and the next century will be a series of catastrophes.

I am not claiming to have the answers, just that the way it has been politicised is harmful to people accepting it.

BTW, I do consider global warming/climate change to be a threat to global civilisation. I also think that there is no way to address it without a reduction in population. At least for the foreseeable future.

in the late 70s and early 80s Exxon scientists and Exxon executives had meetings where they discussed global warming, because they knew it was an existential threat to their industry. They decided that there were enough people out there who are scientifically illiterate, that if they spent a few million dollars in propaganda they could confuse the issue for the indefinite future and keep making money. They literally hired the same PR firms that the tobacco companies hired when they were pretending that cigarettes don't cause cancer.

The carbon merchants have been politicizing this since I was in kindergarten.

I don't doubt that. What I do doubt is that more taxes will solve anything WRT global warming.

As for the green new deal, all I can see that doing is causing massive harm to the USA, without doing very much to reduce global carbon emissions unless most of the world does the same. Is it even possible to fear down and rebuild almost every building in the USA within 10 years? I seriously doubt that.

I think you might have been misled about what exactly the plan says.

Maybe I have. TBH, the only things I think I know about it are from AOC's announcements, I have not seen the actual document.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2019,15:59   

Hi Stephen! Long time no see.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1773
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2019,16:09   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 16 2019,15:59)
Hi Stephen! Long time no see.

Hey Alan, been awhile. Guess I drifted away once I'D became irrelevant and traffic here slowed down.

Good to see you are still here

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2019,03:42   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,11:09)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 16 2019,15:59)
Hi Stephen! Long time no see.

Hey Alan, been awhile. Guess I drifted away once I'D became irrelevant and traffic here slowed down.

Good to see you are still here

I've become a bit irrelevant too but I know what you mean! :) It amazes me folks still talk about ID as if it hadn't followed in the footsteps of the Norwegian Blue.

Regarding climate change, I suspect we're too late and too in the thrall of vested interests to reverse the trend. Hope I'm wrong.

There's plenty of energy, just better ways of extracting and storing it are needed. Wave energy is fine in principle but problematic because of the extreme environment for the equipment, especially in the North Atlantic in winter. There's a lot of work needed if it could ever become mainstream.

I see UK are bringing in legislation to ensure heat pumps replace gas and oil as an energy source for home heating. Switching back to lime from portland cement as a construction material could help too.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1773
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2019,15:13   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 18 2019,03:42)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 16 2019,11:09)
     
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 16 2019,15:59)
Hi Stephen! Long time no see.

Hey Alan, been awhile. Guess I drifted away once I'D became irrelevant and traffic here slowed down.

Good to see you are still here

I've become a bit irrelevant too but I know what you mean! :) It amazes me folks still talk about ID as if it hadn't followed in the footsteps of the Norwegian Blue.

Regarding climate change, I suspect we're too late and too in the thrall of vested interests to reverse the trend. Hope I'm wrong.

There's plenty of energy, just better ways of extracting and storing it are needed. Wave energy is fine in principle but problematic because of the extreme environment for the equipment, especially in the North Atlantic in winter. There's a lot of work needed if it could ever become mainstream.

I see UK are bringing in legislation to ensure heat pumps replace gas and oil as an energy source for home heating. Switching back to lime from portland cement as a construction material could help too.

Reckon ID was always irrelevant, seemed like a threat back in the day.

Wave power may be usefull, tidal power would be my bet. Tidal is far more predictable/reliable as it is mostly astronomical driven rather than weather.

I would definitely like to see science funded better, both "blue-sky" and "research/target driven".

My 2c.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2019,15:33   

Double post. Feel free to delete.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1478
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2019,15:34   

The Rance tidal power station has recouped its development and building costs and is cheaper to run than nuclear. But how many other suitable sites are there?

  
  60 replies since Oct. 13 2018,13:42 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]