Science Fiction Fantasy  
Go Back   Science Fiction Fantasy Chronicles: forums > Discussion > World affairs

World affairs News and political events for discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 2nd February 2007, 04:18 AM   #46 (permalink)
Moderator
 
j. d. worthington's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,578
Re: Global Warming....

Okay, a couple more articles that may be of interest on this one:

Warming 'likely' man-made, unstoppable - Yahoo! News

This one again is through AP, from Seth Borenstein, datelined Thurs., Feb. 1, 2007, and titled "Warming 'likely' man-made, unstoppable". Here are some excerpts:

Quote:
PARIS - The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is "very likely" caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, according to a report obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

The scientists — using their strongest language yet on the issue — said now that world has begun to warm, hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution. The report also linked the warming to the recent increase in stronger hurricanes.

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone," said the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments.

The phrase "very likely" translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.

What that means in simple language is "we have this nailed," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who originated the percentage system.

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9-7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.

Many scientists had warned that this estimate was too cautious and said sea level rise could be closer to 3-5 feet because of ice sheet melt.

"There's no question that the powerful language is intimately linked to the more powerful science," said one of the study's many co-authors, Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, who spoke by phone from Canada. He said the report was based on science that is rock-solid, peer-reviewed, and consensus.

"It's very conservative. Scientists by their nature are skeptics."

The scientists wrote the report based on years of peer-reviewed research and government officials edited it with an eye toward the required unanimous approval by world governments.

In the end, there was little debate on the strength of the wording about the role of man in global warming.

The panel quickly agreed Thursday on two of the most contentious issues: attributing global warming to man-made burning of fossil fuels and connecting it to a recent increase in stronger hurricanes.


The Bush administration acknowledges that global warming is man-made and a problem that must be dealt with, Bush science adviser John Marburger has said. However, Bush continues to reject mandatory limits on so-called "greenhouse" gases.

But this is more than just a U.S. issue.
"What you're trying to do is get the whole planet under the proverbial tent in how to deal with this, not just the rich countries," Mahlman said Thursday. "I think we're in a different kind of game now."
And, on the aspect of it being linked to worse storms:

Warming linked to stronger hurricanes - Yahoo! News

Again, AP, Seth Borenstein, datelined Thurs., Feb. 1, 2007, and titled "Warming linked to stronger hurricanes" (excerpts only):

Quote:
PARIS - Global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those in the Atlantic such as Katrina, an authoritative panel on climate change has concluded for the first time, participants in the deliberations said Thursday.

During marathon meetings in Paris, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved language that said an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming, according to Leonard Fields of Barbados and Cedric Nelom of Surinam.

In its last report in 2001, the same panel had said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion.

"It is very important" that the language is so strong this time, said Fields, whose country is on the path of many hurricanes. "Insurance companies watch the language, too."

The report — scheduled to be released Friday morning — is also a marked departure from a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPPC.

The meteorological organization, after contentious debate, said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming. The debate about whether stronger hurricanes can be linked to global warming has been dividing a scientific community that is otherwise largely united in agreeing that global warming is human-made and a problem.
j. d. worthington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2007, 01:57 PM   #47 (permalink)
FrogSqrl
 
K. Riehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 643
Re: Global Warming....

The Skeptical Environmentalist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a link to an article about the book The Skeptical Enviromentalist. The book was written by a statistical theorist who would look at the top 50 or 100 studies published about a given subject such as oil reserves or global warming.
He points out that many of the popular perceptions are not supported by the scientific data. It's interesting reading. Take a look at the article or read the book and decide for yourself.
K. Riehl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2007, 02:42 PM   #48 (permalink)
Moderator
 
j. d. worthington's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,578
Re: Global Warming....

In light of the variety of perspectives brought to bear in preparing this latest report, though, I'm wondering what his reaction would be. This is a pretty impressive consensus from an awful lot of skeptical scientists.

However, thanks for the link... I'll try to squeeze it in sometime soon, as it's always a good thing to look at the challenges and see how valid they may be.

I note, however, he's a political scientist; and that tends to make me wary of his conclusions about papers in other disciplines. Not dismissive, but very cautious (just as I am about mathematicians who come out denying the biological possibility of evolutionary development of humanity from earlier species). Also, I find the following interesting:

Quote:
In spite of intense criticism in most of the natural scientific press, The Skeptical Environmentalist received positive, sometimes enthusiastic, reviews from policy magazines, academic journals in social science and many newspapers and other mainstream media.
That the support came from "policy magazines, academic journals in social science and many newspapers and other mainstream media", but no mention of support from any journals in the physical or natural sciences. Again, this would tend to give me pause. However, politicization of an issue that may well decide our survival, is never a good thing, and his methodology and conclusions should be allowed the same consideration as other papers until proven incorrect or inapplicable.

Last edited by j. d. worthington; 2nd February 2007 at 03:10 PM.
j. d. worthington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd February 2007, 06:26 PM   #49 (permalink)
Moderator
 
j. d. worthington's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,578
Re: Global Warming....

I've a feeling that, with this new report, we're going to be seeing an awful lot on this for a good while:

White House rejects mandatory CO2 caps - Yahoo! News

This one is titled "White House rejects mandatory CO2 caps", it's from AP (again), by John Heilprin, datelined Fri., Feb. 2, 2007:

Quote:
WASHINGTON - Despite a strongly worded global warming report from the world's top climate scientists, the Bush administration expressed continued opposition Friday to mandatory reductions in heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman warned against "unintended consequences" — including job losses — that he said might result if the government requires economy-wide caps on carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

[...]Bodman said technology advancements that will cut the amount of carbon emissions, promote energy conservation, and hasten development of non-fossil fuels can address the problem.

The White House issued a statement less than four hours after the report's release defending Bush's six-year record on global climate change, beginning with his acknowledgment in 2001 that the increase in greenhouse gases is due largely to human activity.

It said Bush and his budget proposals have devoted $29 billion to climate-related science, technology, international assistance and incentive programs — "more money than any other country."

Bush has called for slowing the growth rate of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, which averages 1 percent a year, but has rejected government-ordered reductions. Last week he also called for a 20 percent reduction in U.S. gasoline consumption over the next 10 years.
And so it goes....

It's also not surprising that the Democrats are also using this as a political point rather than necessarily being genuinely concerned about fixing the damned problem. So we have "leaders" who continue to debate while the evidence mounts and mounts, and that black cloud looming on the horizon grows ever bigger....

If it weren't for the detrimental environmental impact, I'd say what we really need is one motherin' big can of Raid....
j. d. worthington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2007, 09:48 AM   #50 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,948
Re: Global Warming....

Now, huge graveyard under the ocean, and the cause, whatelse - Global warming: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Wind shifts devastate ocean life Would we ever get some good news nowadays? *sigh*
Allegra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2007, 12:13 PM   #51 (permalink)
Dave200190a
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1
Re: Global Warming....

Don't be so quick to believe what you have been told about CO2.

Temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970s.

Temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded.

BTW, why won't Al Gore stand up for a debate on this -- and why does he fly around on private jets, which emit way more carbon per passenger than commericial jets?
Dave200190a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2007, 02:33 PM   #52 (permalink)
Wherever I Am, I'm There
 
Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Greater London
Posts: 14,148
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave200190a View Post
Temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970s.
Can you show me that in detail?

1850 is near the end of the Industrial Revolution in England, as Steam Power (burning Coal [rather inefficiently too]) replaced water mills, and there was a mass migration from villages to towns with huge factories replacing cottage industry. Iron and Steel making grew as huge engineering projects required. From England, the Industrial Revolution spread around the globe. The peak in Coal production from the North-East England coalfields was actually 1913.

CO2 emissions did rise sharply in 1940 due to the Second World War. They also fell during the Oil Crisis of 1973 without any significant decline in temperatures to match. 1976 was in fact an extremely warm year. The fact is that there is no causal effect going on there, the weather is much too variable. It is because of this that it is hard to get solid evidence, and that the picture can be muddled so much to fit whichever side of the argument you are on. If you look at very long-term rises in temperature and CO2 they are both upwards, and the CO2 rises are indisputably man-made. People tend to forget how huge the population growth of humans has been or for how long we have been burning fossil fuels.

I also personally think that there must be some other explanation for the Little Ice Age and other such events in the past anyway. They are more likely due to Solar Activity (then is good correlation with sunspots) or Volcanic dust.
Dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st March 2007, 09:01 PM   #53 (permalink)
Moderator
 
j. d. worthington's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,578
Re: Global Warming....

Here's the latest I've seen:

Scientist: Warming will end some species - Yahoo! News

It's a pretty extensive article, showing impact from various regions of the globe, from the relatively minor to ones that may have a major ecological impact. It is from AP, titled "Scientist: Warming will end some species" (that should be "Scientists", as it's from the international study, the first part of which was published in February), and datelined Sat., Mar. 31, 2007. The writers are: Charles J. Hanley, New York; Ben Fox, San Juan; Rohan Sullivan, Sydney; Karl Ritter, Stockholm; Beth Duff-Brown, Toronto; Courtney French, London; and Heidi Vogt, Dakar.
j. d. worthington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st April 2007, 07:24 PM   #54 (permalink)
'what to eat' fan
 
HardScienceFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,912
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

The amount of data that have to be gathered and interpreted to say anything conclusive on this is staggering.The parameters of all GCM's
(General Circulation Models)differ,and the interpretation of their interactions.Ocean currents,surface albedo,incoming solar radiation,heat capacity of ocean and atmosphere,scattering capability and amount of aerosols,importance of tropospheric jets,amount of evapotranspiration,the relative importance of adiabatic,radiative,latent,convective and diffusive heat transport,CO2 storage capacity of soils,the methane budget,biosphere productivity,the nitrogen cycle,non- linearity in the climate system,interpretation of paleoclimate proxy data................
I agree however,with persons saying that it is best to proceed on the assumption that there is anthropogenic global warming.....
So there.
AYTCH
HardScienceFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st April 2007, 10:57 PM   #55 (permalink)
Moderator
 
j. d. worthington's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,578
Re: Global Warming....

Question: Does anyone know how to get a copy of this report... it's being issued in 4 (I believe) rather large installments, and involves an interdisciplinary panel including a large number of critics of the idea of global warming... and yet it's coming out with these conclusions. This is only the second part to be issued; the rest will come out later this year. So... anyone know how to get hold of the damn' thing?
j. d. worthington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st April 2007, 11:38 PM   #56 (permalink)
I am only an egg
 
TTBRAHWTMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 420
Re: Global Warming....

Funny...read your post and then looked down at my paper. Not how to get a copy, but a bit more info on what we can expect from the second installment. My scanner is down so I’ll have to retype it…this is from Financial Times – Weekend Global Edition, Saturday, March 31/Sunday, April 1 2007…Front Page

WARNING ON CLIMATE RISK TO KEY SERVICES

By Fiona Harvey in London

Climate change is threatening vital infrastructure such as road and rail networks, water and energy systems, and healthcare, and the damage is set to worsen, the world’s leading climate scientists will warn next week.
The harm will occur even as some regions – such as the UK and northern Europe, and parts of the Americas – enjoy some of the benefits of global warming.
Areas that now have cold climates will experience longer growing seasons and a greater variety of crops, as well as becoming more attractive to tourists. Melting ice may also allow for mineral extraction in currently frozen areas such as Canada and Russia, and drilling for oil in the Arctic.
But warmer regions, such as southern Europe, the US south and parts of Asia, will suffer lower agricultural yields, droughts and the spread of human, animal and plant diseases, the scientists are expected to conclude.
On Monday in Brussels, the world’s leading climate scientists will meet to finalize their findings on the impact of global warming in the form of a report, six years in the making and drawing on the work of more than 2,500 experts. On Friday, they are scheduled to publish their summary, making up the second section of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of scientists convened by the United Nations.
In the first section of the report, which was published in February, the scientists involved agreed that they were 90 per cent certain the earth’s climate was changing as a result of human behaviour that produced green house gases, and estimated that temperatures would rise by 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
Next week’s discussions are due to focus on the impacts that such temperature rise will have on agriculture, human health, natural ecosystems and the economy.
The report should act as a “wake-up call”, said Karen Wordsworth, a partner in Met Office Consulting, an arm of the UK Met Office set up to help businesses deal with global warming.
The risks to property include not just those which insurers have begun to calculate, such as floods and storms, but questions of the integrity of the materials used in their construction and how they respond to higher temperatures. As the climate continues to change, some good news at last: England will enjoy mild Mediterranean winters and delightful champagne vintages; Scottish farmers will be able to cultivate new crops, not to mention suntans. From Siberia to Alaska, denizens of the frozen north will be reflecting that every cloud has a silver lining. All this we suspected anyway, and the more sober details are likely to be confirmed this week – as much as climate forecasts are ever confirmed – by the scientists comprising the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Yet it would be unwise to uncork that English champagne just yet. The British like to complain about the weather, but barring an occasional dusting of snow, they know that they can cope with the current climate. What appears to be an improvement, therefore, may not be. There are enough feedback loops in the climate to make all prognostications unreliable. They may be promised bright sunshine and suffer blizzards after all.
Furthermore, since they are well adapted to their current climate, most changes are likely to be for the worse. Their houses, roads and railways are built neither for hotter weather nor for colder. Changes in rainfall will require new agricultural techniques. In short, an Italian climate is nice for Rome but will take some getting used to in the vineyards surrounding Birmingham.
Things look much grimmer for those in climates that are already quite warm enough. East Asia and the southern US are promised more hurricanes and cyclones, Africa and south Asia droughts and disease. Hurricane Katrina was a reminder that the US is not immune to extreme weather, but rich countries are better equipped to adapt to any change than poor ones. Rich economies are far less dependent on agriculture – and not at all on subsistence farming – and are also better able to deal with malaria. The rich are most likely to feel the impact indirectly through migration from poor and unstable areas.
This then, is the situation: climate change poses risks to all of us, but by far the largest risks to poor countries. It is very probably the result of carbon dioxide emissions, and they have come largely (not wholly) from rich countries. That is unfair, but more to the point, it means that political agreement will not be easy to reach. Poor countries have more to gain from development than from restricting their own limited emissions. A feeling of universal brotherhood has not been enough to persuade rich countries to limit theirs. In retrospect it is not hard to see why the Kyoto agreement failed to have much impact. Future negotiators will have to do better.
There are precedents for reaching an international agreement on sharing costs and benefits – notably, the Marshall Plan. This negotiation will be a tougher nut to crack. For now the champagne should stay in the bottle.

Last edited by TTBRAHWTMG; 2nd April 2007 at 12:27 AM.
TTBRAHWTMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2007, 12:20 AM   #57 (permalink)
'what to eat' fan
 
HardScienceFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,912
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Global Warming....

I distrust any report with far-reaching implications and a possible ideological bias,pro or contra.I've seen data that can be interpreted both ways.
It's very easy and even tempting for a scientist to interpret changes in the ranges in the biogeographical extension of plants and animals as caused by a widely publicised phenomenon and to view all kinds of weather as anomalous.
Even the interpretation of time-series data is not straightforward.Most climate curves U see are the results from spectral analyis of the data,splined data,data smoothed with a moving average,etc.The impact of e.g. the Benguela Current on the meridional overturning circulation, important for global heat transport is just beginning to get studied. Hysteretic effects are just beginning to get discovered,coarse- gridded models are being replaced by finer resolution models.Water vapour and cloud cover effects have only just begun to get decently modeled.
I now this looks like I believe global anthropogenic warming is a figment of somebody's imagination,but I am a neutral on this one.
All I'm saying is,on ethical considerations alone we should cut back sulphate aerosols/CO2 emissions,because will we look stupid to future generations...
HardScienceFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2007, 12:38 PM   #58 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,948
Re: Global Warming....

You really have to admire Aussies on those things: BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Sydney switch-off for climate change

Sydney has made one of the biggest environmental statements Australia has ever seen. Parts of the country's largest city have been plunged into near darkness to raise awareness of global warming.
Allegra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2007, 10:53 PM   #59 (permalink)
The Wicked Sword Maiden
 
Rosemary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia, Western Australia
Posts: 4,063
Blog Entries: 34
Re: Global Warming....

But is it too late?



The West Australian March 31st – Suellen Jerrard
Drying South West threatens caves and rare creatures.
Experts fear caves in the southwest corner of Western Australia could be dry within years, threatening the extinction of species dating back to the age of the dinosaur.
Water levels have been dropping in caves on the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge since 1970 when rainfall started to dip. In the past 6 years the decline in both rainfall and the watertable has been tramatic.
Thirty years ago, caves that explorers could only reach by swimming underwater now have less than ankle deep water.
In Lake Cave the depth is falling 2mm a week. There is no trace left of the lake in Jewel Cave, further south, with water levers falling 2.5m since 1958.
The main lake in Easter Cave has reduced in size by 98 per sent in the past three years. Nothing more than a puddle remains. Tree roots that have grown into streams or ponds in four of the Leeuwin Naturaliste caves are home to tiny aquatic invertebrates, known as root mat communities, some of which have not been found anywhere else in the world. These creatures and worms have been around since Australia was part of the super-continent Gondwana millions of years ago, when it is thought that they lived on the surface. As the water now retreats further, it is feared they will now have nowhere to go.

Studies of the caves indicate the watertable has reached an historical low. If it continues at the current rate of decline all of the known habitats of these species will be dry within one or two years.

In Yanchep, north of Perth, a drop in the watertable of more than a metre in the past six years has threatened root mat communities in seven caves.

A million-dollar-plus project using bores to artificially raise the water level is scheduled to start by June. However, this would not be feasible in the South-West sites.

Has it been left too late? How much longer will it take our Governments to realise that Greenhouse Emmissions need to be cut severely NOW…
Rosemary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2007, 11:11 PM   #60 (permalink)
I am only an egg
 
TTBRAHWTMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 420
Re: Global Warming....

ARCTIC ICE IN RETREAT

-A NEW REPORT SHOWS THERE IS LESS POLAR ICE THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT, MEANING DIRE PREDICTIONS BY A CLIMATE-CHANGE PANEL MAY BE TOO CONSERVATIVE
The Record, Tuesday April 5, 2007

Dire predictions expected later this week from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at its meeting in Brussels may in fact be too conservative, according to new Arctic sea ice data.
A U.S. study on northern sea ice found that not only did 2006 have the second-lowest amount of ice on record, but also that the ice is retreating faster than the panel’s climate models have predicted.
The Canadian Arctic, from Baffin Bay to the Beaufort Sea, has seen “significant” ice loss, according to the study.
“The model forecast may be underestimating what we could expect in the future years,” Walt Meier, a climatologist with the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colo., said yesterday.
Meier’s group tracks the annual maximum extent of the Arctic sea ice by the end of the northern winter, which is defined as March 31.
This year, 14.7 million square kilometres of Arctic Ocean around the globe was covered by atleast 15 per cent ice.
That’s only a little more than last year’s 14.5 million square kilometres, which was the lowest figure ever recorded.
The average from 1979 to 2000 was 15.7 million square kilometres.
“It’s basically continuing that trend,” said Meier.
But his group also compared their measurements, which were based on observation from satellite images, with predictions generated by climate models developed by more than 1,000 scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
That panel is expected to release a report tomorrow that details some of the anticipated consequences of climate change.
Leaked versions of the report suggest those effects include rising sea levels that could force hundreds of millions of people in low-lying, largely poor nations from their homes.
Comparing the figures from the panel’s models with actual measurements going back to the late 1970s revealed a disturbing gap, said Meier.
“What we’re seeing, in the summertime particularly, is the (sea ice) that we’ve observed is actually declining much faster than the models have shown.
“The model forecast…may be missing some of the processes that are causing decline, some of the feedback mechanisms that accelerate the decline of the sea ice.”
The panel’s predictions should be taken as “conservative estimates,” Meier said.
Observations by Meier’s group show the sea ice decline is universal across the circumpolar world.
While small, short-lived increases have been seen in areas such as the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Canadian Arctic has seen “significant” ice loss.
In fact, satellites spotted a vast area of open water in the Beaufort for six weeks early this past winter.
About 50,000 square kilometres – an area roughly the size of Nova Scotia – suddenly emerged ice-free, 200 kilometres inside the ice pack.
“That was very unusual,” Meier said. “We’ve seen occasional small holes in the ice in the summertime, but nothing that lasted that long or near that large.”
However, the data doesn’t suggest that the Northwest Passage will be able to support international shipping anytime soon.
Ice tends to stay locked around the islands of the Canadian archipelago.
“There’ll be more frequent years when you’ll have less ice in the Northwest Passage and it’ll be more navigable,” Meier said.
“But I don’t think you’re going to see it go away completely in that region any time soon.”
“You may have some easier shipping into Hudson Bay, but the Northwest Passage is still going to be iffy as far as trying to plan anything.”
“In terms of practical use, it’s going to be a while before it opens up.”

-Canadian Press
TTBRAHWTMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.