In article <bpild2$rom$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>>> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.>
>>
>>As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
>>looney-left websites, etc.?
>>
>>
> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.

Where are your cites Parker? You keep complaining about those of others
but provide none of your own. In fact, you just ran away when I posted
NOAA and peer reviewed cites .

 
In article <bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
>documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations in
>climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
>anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as an
>explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
>
>
No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like EPA,
NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
some little child.
 
In article <9fjprv4vkkqcckuj6t93v6u23s5qgn5cv5@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote:
>On 19 Nov 2003 12:54:37 -0800, gzuckier@yahoo.com (z) wrote:
>
>>Bill Funk <bfunk33@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:<4gdlqvgd2sp10por0pn9u03v90rtnsa4d3@4ax.com>...
>>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:12:51 -0500, "C. E. White"
>>> <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >To sum it up - even if global warming is true, I believe the cure is
worse than
>>> >the disease. And furthermore, I think that even if it is true, the case
is being
>>> >dramatically overstated.
>>> >
>>> >Ed
>>>
>>> I don't think there's any question that global warming is happening.
>>> But there are a lot of questions about that:
>>>
>>> *Why* is it happening? Truth is, we don't know. We can *model*
>>> scenarios that say we are at fault, but those models don't admit that
>>> it's happened in the past, without the possibility of us interfering
>>> at all.
>>
>>Are you saying that the existing models don't fit the past climate
>>spikes? At what point do they miss? Or are you saying that because
>>there was warming in the past without human interaction, the fit of
>>the model explaining current warming as tied to current human CO2
>>release can't be correct? Similar to the argument that, since forest
>>fires have been going on since the dawn of forests, current forest
>>fires can't possibly be ignited by human actions?
>
>I am being rather clear in saying that "models" can model anything
>that the programmers want them to model.
>>
>>> *How long* will it last? Again, we don't know.
>>> Will reducing the CO2 output from our manufacturing/transportation
>>> slow/reverse the warming? Again, we don't know. And, we have
>>> absolutely no idea of what would happen if we were to reverse it.
>>> Would we enter another ice age? We simply don't know.
>>
>>Well, we do know that we are entering a new ice age; these cycles are
>>pretty much worked out, and in 4-5 thousand years we are going to be
>>pretty damn chilly. But most people are more interested in where we
>>will be for the next few decades. And right now it looks like
>>continuing to perpetually increase the amount of solar energy trapped
>>by the atmosphere is probably a worse idea than not doing so.
>
>Yet, the actual *causes* for this warming are not known.
>They are *assumed* to be caused by C02 released by us, but we don't
>*know* that.

They're as known as anything in science can be where you can't do controlled
experiments. That CO2 is causing the current warming is as known as, say,
CFCs destroy the ozone layer, or evolution explains the current diversity, or
the big bang is how the universe began.

>We don't know for sure what causes climatic shifts on a grand scale.
>We can see what happened, but we can't say why they happened.
>So, we are being told that we must creat economic upheaval, and
>drastically change our livings, because we are somehow "bad".
>>
>>>
>>> Models can be made to say anything the people making the models want
>>> to hear. That's reality.
>>
>>Not hardly. Show me a model showing that global warming is related to
>>astrology, then you can say this. In any event, science consists of
>>'dueling models'; you narrow it down to a few that explain the current
>>data better than the rest, then narrow it down further by seeing which
>>ones predict new data better.
>
>I can make one.
>You are asking me to do something you can't do yourself, when I made
>no claim that I can do that.
>Sorry, but that's a bogus defence of the claim that we are causing
>global warming.
>>
>>> It's stupid to say that CO2 that we are putting out is the cause of
>>> global; warming, then push something like Kyoto, which merely shifts
>>> the location of the CO2 production. Yet, that's what the tree-huggers
>>> want.
>>
>>Similarly, it's stupid to take a little step away from the bed in the
>>morning, when what I really need to do is get to my job 20 miles away.
>
>???
>Where did this come from?
>Kyoto doesn't do more than pretend that it will reduce C02. Instead,
>it only shifts the production of C02 from some countries to others.

It does not.

>>Yet, it works out somehow, and I doubt that it would do so were I not
>>to take that first step. What's the alternative plan? Tell the third
>>world that they need to keep their living standard the way it is
>>unless they can figure out how to improve it without CO2 emissions, so
>>that we can maintain our standard of living with our vast CO2
>>emissions?
>
>Maybe we should actually determine the real solution before we take
>such drastic steps.

Since the problem is CO2 emission, the solution is obvious.

>>And when they decline to take that advice, just shrug our
>>shoulders and say, 'Well hell, we tried, but they won't cooperate'?
>
>Again, we could actually find the solution rather than base one on the
>idea that we are "bad".
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe if we had more facts about what the problem is, we could come up
>>> with some workable answers.
>>
>>Facts? Like what, two tablets coming down from heaven with a
>>mathematical model of climate inscribed on them, and God's handwritten
>>guarantee? Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact: we are producing CO2
>>at an unprecedented rate. Fact: the climate is heating up at a
>>similarly unprecedented rate. Fact: the best fitting and best
>>supported models show the major agent of the rising temperature to be
>>the CO2 release. Fact: there isn't enough wiggle room in the models to
>>eliminate the actions of human CO2 release as a prime cause, without
>>postulating some big unknown never-before-identified factor. Fact: as
>>more and more research has piled up over the years, the anthrogenic
>>CO2 global warming model has not been overthrown, contrary to the
>>predictions of the opponents over the years; in fact, areas of
>>uncertainty have become clearer and clearer and estimates of model
>>parameters have become more precise.
>
>Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.

Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.

>We do know that happened, but we don't know why.
>Yet, we are so amazingly arrogant as to assume that *this time*, we
>are the cause.
>
No, we deduce it from data and scientific principles. If I add HCl to water
and the pH goes down, I don't throw up my hands and say:

1. We don't know why the pH went down.
2. The pH went down last year from other reasons, so we can't say why it's
going down now.
 
> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
EPA, NASA, NOAA, etc. <

Seems they've been referred to several time here by others in a manner which
refutes your claims.

> We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
some little child.<

No, you call them "right-wingers".


 
> (1) We measure air trapped in arctic ice cores. <

But your methods of dating them are complete conjecture, as is the sources
of co2.

> (2) The world of science disagrees. <

No, only the world of science you chose to quote.


 
On Thu, 20 Nov 03 10:41:47 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>>Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
>>documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations in
>>climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
>>anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as an
>>explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
>>
>>
>No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like EPA,
>NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
>some little child.

No, you maturely scream LIAR, right?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>
> Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.

No we don't!

Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric concentration
of CO2. They may be right or not. Your agreement with their belief does not prove
it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove anything. The
global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking at one
input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS. As a
scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research don't even
have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few years.
They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to infere
it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The errors
associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they are
claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then groomed the
data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is treated as a
loon.

Ed

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpinaa$rom$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
> >documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations
in
> >climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
> >anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as
an
> >explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
> >
> >
> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
EPA,
> NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
> some little child.

You insult anyone who disagrees with you.
Those sites you quote said we were heading into another ice age in 1975, and
urged immediate action to warm up the climate before millions of people
starved to death.
Why are they more believable now?



 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bpild2$rom$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda
sources.>
> >
> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
> >looney-left websites, etc.?
> >
> >
> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.

The same groups that claimed we were heading into a new ice age in 1975.


 

"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vrqjhih3n6k752@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bpinaa$rom$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> > "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> > >Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
> > >documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal
fluctuations
> in
> > >climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will
refute
> > >anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities
as
> an
> > >explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
> > >
> > >
> > No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
> EPA,
> > NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists"
like
> > some little child.
>
> You insult anyone who disagrees with you.
> Those sites you quote said we were heading into another ice age in 1975,
and
> urged immediate action to warm up the climate before millions of people
> starved to death.
> Why are they more believable now?
>
>
>

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm


 

"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vrqjn514krhf8b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bpild2$rom$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> > "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> > >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda
> sources.>
> > >
> > >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist
press,
> > >looney-left websites, etc.?
> > >
> > >
> > No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
> > National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.
>
> The same groups that claimed we were heading into a new ice age in 1975.
>
>

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average
ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery.
"Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as
fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report.
"Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many
cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's
Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to
the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the
growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it
impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as
they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any
positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its
effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed,
such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or
diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they
solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are
even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of
introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections
of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult
will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim
reality.


 
global warming llogic telegraph

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.>
> >
> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
> >looney-left websites, etc.?
> >
> >
> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.

"The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the
findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice
cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures
prevailing at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the
ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than
today."
. . .
"Dr Philip Stott, the professor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of
London, told The Telegraph: "What has been forgotten in all the discussion about
global warming is a proper sense of history."

According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions
about the effect of higher global temperatures. "During the Medieval Warm
Period, the world was warmer even than today, and history shows that it was a
wonderful period of plenty for everyone.""

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml




 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <FAllb.10282$W16.1400@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"global warming is as established fact"
>
> Yes.
>
> >Fact? Every "fact" you post will be contradicted by an equally credible
> >fact from the other (correct) side...
>
> No. Look at the scientific literature, look at IPCC, look at NASA, look at
> NOAA, look at EPA, look at National Academy of Sciences.
>
> As I said, it's as settled as atoms, gravity, relativity, evolution, etc.

Oh, ok. So, where are the "settled" equations of global warming? With Atoms, we
have empirical data, such as the Mole, Avogadro's Number and Molar Mass's number
that we can use to predict what will happen. So tell us how many degrees the
globe will warm between now and 2010 please and show us how you obtained that
figure? After all, global warming is just as settled as gravity, with its known
and quantifiable laws according to you. Gravity will accelerate mass at
9.8/s/s, how fast will the globe warm 2 degrees in the future?



"A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures
are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most
extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University [I suppose Harvard
University is a real right wing hot spot, right Lloyd?], examined the findings of
studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and
historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at
sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the
ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than
today.

They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which
the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again -
but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it
implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the
Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's
temperature rise."
CITE:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml

 


Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.>
> >
> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
> >looney-left websites, etc.?
> >
> >
> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.

Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 06/04/2003)

Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have
been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer
during the Middle Ages.

From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s,
environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than
ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars
and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures.

Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that
global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are
pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's
accelerating."

This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the
Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s
had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.

Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study
yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240
scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest
over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in
stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings
of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and
historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing
at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the
ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than
today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/06/nclim06.xml

 
In article <3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>>
>> Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>
>No we don't!
>
>Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
concentration
>of CO2. They may be right or not.

Actually, I'd say more like 99% of scientists so believe. And that's as much
unanimity as you'll find on anything in science.


>Your agreement with their belief does not prove
>it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove anything.

Uh, the data does.


>The
>global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking at
one
>input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.

No it's not. It's done all the time. It's called factor analysis.


>As a
>scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research don't
even
>have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few years.
>They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
infere
>it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The errors
>associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they are
>claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then groomed
the
>data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is treated
as a
>loon.

Simply not true. Have you read the IPCC report? The National Academy of
Sciences report?

>
>Ed
>
 
In article <bpitoc02mob@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
>EPA, NASA, NOAA, etc. <
>
>Seems they've been referred to several time here by others in a manner which
>refutes your claims.
>

If you think so, you're ignorant then. Go to the agencies and read what they
say. Go to the scientific literature and read what's being published.

>> We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
> some little child.<
>
>No, you call them "right-wingers".
>
>
 
In article <bpitqk02mra@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> (1) We measure air trapped in arctic ice cores. <
>
>But your methods of dating them are complete conjecture, as is the sources
>of co2.

No. Isotope dating works very well.

>
>> (2) The world of science disagrees. <
>
>No, only the world of science you chose to quote.
>
>
No, the scientific literature and agencies like EPA, NASA, NOAA, IPCC,
National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union...

Find me some sources to the contrary.
 
In article <bplcj4$njr$5@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:

> If you think so, you're ignorant then. Go to the agencies and read what they
> say. Go to the scientific literature and read what's being published.

Why don't you follow your own advice parker? If you had, then NOAA cites
wouldn't prove you wrong, now would they?


 
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:28:48 -0500, "The Ancient One"
<onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:

>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpinaa$rom$23@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bpgviq081a@enews4.newsguy.com>,
>> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
>> >documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations
>in
>> >climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
>> >anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as
>an
>> >explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
>> >
>> >
>> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
>EPA,
>> NASA, NOAA, etc. We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
>> some little child.
>
>You insult anyone who disagrees with you.
>Those sites you quote said we were heading into another ice age in 1975, and
>urged immediate action to warm up the climate before millions of people
>starved to death.
>Why are they more believable now?
>
>
I also remember they were being pretty hysterical over holes in the
ozone layer, too.
Oops, turns out they, too, are cyclical, and normal.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
In article <vrqjn514krhf8b@corp.supernews.com>,
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
>news:bpild2$rom$5@puck.cc.emory.edu...
>> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
>> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda
>sources.>
>> >
>> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
>> >looney-left websites, etc.?
>> >
>> >
>> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
>> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.
>
>The same groups that claimed we were heading into a new ice age in 1975.
>
>
Lie. No group said that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
10K
Squonker
S
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
6K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
59K
Alibro
Alibro