Global Warming Article by Amiton

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Global Warming Article

POSTED BY: AMITON
UPDATED: Friday, June 16, 2006 17:35
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2006
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:54 AM

I cannot verify the veracity of this article at all, but I thought it was an interesting read. I figured that if nothing else, it could serve as a new reference for our master researchers around here (like Citizen, Rue, and SygnyM, for example).

To be taken with a grain of salt, as is just about any science article written for non-scientific people =p Especially with no specific references cited.

Amiton.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A bit of a long read

From Canada Free Press -
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

(Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:34 AM

PDCHARLES

What happened? He see your face?

Haven't seen that movie yet... but watch "Too Hot Not to Handle"... http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/toohot/index.html
See if those scientists have the credentials. I hope so...

Lobbying… lobbying… lobbying... either oil/synthetic producers are lobbying or new green co.s lobbying. Meanwhile, it’s still getting warmer. We DO know that. I am looking out the window at a June Tropical depression with flood watches all around...and
Precious money won't make a lot of difference if this keeps up.

I do not care (am interested though) how living conditions were 450 million years ago.
So, this was before even fish existed and the oceanic gyres we know today that regulate the earths temp were not in place. He got a one-to one correlation of CO2 levels from what I see here. How bout all the other factors that must exist (like today) that are involved. If the Gyres and other currents go down we will be in an ice age. (Regardless of CO2) That’s cooler. It has been researched time and time again that in the past swift climate change has happened without human involvement.
One example: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html ... bout middle

[Ridiculousness]
So maybe sea levels don’t rise and CO2 emissions have nothing to do with increased severe weather. Bet they can agree on the affects of increased CO2 on vegetation. Super ragweed, great. More resistant to herbacides great. We are dependent on this affect for our crops. (Cotton especially) Which means more dirty water runoff.
[/ridiculousness]

Where is the human element (the important part) in this article. So, a simple thing for a test... put your mouth over a car tailpipe and see if you live.

Even if we can’t change the natural cycle. We CAN burn greener fuel, its here. or would we prefer making oil nations richer. Hey there's a financial reason. ..and u know what, This gets Neo-Cons attention. Spend less or no money protecting oil from there to here.

So, this seems to be a direct attack on Gore’s “mission”. So, do the studies. Take a chance and be reactionary like everything else, but no reaction can reverse the effects after a certain point.

PS: my bio fuel co-op “meet and greet” is the same day as the Raleigh screening... AHHHHHHHH. Fuel it is.

GO CANES!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:50 AM

AMITON

I actually don't have an opinion one way or the other. It's not that I don't care, though. It's because I don't believe that I have the access to the information to empiracally know the truth at the end of the day. I'm not a scientist, and I never seriously considered becoming one.

I do think it's a good idea to burn cleaner in general. I think it's good idea to protect (and expand) as much vegetation as possible. Even if it's not for reducing CO2 levels significantly, it gives us more O2 to breathe via transpiration, right?

I don't know how much we can affect global warming, much less stop it, or even if it is a real concern for us. I wanted to contribute information for the debate so the people that do know better than me can keep me on the straight and narrow path =p

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:56 AM

CHRISISALL

Oh my, more Chicken Little.
Global Warming.
And the Plutoxin Virus is gonna kill you in less than ten hours.

Propaganda, baby.

The Polar Ice caps are submerging, not melting- the ice is getting heavier, that's all.

Dumb tree-huggers

Chrisisall, Arctic Specialist

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:08 AM

AMITON

ROFL!

You kill me. Well, you might if all of the rest of it doesn't first

Amiton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:53 AM

PDCHARLES

What happened? He see your face?

Quote:
Originally posted by Amiton:
I actually don't have an opinion one way or the other. It's not that I don't care, though. It's because I don't believe that I have the access to the information to empiracally know the truth at the end of the day. I'm not a scientist, and I never seriously considered becoming one.

I do think it's a good idea to burn cleaner in general. I think it's good idea to protect (and expand) as much vegetation as possible. Even if it's not for reducing CO2 levels significantly, it gives us more O2 to breathe via transpiration, right?

I don't know how much we can affect global warming, much less stop it, or even if it is a real concern for us. I wanted to contribute information for the debate so the people that do know better than me can keep me on the straight and narrow path =p

Amiton.

Yeah, I was only trying to present what lil I do know. not a lot

Just think since burning cleaner has proven itself why not go for it. ...and a lil more incentive from up top would be nice.

I think it has been discovered that a lot of atmoshperic O2 is actually produced by the oceans. But, since we currently don't have an O2 shortage, I'll pick the "less weed killers" route.

or maybe we do...
http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/bender/lab/research_o2n2.ht
ml

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh my, more Chicken Little.

That happened earlier when Alberto handled my "limb problem"

GO CANES!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:26 PM

SASSALICIOUS

I haven't seen the movie, but I'll probably rent it. And I actually saw this posted on livejournal earlier today.

My quick and dirty, nonresearched thoughts: If you talk to the Inuit that live up near Barrow, AK they'll tell you that a lot is changing. Ice freezes later and melts earlier, making it harder to do the whale harvest. Also makes it more difficult for polar bear and the like to feed. There are other examples of warming up from around the world.

I'm fairly certain everyone can agree that temperature is in fact going up. There are multiple factors that are most likely contributing to this, earth's position relative to the sun, human activities, changing solar output, etc etc. However, given that the CO2 increase has been exponential since the industrial revolution and that is directly caused by human activity (factories, burning fuel, deforestration), it stands to reason that we are in some way, shape, or form contributing to the climate change.

If people could just change small things about daily lives, we could alter OUR contribution to climate change and possibly make it less severe. Eventually we'll have to change our lifestyles when cheap and easy fuel is gone. I think it's ridiculous that anyone would stand there and say "well since I'm not the SOLE CAUSE of climate change, I don't have to change my ways". We're all contributing in some way. Even the bushman in Africa that burns wood for a fire to cook his dinner.

I also think it's highly suspect that the U.S. government is telling officials at NASA to not talk about global warming if they want to keep their jobs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:27 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh my, more Chicken Little.
Global Warming.
And the Plutoxin Virus is gonna kill you in less than ten hours.

Propaganda, baby.

Yeah Snake, that's right.

-

The thing is I don't care whether or not we are responsible for it, I care about how it effects us.

I mean imagine for a moment that it is a totally natural process that has nothing to do with people. Isn't it our duty as living things to fight that natural process with all of our strength in order to preserve the species?

I like nature as much as anyone, but there comes a point where I have to look at things and say, "Self preservation is natural too," and fight the natural processes that would leave us dead. Human beings aren't evolving anymore, we've cut natural selection of out the equation and that means we need things to remain as they are here and now, however unnatural that might be.

The least we can do is try not to speed it up in the least.

-

Then again one wonders about dimming as well, after September 11th we grounded every plane over the US (no small task) and kept them that way for a bit, it was 1 C warmer, sunnier, and clearer while that happened.

So maybe the cooling polluting is doing is balancing out the warming it is doing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It was a hasty search, but this is what I found:

Bob Carter is a member of the Friends of Science Society, and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Dr Tim Ball is a former professor (now a private consultant) belonging to the Friends of Science Society, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and Envirotruth.

Tim Patterson is a member of the Friends of Science Society, and Envirotruth.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter is a member of the Friends of Science Society, and Envirotruth.

Dr. Dick Morgan (this is his nickname, you will not find information under it) is a member of the Friends of Science Society, and The Science & Environmental Project dedicated to opposing the concept of global warming.

Friends of Science Society is a Canadian non-profit group "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable." [1] ( http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=2)
Centre for Public Policy is a "neo-liberal" organization http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontier_Centre_for_Public_
Policy
Envirotruth is a project of the National Center for Public Policy Research, which in 2003, was underwritten to the tune of $30,000 from Exxon Mobil. [1] ( http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/corporate/giving_report.pdf)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:13 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh my, more Chicken Little.
Global Warming.
And the Plutoxin Virus is gonna kill you in less than ten hours.

Propaganda, baby.

The Polar Ice caps are submerging, not melting- the ice is getting heavier, that's all.

Dumb tree-huggers

Chrisisall, Arctic Specialist

You're an idiot and a Terrorist. I bet you’re a member of friends of the ice you pro-freezist!

George Bush is encouraging the use of Fossil fuels and unnecessarily inefficient Cars as part of his war on Ice. For too long water has been locked frigid in its icy cells in the North and South poles, or axis of icicles.

The ice is not 'melting' or 'getting heavier', the water is being liberated.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 15, 2006 7:13 AM

SICKDUDE

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh my, more Chicken Little.
Global Warming.
And the Plutoxin Virus is gonna kill you in less than ten hours.

Propaganda, baby.

The Polar Ice caps are submerging, not melting- the ice is getting heavier, that's all.

Dumb tree-huggers

Chrisisall, Arctic Specialist
You're an idiot and a Terrorist. I bet you’re a member of friends of the ice you pro-freezist!

George Bush is encouraging the use of Fossil fuels and unnecessarily inefficient Cars as part of his war on Ice. For too long water has been locked frigid in its icy cells in the North and South poles, or axis of icicles.

The ice is not 'melting' or 'getting heavier', the water is being liberated.

LOL!!! (chanting) Free water, free water, free water!

"I am your father, Luke. Give in to the Dark Side, you nob!" - Doug McKenzie

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 15, 2006 7:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Been too busy for anything except lobbing a few grenades. Don't have much time left (gasp!) since I just stabbed myself thru the chest (wheeze bubble!) in an act of asymmetric suicide- I mean -warfare.

Will look up in what little time I have lef.....

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:36 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

I'm not going to do research to prove global warming here...

and I didn't read past the beginning of the article, because it is so obviously not a matter of journalism but of propaganda.

"hundreds" of specialists believe Gore's movie was bunk.

I'll assume that the article isn't outright misstating facts, and accept that 'hundreds' do. Hundreds of scientists on a global scale does not impress me much.

That fraction of a fraction crap that attempts to narrow down the scientists who 'matter'- that fraction which says that global warming is real and urgent, is never once given a number by the writer. That could only mean that the figure of remaining specialists who support the reality of global warming is much greater than mere 'hundreds,' or else the article would use a factual number rather than "common sense" talk to debunk the notion that the scientific community has solidarity on this.

The article has shown itself to be less interested in fact than agenda, and so, does not warrant relevance on this serious subject.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Aide: "General - LOOK ! The enemy - they're committing - mass suicide !"
General: "Damn it! We have no weapons against their unconventional warfare. We'll never win the war now!"

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Been too busy for anything except lobbing a few grenades. Don't have much time left (gasp!) since I just stabbed myself thru the chest (wheeze bubble!) in an act of asymmetric suicide- I mean -warfare.

Will look up in what little time I have lef.....

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:01 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh my, more Chicken Little.
Global Warming.
And the Plutoxin Virus is gonna kill you in less than ten hours.

Propaganda, baby.

The Polar Ice caps are submerging, not melting- the ice is getting heavier, that's all.

Dumb tree-huggers

Chrisisall, Arctic Specialist
You're an idiot and a Terrorist. I bet you’re a member of friends of the ice you pro-freezist!

I personally blame the Bush Administration for Chrisisall. They should be ashamed of themselves! (Now if I can just find PirateJenny to back me up...)

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 16, 2006 10:15 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"The thing is I don't care whether or not we are responsible for it, I care about how it effects us.

I mean imagine for a moment that it is a totally natural process that has nothing to do with people. Isn't it our duty as living things to fight that natural process with all of our strength in order to preserve the species?

I like nature as much as anyone, but there comes a point where I have to look at things and say, "Self preservation is natural too," and fight the natural processes that would leave us dead. Human beings aren't evolving anymore, we've cut natural selection of out the equation and that means we need things to remain as they are here and now, however unnatural that might be."

Hi all,

As someone who believes that our Earth goes through climate changes naturally, I thought I'd put my opinion out there.

I believe it is the responsibility of human beings to survive. (Just as it is the responsibility of all species to survive.) I do not believe that survival depends on our ability to resist the natural order of the planet. Rather, I believe our survival depends on adapting to the natural order of the planet.

That means building shelters because it rains. It does not mean trying to find a way to prevent the rain.

That means not building your house on the side of a volcano or in the valley beneath it.

That means that you either don't live in quake country, or you build a house that can shimmy.

That means that you either don't build in flood zones, or you build a house above the ground and prepare for water.

That means if you build a house near a coastline, you build it to withstand coastal storms.

I think that we have historically suffered more death because of a failure to adapt than we have because of natural disasters. The human race could even survive an ice age if we saw it coming (which we would) and chose to prepare for it (which is questionable.)

There are good reasons to abandon limited resources in favor of unlimited resources. Making this choice aids our survival independent of any climactic concerns. It just doesn't make sense to rely on something that will get scarcer and scarcer when there is something infinitely abundant available for use.

I'm with all the tree-huggers when they say to abandon oil and coal. I'm just in it for different reasons.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 16, 2006 10:27 AM

CAUSAL

[ sincerity ] Damn. Nice post, Anthony. [ /sincerity ]

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 16, 2006 11:58 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"The thing is I don't care whether or not we are responsible for it, I care about how it effects us.

I mean imagine for a moment that it is a totally natural process that has nothing to do with people. Isn't it our duty as living things to fight that natural process with all of our strength in order to preserve the species?

I like nature as much as anyone, but there comes a point where I have to look at things and say, "Self preservation is natural too," and fight the natural processes that would leave us dead. Human beings aren't evolving anymore, we've cut natural selection of out the equation and that means we need things to remain as they are here and now, however unnatural that might be."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 16, 2006 5:35 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

WE'RE BACK !!!!!!

And then, not.

And then BACK AGAIN !!!

And then not, then - half back.

I wanna be a fullback.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE