Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Racing Forum » Ken0069's Blog




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 417 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ... 28  Next
Author Message
 Post Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:09 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Obviously this guy IS NOT one of president stool sample's 97%!! O:)

Global warming 'is FAKE': Volume of ice caps is INCREASING, claims top geologist
THE WORLD is not heating up, some areas are actually getting colder and the volume of polar ice caps is INCREASING in some places, a leading geologist has claimed.
By Jon Austin
PUBLISHED: 04:51, Wed, Oct 7, 2015 | UPDATED: 08:26, Wed, Oct 7, 2015

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/6 ... no-pacific

Quote:
James Kamis suggests "conflicting temperature trends" between oceans and the Earth's atmosphere could dispel the "myth" of man-made global warming.

Put simply, he says our atmospheric temperature has remained static for more than 18 years, the Atlantic has got colder, and it is only the Pacific Ocean where things have heated up.

Mr Kamis said: "Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and many universities are at a loss to explain recent conflicting temperature trends from Earth’s oceans and atmosphere."

"It can be boiled down to this: temperatures of the Earth’s three big fluid systems are each trending in different directions. The temperature of the Pacific Ocean is rising, the temperature of the atmosphere has remained constant, and the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean is cooling."

He said the temperature variances do not fit previous climate model predictions.

He added: "Climate scientists favoring the theory of man-made global warming are flooding the media with new, and this time supposedly very reliable, explanations that are generated from their latest super-computer climate models."

Opposing scientists claim global warming has melted the Greenland ice cap at an alarming rate to the point that freshly melted ice flowing into the Atlantic is lowering the seawater temperature there.

However, Mr Kamistol said that with no significant atmospheric temperature change in 18.7 years, global warming is not likely to be the cause of the melting.

Mr Kamis is a former employee of BTA Oil Producers, based in Midland, Texas, a private firm which has been active in oil and natural gas exploration, development and production for 50 years. He has also been a long-standing member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, so his impartiality on the subject of whether man's use of fossil fuels has led to global warming is open to question.

But he claims the facts speak for themselves.

He added: "The entire Atlantic Ocean is cooling, and not just in the northern portion of the Atlantic that is adjacent to Greenland.

"This strongly suggests that outflow of summertime Greenland ice cap melt water into the northern portion of the Atlantic Ocean is not the primary driving force behind cooling the entire Atlantic Ocean.

"Recent research from NASA’s Operation Ice Bridge clearly shows that Greenland's ice mass loss is only occurring in areas immediately adjacent to the ocean.

"This perimeter-based ice loss is greatest in areas where the ice cap overlays known deep geological fault zones that are emitting geothermal heat onto the base of the ice cap.

"The interior portions of the Greenland Ice Cap are in ice mass balance.

"The extent of Arctic Ocean sea ice has increased the last three years, and not decreased as predicted.

"The Antarctic Ice Cap extent has increased steadily for thirty five years, and not decreased as predicted."

He believes melting of the Greenland Ice cap to be caused by heat from ancient volcanic eruptions and geothermal heat flow from below the surface.

He tols Climate Change Dispatch: "Many noted and well-intentioned climate scientists and universities are now starting to publicly admit that overwhelming amounts of new research indicates that the theory of man-made global warming does not properly explain many observed climate trends.

"Reason dictates that a more balanced approach to studying climate trends is needed."




_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:25 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Similarities to Jim Jones and the Cult of Climate Change
November 27, 2015
by Arkady Bukh, Esq

The apocalypse of an alleged climate change shares many of Jones’ cult-like qualities.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/27/s ... te-change/

Quote:

Jim Jones, the People’s Temple leader, led over 900 persons to commit suicide 32 years ago. Jones was charismatic and knowledgeable of both Scriptures and human behavior.

After the mass murder/suicide and the murder of U.S. Congressman, Leo Ryan, Jones and his followers were on the news every day for weeks. Jones, who built his cult around a “doomsday” scenario — convinced his followers that the world was past due for an apocalyptic ending very soon.

The apocalypse of an alleged climate change shares many of Jones’ cult-like qualities.

There are other similar traits, but here are four:

1. Climate doomsayers believe they possess truths about the past, present and future and their truths cannot be disputed by anyone.

2. Doomsayers refuse to debate their belief. They call their dogma “settled science” and attack any critics that dare to whisper in the dark.

3. Just like a cult, doomsayers has a formal doctrine-setting body — not unlike the Jones’ circle of advisors. The reports by the “ruling” body are thought to be the main source of authority and the texts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are quoted as unholy scripture.

4. Staying with the Jonestown analogy, the climate change alarmists have created mythologies intentionally built on lies and half-truths. The fallacy can be ascribed as an appeal to everyday experiences, giving the listener some sense of truth-based teaching to mix with the soup of confusion.

Just as Jones and his small leadership group built lies on a foundation of lies and misinformation, the “sky-is-falling-crowd” spreads hoaxes to support their form of theology.

Hoaxes

By now it’s been all over the news that 2015 was the hottest year ever. If, in fact, 2015 was the hottest year of all time, there should be enough calamities happening to inspire a dozen movies. Instead, the opposite is occurring.

1. Record Ice

There was record sea ice in Antartica. In truth, a global warming expeditionary ship got stuck in the ice. Artic sea has been making a nice comeback, and the Great Lakes had record ice with only three ice-free months. If it were the hottest year, the ice should be melting.

2. Record Snow

The 2014/2015 winter saw record snowfall across the country. It wasn’t that long ago that scientists said that global warming would make the snow disappear, and children wouldn’t have any idea what snow is.

3. Record Cold

The winter saw many cold records crash. Remember the Polar Vortex?

4. Rising Oceans

Al Gore and company predicted that oceans would rise twenty-feet by 2100. So far the oceans are on track to lift by 12-inches. Many tidal gauges are showing no rise in sea level and practically none show any increase over the past two decades.

5. Polar Bears

Polar Bears are thriving. If this had been the hottest year on record, the Polar Bears would be in danger of disappearing.

6. Moose

When the moose population in Minnesota dropped observers were quick to blame global warming. Then a study was completed which found it was wolves that were killing the moose.

7. 99% of Scientists

99% of scientists don’t believe in man-made global warming. The 99% figure came from a study where only 75 scientists said they see global warming occurring. In another poll, over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in catastrophic, man-made global warming.

8. Nature and CO2

Nature generates much more CO2 than humans. In 2014, HASA launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels globally. The assumption was that most of the CO2 would come from the over-industrialized northern hemisphere. They were surprised to learn it was coming from the rainforests of South America as well as Africa and China.

9. It’s Not the Warmest Year

Looking at the satellite data, it has not been the warmest year ever. The figures show there has been no global warming for almost two-decades. Continuing to use the ground weather station data which is influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect provides the reason for scientists calling it the warmest year on record.

10. Hypocrisy

Look at the lifestyles of those who preach global warming. If the main purveyors of global warming believed their propaganda, they would modify their lifestyle. They all own multiple large homes, yachts and private jets. Some individuals, such as Al Gore, profit from Carbon Taxes and other “green energy” laws.

Few Accusations of Fraudulent Behavior – So Far

Climate change is a scientific issue. Rejoinders to climate change are policy matters. Lying — or fabricating hoaxes — about science and policy are typically accepted.

Each side of the debate has stayed busy pointing accusatory fingers at their antagonists and yelling fraud. Fraud about scientific methods, data, interpretation of data and so on. So far charges of fraud for monetary gain has been few and far between.

Despite the length of time that climate change has been debated, there have been zero — zero — instances of individuals being successfully indicted on fraud charges dealing specifically with climate change.

Only one individual, a climate-change guru with the Environmental Protection Agency, has been charged with lying and fraud. Those charges weren’t even about his work at the EPA, but rather lies about being on the CIA payroll.

John Beale will spend 30 months in federal prison for bilking the EPA out of over $1 million in salary and other benefits while claiming to be “deep undercover” for the Central Intelligence Agency in Pakistan.

That may be starting to change.

As the science of climate change begins its fourth decade, some businesses and individuals are caught up in more than just perpetuating hoaxes and are being brought to task for lying and fraud.

Exxon

Exxon may be in trouble over lying about climate change. If Exxon Mobile knowingly funded misleading research as a part of a plan to convince American voters, their lie goes beyond policy statements and morphs into a business decision.

Prosecutors are after Exxon for lying to people who might not have bought gasoline if they knew the true story behind climate change. If Exxon Mobile began disclosing the business risks of climate change when it understood them will be a focus of the New York case currently underway.

The company has begun disclosing potential environmental risks recently, but whether those disclosers are sufficient is a matter of public debate and maybe a centerpiece for the trial.

Climategate

In 2009, climate change alarmists scrambled to save face after hackers stole hundreds of emails from a British University and released them online.

Pirated from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, the documents purported to reveal researchers were engaging in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. As a matter of fact, fraud is a Federal offense punishable by long prison time.

The good thing is that false scientists, and their alarmism, will be countered now with their own words. Reliable researchers are still compiling the information for a publication that could shake the nation’s foundation on climate change.

RICO Charges

A group of 20 university professors want to get the federal government to prosecute climate change doubters. The group posted a letter to the White House in September and matched those who are doubtful concerning man-made global warming to the tobacco industry.

The group’s idea are similar to those used against the tobacco industry from 1999 until 2006. That RICO investigation played a role in preventing the tobacco industry from maintaining the deception of Americans about the hazards of smoking.

If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that are becoming apparent as in the Exxon case, it is important that the misdeeds be stopped so that America can get on with the important business of finding the truth about climate change.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:05 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
I guess these "scientists" aren't in president stool samples 97% hey!

GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates'
SCIENTISTS claim we are in for a decade-long freeze as the sun slows down solar activity by up to 60 per cent.
By Jon Austin
PUBLISHED: 03:07, Sun, Nov 29, 2015 | UPDATED: 15:42, Sun, Nov 29, 2015

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/6 ... hibernates

Quote:
A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity.

Their findings will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 we could be facing increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles.

However, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.

From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen.

The researchers have now developed a "double dynamo "model that can better predict when the next freeze will be.

Based on current cycles, they predict solar activity dwindling for ten years from 2030.

Professor Zharkova said two magnetic waves will cancel each other out in about 2030, leading to a drop in sun spots and solar flares of about 60 per cent.

Sunspots are dark concentrations of magnetic field flux on the surface that reduce surface temperature in that area, while solar flares are burst of radiation and solar energy that fire out across the solar system, but the Earth's atmosphere protects us from the otherwise devastating effects.

She said: "In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun.

"We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum.

“Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the Sun’s northern and southern hemispheres. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 per cent."

Research colleagues Simon Shepherd of Bradford University, Helen Popova of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Sergei Zarkhov of the University of Hull used magnetic field observations from 1976 to 2008 at the Wilcox Solar Observatory at Stanford University.

A Royal Astronomical Society spokesman said: "It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun’s activity varies over a cycle lasting around 10 to 12 years.

The theory is likely to infuriate environmentalists who fear the globe is heating up"But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations."

The “double dynamo” theory appears to support claims of researchers who argue Earth will soon experience major global cooling due to lower solar activity as the sun goes into a sustained period of hibernation.

Environmentalists meanwhile claim global temperatures will increase over the period unless we drastically reduce carbon emissions.


There's a TON of links and such there and too much to copy and paste here so you need to go there and check those out as well.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:04 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Sort of reminds one of the Crusades way back when. Wonder if the "warmers" are going to bring back the practice of burning "heretics" at the stake also? :-

‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed
For engaging with sceptics, and discussing uncertainties in projections frankly, this Georgia professor is branded a heretic
David Rose

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-wa ... terviewed/

Quote:
It is safe to predict that when 20,000 world leaders, officials, green activists and hangers-on convene in Paris next week for the 21st United Nations climate conference, one person you will not see much quotedis Professor Judith Curry. This is a pity. Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none, and in America she has become a public intellectual. But on this side of the Atlantic, apparently, she is too ‘challenging’. What is troubling about her pariah status is that her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis.

Some consider her a heretic. According to Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a vociferous advocate of extreme measures to prevent a climatic Armageddon, she is ‘anti-science’. Curry isn’t fazed by the slur.

‘It’s unfortunate, but he calls anyone who doesn’t agree with him a denier,’ she tells me. ‘Inside the climate community there are a lot of people who don’t like what I’m doing. On the other hand, there is also a large, silent group who do like it. But the debate has become hard — especially in the US, because it’s become so polarised.’ Warming alarmists are fond of proclaiming how 97 per cent of scientists agree that the world is getting hotter, and human beings are to blame. They like to reduce the uncertainties of climate science and climate projections to Manichean simplicity. They have managed to eliminate doubt from what should be a nuanced debate about what to do.

Professor Curry, based at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, does not dispute for a moment that human-generated carbon dioxide warms the planet. But, she says, the evidence suggests this may be happening more slowly than the alarmists fear.

In the run-up to the Paris conference, said Curry, much ink has been spilled over whether the individual emissions pledges made so far by more than 150 countries — their ‘intentional nationally determined contributions’, to borrow the jargon — will be enough to stop the planet from crossing the ‘dangerous’ threshold of becoming 2°C hotter than in pre-industrial times. Much of the conference will consist of attempts to make these targets legally binding. This debate will be conducted on the basis that there is a known, mechanistic relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how world average temperatures will rise.

Unfortunately, as Curry has shown, there isn’t. Any such projection is meaningless, unless it accounts for natural variability and gives a value for ‘climate sensitivity’ —i.e., how much hotter the world will get if the level of CO2 doubles. Until 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a ‘best estimate’ of 3°C. But in its latest, 2013 report, the IPCC abandoned this, because the uncertainties are so great. Its ‘likely’ range is now vast — 1.5°C to 4.5°C.

This isn’t all. According to Curry, the claims being made by policymakers suggest they are still making new policy from the old, now discarded assumptions. Recent research suggests the climate sensitivity is significantly less than 3˚C. ‘There’s growing evidence that climate sensitivity is at the lower end of the spectrum, yet this has been totally ignored in the policy debate,’ Curry told me. ‘Even if the sensitivity is 2.5˚C, not 3˚C, that makes a substantial difference as to how fast we might get to a world that’s 2˚C warmer. A sensitivity of 2.5˚C makes it much less likely we will see 2˚C warming during the 21st century. There are so many uncertainties, but the policy people say the target is fixed. And if you question this, you will be slagged off as a denier.’

Curry added that her own work, conducted with the British independent scientist Nic Lewis, suggests that the sensitivity value may still lower, in which case the date when the world would be 2˚C warmer would be even further into the future. On the other hand, the inherent uncertainties of climate projection mean that values of 4˚C cannot be ruled out — but if that turns out to be the case, then the measures discussed at Paris and all the previous 20 UN climate conferences would be futile. In any event, ‘the economists and policymakers seem unaware of the large uncertainties in climate sensitivity’, despite its enormous implications.

Meanwhile, the obsessive focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change means other research on natural climate variability is being neglected. For example, solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’

Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’

She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede: ‘I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much. Maybe then there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.’ She even hopes that rational argument will find a place in the UN: ‘Maybe, too, there will be a closer interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers. Wouldn’t that be great?’

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:08 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
I guess these "scientists" aren't in president stool samples 97% hey!

GLOBAL COOLING: Decade long ice age predicted as sun 'hibernates'
SCIENTISTS claim we are in for a decade-long freeze as the sun slows down solar activity by up to 60 per cent.
By Jon Austin
PUBLISHED: 03:07, Sun, Nov 29, 2015 | UPDATED: 15:42, Sun, Nov 29, 2015

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/6 ... hibernates

Quote:
A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity.

Their findings will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 we could be facing increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles.

However, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, Northumbria University professor Valentina Zharkova said fluctuations an 11-year cycle of solar activity the sun goes through would be responsible for a freeze, the like of which has not been experienced since the 1600s.

From 1645 to 1715 global temperatures dropped due to low solar activity so much that the planet experienced a 70-year ice age known as Maunder Minimum which saw the River Thames in London completely frozen.

The researchers have now developed a "double dynamo "model that can better predict when the next freeze will be.

Based on current cycles, they predict solar activity dwindling for ten years from 2030.

Professor Zharkova said two magnetic waves will cancel each other out in about 2030, leading to a drop in sun spots and solar flares of about 60 per cent.

Sunspots are dark concentrations of magnetic field flux on the surface that reduce surface temperature in that area, while solar flares are burst of radiation and solar energy that fire out across the solar system, but the Earth's atmosphere protects us from the otherwise devastating effects.

She said: "In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun.

"We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum.

“Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the Sun’s northern and southern hemispheres. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 per cent."

Research colleagues Simon Shepherd of Bradford University, Helen Popova of Lomonosov Moscow State University and Sergei Zarkhov of the University of Hull used magnetic field observations from 1976 to 2008 at the Wilcox Solar Observatory at Stanford University.

A Royal Astronomical Society spokesman said: "It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun’s activity varies over a cycle lasting around 10 to 12 years.

The theory is likely to infuriate environmentalists who fear the globe is heating up"But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations."

The “double dynamo” theory appears to support claims of researchers who argue Earth will soon experience major global cooling due to lower solar activity as the sun goes into a sustained period of hibernation.

Environmentalists meanwhile claim global temperatures will increase over the period unless we drastically reduce carbon emissions.



There's a TON of links and such there and too much to copy and paste here so you need to go there and check those out as well.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/6 ... hibernates

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Looks like the Brits are much more in tune with what's really going on (or not) with the "warming" crap! I guess one reason is that a vast majority of anti-warming news articles appear in UK news, which unlike the Lamestream Media here in the USA doesn't seem to be "all in" with this "warming" HOAX!

Global warming FARCE: Overwhelming majority of Britons think climate change is FAKE
MORE than four in five Britons are not convinced global warming is taking place – as nearly 150 world leaders prepare to spend hundreds of BILLIONS of pounds to cut emissions.
By Oli Smith
PUBLISHED: 04:25, Tue, Dec 1, 2015 | UPDATED: 07:15, Tue, Dec 1, 2015

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/6 ... -UN-summit

Quote:
A staggering 85% of Britons questioned remain skeptical when it comes to climate change, according to Express.co.uk polls results revealed on the eve of the biggest environmental summit ever organised.

After 14,491 votes were cast in a number of questions, 12,421 pledged their scepticism about climate change, with answers ranging from being undecided to firm denial global warming is happening.

One question to voters found only six per cent agreed when asked whether humans definitely cause climate change.

The majority – 51 per cent – said any change in temperatures were down to “the sun and changing cycles” rather than fossil fuels.

Another 42 per cent believed the Earth’s temperatures will always fluctuate regardless of manmade changes.

In a separate question pollsters were asked whether it was humans which caused global warming or whether we were at the mercy of the elements.

Most of those who voted (79 per cent) blamed any rise in global temperatures on the sun and "other forces" rather than greenhouse gases.

In a following question, three in four (74 per cent) claimed global warming should not be considered a “major threat” despite warnings from Prince Charles and Pope Francis.

The finding comes on the eve of the UN summit in Paris that is expected to result in big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Prime Minister David Cameron will be among almost 150 world leaders attending the talks focused on curbing rising temperatures and shifting the world to 100 per cent renewable energy.

The UN says multibillion pound proposals to be debated tomorrow would limit the rise in average global temperature to 2C by 2100, regarded by the majority of scientists as the breaking point for the world's climate.

But already, scientists have told Express.co.uk the plans would only reduce the temperatures by a measly 0.05C.

The proposals being discussed tomorrow would mean cutting worldwide emissions by 40-70% by 2050 and 100% by the end of the century.

Christiana Figueres, who is leading the UN's negotiations, said: "l see more and more political will because every country is realising they are impacted.

"There is not a single country that has not felt the negative impact of climate change. That's why there is attention now to the opportunities in reducing emissions."

Tens of thousands of people have gathered in central London today for a march to demand action on climate change.

But, Mr Cameron may have a battle on enforcing any rise in household bills that would result from a climate deal.

Much of the public oppose green taxes on petrol, electricity and imported food - or any products with a high carbon footprint.

Another study, by the US space agency NASA revealed that Antarctic temperatures have actually cooled over the past six years.

An intensive scientific study of both Earth's poles has found that overall temperature has dropped in the southern polar region.

NASA has also recently revealed the overall amount of ice has increased at the Antarctic and the amount of sea ice has also extended.

This has fuelled claims that human industrialisation is not having the huge impact on global temperature as often is claimed.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 2:24 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
The robust Pause resists a robust el Niño Still no global warming at all for 18 years 9 months
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
December 4, 2015

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/04/t ... -9-months/

Quote:
The Christmas pantomime here in Paris is well int0 its two-week run. The Druids who had hoped that their gibbering incantations might begin to shorten the Pause during the United Necromancers’ pre-solstice prayer-group have been disappointed. Gaia has not heeded them. She continues to show no sign of the “fever” long promised by the Prophet Gore. The robust Pause continues to resist the gathering el Niño. It remains at last month’s record-setting 18 years 9 months (Fig. 1).

Image


Too much print and too many graphs to copy and paste here, so please click HERE and go read the rest at that site.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:34 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
“Horror Scenarios Already On Shaky Ground” …Leading Geo-Archeologist Slams Climate Hysteria!
By P Gosselin on 7. December 2015

Read that full article HERE

Quote:
The online German FOCUS here reports that the climate conferences and overall movement have turned more into hysteria and increasingly are becoming remote of fact. Good to see that the German media is finally backing off from all the hysteria and lending a bit of coverage to more moderate, non-hysterical voices.

Tol: “Very limited impact”

FOCUS writes that “some leading scientists are calling for sense instead of hysteria“, quoting renowned Dutch economist Richard Tol: “During the entire 21st century climate change will likely have only a very limited impact on the economy and human prosperity.”

Risk sacrificing prosperity for a huge “wind turbine graveyard”

Another skeptic voice that has become alarmed over the hysterical claims being made by scientists and activists is conservative top politician Arnold Vaatz, who cautions against placing too much emphasis only on projections from computer models. Vaatz, a trained mathematician, warns that if the models are refuted by observations, we could wind up with a “climate panic-driven overhaul of our society that will be a deadly false path for our economy and prove to be the highpoint in the waste of resources.” Vaatz adds:

Do our citizens really want to sacrifice their good standard of living for a wind park graveyard in Germany?“

Sahara greening “absolutely positive trend”

Another increasingly skeptical voice presented by FOCUS is that of geo-archeologist Stefan Kröpelin of the University of Cologne, a veteran researcher of the Saharan climate history. He reminds that the recent climate change has been a blessing for the Sahara, which has seen a greening due to more precipitation: “For many millions of people it is an absolutely positive trend.”

FOCUS adds that “studies and long-term observations also show that many many horror scenarios are unfounded.”

The German news weekly writes that Richard Tol analyzed a number of studies and concluded that a global warming of 1.7°C would produce “net advantages for man and the earth’s ecosystem.”

Another leading politician who is becoming increasingly doubtful of the climate hysteria is Peter Ramsauer (CSU) who says the massive and ideologically driven spending of billions and billions to reduce CO2 “is beyond every political and economic reason“. FOCUS quotes Ramsauer: “We need a climate policy with sense instead of one with green ideology!“

FOCUS adds:

For experts like Ramsauer, climate policy has gotten totally out of hand.”

Potsdam science “on shaky ground”

Increasingly more and more German politicians are growing dissastisfied with the wild doom & gloom scenarios put out by the infamously alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), directed by Professor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber. But also German scientists are becoming aggravated by the inflated horror scanrios churned out by the PIK scientists. FOCUS reports that according to geoarcheologist Kröpelin “some of the ‘horror scenarios of the Potsdam scientists’ are already on shaky ground“.

Kröpelin tells FOCUS:

I often wish for more scientific self-imposed skepticism instead of dogmatism.”

FOCUS adds that CO2 is being unfairly singled out as only a climate-killing gas and reminds us, citing Hans-Joachim Weigel, Director of the Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute for Biodiversity, that it’s an “essential building block of photosynthesis and thus the basis for all life“.

The FOCUS slap-down of climate hysteria is just the latest of a series of recent articles by leading German media outlets expressing criticism of the spate of wild horror scenarios that have been uncritically released to the public recently.

Hopefully the media will continue bringing us such sober reporting regularly in the future. All the scare-mongering and doomsday scenarios have been a serious disservice to the field of science.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:26 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore: Skeptics Are The New ‘Thin Green Line’
by James Delingpole5 Dec 2015

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... reen-line/

Patrick Moore wrote:
I have just got back from the Climate Change conference in Paris.

No, not the Green McJob (TM) creation scheme being hosted by the United Nations at Le Bourget for the benefit of 40,000 troughers, kleptocrats, island nation guilt trippers, activists, bureaucrats, apparatchiks, junk-scientists, one world government freaks, environmental lawyers, corporate rent-seekers, teat-suckers and other assorted eco-fascist protozoa.

Rather, I mean the Paris Climate Challenge, a tiny three-day event being hosted in the centre of town by retired Church of England vicar Philip Foster and a tall blogger called Roger ‘Tallbloke’ for a ragtag group of – at best – 40 climate skeptics.

Too much to copy and paste here so click THIS LINK and go read the rest!

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2015 3:33 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Paying Off Poor Nations to Go Along with the Climate Change Hoax
by Joe Scudder
12/13/2015

http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/12/pay ... ange-hoax/

Quote:
Tad Cronn warned us about this. The poor--called "developing nations"--want to be paid a lot of money to go along with the global warming hoax. I don't really blame them. If they were going to seriously give up the internal combustion engine, the cost to their people would be unimaginable.

In fact, there is not enough money in the world to make it feasible.

The result is a double layer of fraud. Poor governments want to pretend to care about their carbon footprint and wealthier governments pretend to dump money on them. They are giving some money away, but not as much as they claim. Associated Press reports,

Simon Buckle of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), wrote a report, tallying how much of the $100 billion-a-year target has been pledged. It's about $62 billion a year as of 2014, his report said.

India, however, looked at the same report and said the real number was probably less than $1 billion a year. It issued a report of its own calling the OECD document full of "inflated numbers."

In an interview with the AP, Indian Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar dismissed the OECD report as "a double-counting exercise." He said actual climate finance flowing to developing countries was much smaller.

"It's absolutely dismal," he said. "There is no finance on the table."

Buckle told The Associated Press: "I'll stand by it to the death."

And sometimes they try to count loans as aid.

A lot of the money comes in the form of loans. While it seems OK to count loans that are given at a discount rate or zero interest because that helps the nation, many of the loans are given at market rate, meaning they aren't really aid, said Tim Gore of Oxfam International.

Many say those market-rate loans, often called non-concessional, shouldn't be counted because they have to be paid back with interest. When the money is paid back, does the loan no longer count or is it negative aid?


And some of the money that is given is not remotely related to global warming.

But University of Zurich's Axel Michaelowa, who studies climate aid grants, found "there was a huge misrepresentation. Governments were actually really not able to report properly" on aid that was supposed to help countries reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

His study, conducted on specific climate grants four years ago, showed a list of "projects without any conceivable climate change connotation," such as Belgium funding for a "love movie festival" in the early 2000s in Africa, a U.S.-funded study on Savannah elephant sounds, and uniforms for park guardians in Central America with aid from Spain.


It is obvious that the point of this exercise is to claim there is some kind of planet-saving plan in place so that we will cooperate with being plundered by carbon taxes.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2015 10:13 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
The 97% of Scientists myth? Where did that number come from? I expect the answer listed below might surprise you, but then again, when you're dealing with the religion of "global warming" it may not!

Debunking 5 Phony Statistics Liberals Love To Toss Around
John Hawkins | Dec 15, 2015

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... 733/page/2

Quote:
5) Ninety seven percent of scientists agree that global warming is manmade and dangerous. How do you prove 97% of people agree with you? Find a tiny subset of a group that thinks just like you do and claim that it speaks for a much larger group of people. Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer did an excellent piece explaining how this works at the WSJ.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran.

...The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

...In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming."

...In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.

...Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

It’s simply untrue that the scientific community has decided almost as a whole that global warming is happening, manmade and problematic. Many scientists believe that’s the case. Many others don’t. At this point, it’s merely a controversial unproven theory.


So according to the actual numbers on this, only 79 "scientists" gave opinions and the "warmers" took that 97% number and ran with it?? :-

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 10:27 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK! Here is how our government is financing this "warming" FRAUD right under our noses with YOUR tax dollars!

Here’s How Congress Is Quietly Giving The UN Money For Its Global Warming Agenda
by Michael Bastasch
12/16/2015

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/16/heres ... z3usIiTC2q

Quote:
Congress is set to pass a massive spending bill to fund the government for another nine months, but that spending bill also includes funding that could go towards the United Nations’ global warming redistribution schemes.

Republicans have long pledged funding for the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund (GCF), which hands out money for green energy and “sustainable” development projects around the world. President Barack Obama pledged $3 billion to the GCF, but so far Congress has opposed any attempt to give tax dollars to the U.N. green scheme.

While the omnibus spending bill before Congress does not directly fund the GCF, it gives more than $388 million to other international funds that could end up funding the U.N.’s broader green energy goals.

Congress’s spending bill gives $170,680,000 to the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) and another $49,900,000 to the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF). The bill also hands out $168,263,000 to the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

All of these funds are ways the U.N. can finance its plan for $100 billion in green scheme spending every year. The budget bill also has no prohibition on reprogramming any of that funding for the GCF, leaving open the potential that the Obama administration could fund the U.N.’s green redistribution plan.

The GCF relies on pledges from individual countries and international organizations to reach its spending goals. Currently, the fund has gotten $5.9 billion from countries and cities with another $4.3 billion pledged. The U.S. has not given any funds to the GCF.

Obama has spent nearly $13 billion on financing international plans to fight global warming since 2010, according to the State Department. Obama’s 2016 budget request included nearly $1.3 billion for international climate finance, including $500 million for the first tranche of funding for the GCF.

Republicans have fought against Obama’s GCF pledge for months, vowing to block the funding as well as any U.N. agreement to cut carbon dioxide emissions the president brings before Congress.

Nearly 200 countries approved a global agreement to cut CO2 emissions Saturday to cheers from politicians and environmental activists. The U.N. deal still needs to be signed by 55 countries, representing 55 percent of global emissions to go into effect, — the deal, however, is based on voluntary emissions cuts.

“The agreement further provides that developed countries like the United States shall provide financial resources to assist developing countries with no specificity despite ‘requesting expedited funds through the Green Climate Fund’ to which this administration has committed the U.S. to a $3 billion contribution,” Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe said in a statement Saturday.

“Congress, where authority to approve such an expenditure exists, has appropriated zero dollars,” Inhofe said.

Congress’ budget bill also gives $339 million to the United Nations Environment Program. No more than $10 million of that funding will go towards the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the Obama administration relies on to craft its global warming regulations.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 3:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Joe Bastardi Blasts Claims 2015 Christmas Was US Warmest: “Ridiculous” … “Lies And Deception” …”False Missives”!
By P Gosselin on 27. December 2015

See more at THIS link.

Quote:
At his always interesting Saturday Summary at Weatherbell Analytics here, veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi confirms what Tony Heller’s Real Science posted a couple of days ago: December 24, 1955 was warmer than the impressively warm December 24, 2015.

It goes to show that you simply cannot judge climate based on a single weather event.

Europe too has seen a record warm November-December period. And that too was due to a weather pattern that saw persistent southerly winds throughout the entire period. Of course southern winds are going to warm up an area.

At the mark, Joe compares December 24 of 1955 to 2015:
Image
Images cropped from Weatherbell Saturday Summary video December 16, 2015.

Clearly USA December 24, 1955 was much warmer than in 2015. And Joe reacted harshly to all the media hype of the recent days, calling it “ridiculous” and “propaganda”. He accuses the alarmist side of being “disingenuous”, using “lies and deception” and pushing “false missives”.

Joe reminds that the current El Niño warmth will soon give way to cool conditions – thanks to the upcoming La Niña.

2015 only the globe’s 6th warmest on record

At the 9:57 mark Joe debunks the claims that 2015 has been a globally record warm year. Charts based on NCEP data by Dr. Ryan Maue show that 2015 is in fact not even in the top 5 warm years. Joe tells his viewers that clearly 2002, 2003 2005, 2006 and 2007 were warmer.

I’ve spliced together the three charts Joe showed to provide an overall impression of the trend of the last 37 years, 1978 – 2016 (sorry for the poor quality – but you get the idea).
Image
NCEP global temperature data.

Here we see that the last decade was warmer than the current one so far. Moreover the upcoming La Niña will act to markedly dampen global temperatures by late 2016. Joe suspects they will fall well below the zero line of the above chart. By then we can expect the climate activists to start chasing droughts, floods, tornadoes, plankton or whatever.

For the upcoming weeks, the forecasts show that the weather patterns are set to shift over both North America and Europe, which are about to get a taste of winter – just as Joe predicted months ago.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:02 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Paris Climate Conference: A Sideshow To More Frightening Use Of False IPCC Climate Science
Dr. Tim Ball
January 3, 2016

Quote:
President Obama used the Paris Climate Conference to advance his legacy: an agreement was mandatory no matter the truth or the cost. As a result, the final agreement was meaningless because to get everybody to sign it was made unenforceable. All signatories were willing to agree because they are all politicians playing their own game; not what is right or best for the people. This objective was acceptable to the main drivers outside of the actual political arena. They were using climate change to impose their socialist goal of punishing and weakening capitalism and redistributing their wealth, which they claim was obtained at the expense of the developing nations. Avowed communist and anti-capitalist Naomi Klein attending Paris as a member of Pope Francis delegation saw the political opportunities in climate change.

She herself admits that, as she began to take the problem of climate change more seriously and to think about it more deeply, it did not cause her to change her mind about anything. On the contrary, it reinforced everything that she had always believed. “I was propelled into a deeper engagement with it partly because I realized it could be a catalyst for forms of social and economic justice in which I already believed.”

Ironically, those countries that held out for an unenforceable agreement, like Russia, India, and China, tried socialism and are now embracing aspects of capitalism. The reason they don’t want enforceable limits on fossil fuels is because they want to develop their economies and they know first-hand it doesn’t work with socialism. The result is the paradox that was the Paris Climate Conference. While a small group of people worked to undermine development and capitalism through a false global warming charge, half the world’s population represented by these nations, strives for development through capitalism. Richard Lindzen retired Professor of Atmospheric Physics at MIT summarized the situation best.

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”

Too much to copy and paste on this one, so you can go HERE and read the rest of it. Good read too BTW illustrating the connection between Communism and the "Warmer" movement!

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:38 am
Posts: 11804
Location: Coming At Ya!
Looks like more people have figured the "warming" fraud out! Good for them!!

Climate Change Comes In Dead Last On List Of Things That Will Finish Off Mankind
by William Teach
January 8, 2016

View this complete article HERE

Quote:
The UK Express has an article about how a super-volcano, specifically the one which comprises Yellowstone, could kill millions. Also, wondering if it is about to blow, which people have been wondering about for a long time.

Instances of volcanic eruptions are their highest for 300 years and scientists fear a major one that could kill millions and devastate the planet is a real possibility.

Experts at the European Science Foundation said volcanoes – especially super-volcanoes like the one at Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, which has a caldera measuring 34 by 45 miles (55 by 72 km) – pose more threat to Earth and the survival of humans than asteroids, earthquakes, nuclear war and global warming.

There are few real contingency plans in place to deal with the ticking time bomb, which they conclude is likely to go off within the next 80 years. (snip)

Experts at the European Science Foundation said volcanoes – especially super-volcanoes like the one at Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, which has a caldera measuring 34 by 45 miles (55 by 72 km) – pose more threat to Earth and the survival of humans than asteroids, earthquakes, nuclear war and global warming.


Here’s what that looks like

Image

Can we really consider “climate change” to be dead last when it gets zero percent, and shouldn’t even be included? From the article comments

Tax it and issue some anti-volcano regulations; maybe Obama could visit the park the day it explodes.
This is a very simple solution to this problem. Just have the Liberals become offended by this and the government will be forced to remove it. Problem solved.
We will just wait for our Feckless Leader to sign an Executive Order that doesn’t allow the eruption without a background check.


Heh.

_________________
Big Boyz Toyz!

Image

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt, British Prime-Minister (1759-1806)


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 417 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 ... 28  Next

Board index » Racing Forum » Ken0069's Blog


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron