If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Climate Depot releases a list of 1000 scientists, many of whom were former IPCC authors, that have been paid off by Big Tobacco, Exxon, BP, Halliburton, The Coca Cola Corporation of America, Dr. Evil and Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg   (climatedepot.com) divider line 303
    More: Interesting, UN IPCC, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel, Exxon, big tobacco, American Physical Society, Vice President Al Gore, Halliburton, Langley Research Center  
•       •       •

1803 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Dec 2010 at 5:04 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



303 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-12-10 04:00:39 PM
Jon Snow: DesertDemonWY: On a side note, the global temperature anomaly has fallen again for at least the second straight month, yet CO2 continues to rise. hmm, how curious

It's called a La Niña. We've been in one since July, and it's the most severe since the 1970s. I'm actually a little surprised that the anomaly hasn't dropped further than it has, to be honest.

The climate system doesn't warm monotonically in response to rising GHGs. Natural variability like ENSO still occurs superimposed the anthropogenic warming trend.

If you'd like to understand this issue better rather than confirm your ideological bias, I'm happy to discuss it with you.


good, I'm glad you recognized that there is natural variation. Next time there is a heat wave during an El Niño period, I hope you point that out, because I know that the alarmists won't
 
2010-12-10 04:06:09 PM
DesertDemonWY: good, I'm glad you recognized that there is natural variation. Next time there is a heat wave during an El Niño period, I hope you point that out, because I know that the alarmists won't

Not to speak on someone else's behalf, but I think what a lot of people were trying to point out was that the recent El Niño we just had was quite small relative to the 1998 El Niño, yet temps met or exceeded levels in 1998.

This is meant to illustrate the underneath natural variability, temps are increasing. Similarly, the current La Niña won't take temps back to mid-70s levels, where they were the last time we had one so strong, due to underlying anthropogenic-driven warming.
 
2010-12-10 04:17:06 PM
snowjack

The obvious trolls get bites because, somewhat frequently, if why they're flat out wrong isn't explained with citations, there ends being many people that think the obvious trolls have something resembling a valid point. It's sort of a proactive way to help people that may be curious about the subject but don't know much about it.

Oh, and here is a list of common talking points with refutations and citations, courtesy of Skeptical Science. (new window)
 
2010-12-10 04:31:47 PM
Zafler: snowjack

The obvious trolls get bites because, somewhat frequently, if why they're flat out wrong isn't explained with citations, there ends being many people that think the obvious trolls have something resembling a valid point. It's sort of a proactive way to help people that may be curious about the subject but don't know much about it.


In some cases at least it's probably more like this:

cdn.thegloss.com

/I just can't stay away from xkcd today.
 
2010-12-10 04:36:58 PM
DesertDemonWY: Jon Snow: DesertDemonWY: On a side note, the global temperature anomaly has fallen again for at least the second straight month, yet CO2 continues to rise. hmm, how curious

It's called a La Niña. We've been in one since July, and it's the most severe since the 1970s. I'm actually a little surprised that the anomaly hasn't dropped further than it has, to be honest.

The climate system doesn't warm monotonically in response to rising GHGs. Natural variability like ENSO still occurs superimposed the anthropogenic warming trend.

If you'd like to understand this issue better rather than confirm your ideological bias, I'm happy to discuss it with you.

good, I'm glad you recognized that there is natural variation. Next time there is a heat wave during an El Niño period, I hope you point that out, because I know that the alarmists won't


You'd think that the cost of straw would be astronomical with the number of strawman arguments on Fark.
 
2010-12-10 04:39:53 PM
snowjack

Yeah, it often degenerates to that, particularly with deliberately obtuse liars or astroturfers.
 
2010-12-11 07:19:19 AM
Gunther:
The tactics the deniers use have been recognized are pretty much identical to conspiracy theorist tactics - it's the GeneralJim method of arguing: "I disregard any data that contradicts my view, because it was made by scientists that were in on the conspiracy". Even Wikipedia has a page on it.

I love the smell of stupid in the morning. It smells like... victory!

Nope, it is the alarmist camp that is denying reality. Michael Mann has admitted that there WAS a medieval warm period, Phil Jones admits that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, Keith Briffa got caught deleting ALL trees, except ONE, for periods of time to get a "good" result, the "hockey stick" graphing program source code is available, with a table of "cheat factors" to apply to the data by decade, to show more warming than exists, altering the data sets has been proved in court in New Zealand, and the #2 at the U.N. IPCC has admitted that the point of the push environmental issues is wealth distribution. Are you denying or ignoring all this?

 
2010-12-11 07:31:41 AM
GeneralJim: Are you denying or ignoring all this?

Ignoring what, your random and unsourced accusations of conspiracy and misdeed?

...Pretty much, yeah. You lie a lot.
 
2010-12-11 08:32:33 AM
GeneralJim: Michael Mann has admitted that there WAS a medieval warm period

That was cooler than present temperatures and wasn't world wide.

GeneralJim: Phil Jones admits that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995

HAHAHAHAH. This cherry picked quote again? LMAO
It's had to have been busted so often, Skeptical Science decided to put the busting in an easy to find place: BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
(new window)

The rest of your green text thread shiat is more of the bull shiat climate gate crap, with a side order of test code used on a different farking study, that has been debunked time and time again.

Ok, back to not replying to the green text thread shiatter. If anyone else thinks his other "points" have merit, I'll take the time to track down what actually happened rather than his distorted for reaction version.
 
2010-12-11 09:19:43 PM
Gunther:
The tactics the deniers use have been recognized are pretty much identical to conspiracy theorist tactics - it's the GeneralJim method of arguing: "I disregard any data that contradicts my view, because it was made by scientists that were in on the conspiracy". Even Wikipedia has a page on it.

You know, demonizing people by using names like "deniers" is a tactic used by those hoping to incite relatively normal group-think into mob rule.

Conspiracy theorists... HA. Those idiots. Why, some of them even believe a bunch of Germans were dressing up in funny clothes, and trying to take over the world. Conspiracies EXIST. What doesn't exist are large, secret conspiracies.

Like everything else, thinking about conspiracies has been polluted by dualism. Idiot leftists have wild, ridiculous claims of conspiracies that are impossible. Idiot rightists have wild, ridiculous claims of conspiracies that are impossible. Moron leftists try to smear anyone to the right of themselves as one of the rightist extremists... and vice versa. It's nothing if not balanced.

But, whatever the MINIMUM is to take a conspiracy theory seriously, it must include having perpetrators admit to it.

Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, said, in an interview with Neue Zurcher Zeitung, "climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth" and "it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization," and "[ U.N. climate policy] has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

Do you need it any clearer?
 
2010-12-11 09:33:42 PM
hypnoticus ceratophrys:
"ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency."

From sourcewatch.org
Link (new window)

And sourcewatch.org is a front for the "Center for Media and Democracy," a leftist think-tank.

Your point?
 
2010-12-12 01:37:52 AM
GeneralJim: I love the smell of stupid in the morning. It smells like... victory!

This from the threadsh*tter who constantly carries water for the Flat-Earthers.

Classic.
 
2010-12-12 01:38:36 AM
GeneralJim: And sourcewatch.org is a front for the "Center for Media and Democracy," a leftist think-tank.

You're welcome to disprove any of the information that has been presented.

Go. We'll give you 15 minutes.
 
2010-12-12 06:42:53 AM
LouDobbsAwaaaay:
sammyk: After Reading these comments I have learned I am a denier. Apparently that makes me stupid or something because I do not accept with blind faith that man is the sole reason for climate change. I find that absurd.

Yet basing your uneducated opinion on the "absurdity" of a strawman argument nobody has ever made is somehow not absurd?

Strawman? Lessee... I think the most common one is that anyone who doubts that man is causing global warming through CO2 release is magically transformed into a young Earth creationist, vaxxer, and anti-science idiot who thinks the planet stays the same temperature always.

Also, if you believe that a corrupt political organization, the U.N., is attempting to do what its representatives say it is attempting to do, namely to use AGW as an excuse to redistribute wealth, you are a conspiracy nut. The trillions of dollars that the U.N. would control via cap and trade agreements have NOTHING to do with their decision that such agreements need to be made.

On the other hand, any money from oil companies corrupts utterly. Merely appearing before Congress to speak about the effects mankind's activities are having on climate is enough for many to brand Richard Lindzen as a stooge for them -- because he appeared before Congress on the dime of oil companies... FIFTEEN years ago.

That is, oil money corrupts, UNLESS it is going to pro-AGW organizations. The CRU and Phil Jones have taken money from Shell, BP, and other oil companies, and these companies have been allowed to help set the research agenda. ARTICLE HERE. (new window)

Didn't any of you ever wonder why oil companies are not fighting the cap and trade? Simply put, while at first they opposed in knee-jerk fashion, seeing all the greenies behind it, they soon realized that it won't hurt them. Now, there is oil company support. ARTICLE HERE. (new window)

But, if oil company money DOES corrupt, the CRU was set up with oil money... BOOK LINK HERE. (new window)

And, a couple of hits from the leaked e-mails:
E-MAIL: BEGGING LETTER TO BP AND SHELL. (new window)
E-MAIL: PLANNING STRATEGY TO MILK BP FOR CASH (new window)

 
2010-12-12 06:47:40 AM
phuquetarde:
So science is now a popularity contest? As long as a lot of people support something, it must be true? Right?

That's known as the Scientific Method. Sounds like you have denialist tendencies, citizen. To the camps with you!
 
2010-12-12 06:57:47 AM
The Homer Tax:
But we still don't know the "cause" of gravity.

Would you argue that the "jury is still out" on gravity?

This is a GREAT analogy for climate, actually. We observe gravity; we observe the climate warming. We don't know the cause of gravity; we don't know the cause of the climate warming. But we "know" that warming is caused by increase in GHE due to CO2 emissions; we "know" that gravity is caused by the Earth sucking due to insufficient redistribution of wealth. Redistributing wealth is the solution to gravity; redistribution of wealth is the solution to the climate warming. Perfect!

 
2010-12-12 07:09:25 AM
dillengest:
phuquetarde: So science is now a popularity contest? As long as a lot of people support something, it must be true? Right?

To some extent it is a popularity contest, mainly because science isn't really about declaring absolute 'truth'. However the scientific popularity contest is usually most concerned with published research rather than names on a list.


farm3.static.flickr.com
 
2010-12-12 07:46:57 AM
jack21221:
Also, there is no such thing as "the scientific method."

Oops. Perhaps you meant to say that there is not such thing as anthropogenic global warming. The Scientific Method is real. WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE HERE. (new window)

 
2010-12-12 09:19:39 AM
The Homer Tax:
I take issue with your notion that because there are holes in a particular aspect of a particular scientific theory that means that the "jury is still out" or whatever. That's loaded terminology and it reeks of political positioning.

Holes in a theory (or, in the case of AGW, a hypothesis) are one thing -- places we have yet to understand. Disproving a hypothesis is another.

Earth is getting warmer, on the multi-decade scale. There's nothing new in this. Climate is ALWAYS changing. And, the level of CO2, which had been dropping steadily on the VERY long scale, is now rising again, and we are doing that.

Okay. That's what we know. Where our "holes" are are in any links between those two facts. The best answer I've gotten so far is "Greenhouse gas, duh." to the question "Does increased CO2 cause Earth's temperature to go up?" Well, it doesn't, plain and simple. It's simple. Really. Actually, the answers to climate questions are complex, but the reason AGW fails is simple. The problem in understanding is that the atmosphere is a wildly complex system of a huge number of variables from expected things like clouds and gas mixtures to solar variation and cosmic rays. Trying to reduce this confusion (i.e. mathematical chaos) to a single variable controlling temperature is ludicrous.

CO2 increases in the atmosphere, along with occasional other reasons, when the temperature of the oceans goes up. The same way that warm water will dissolve more of a solid, like sugar, for example, it will dissolve less of a gas, like CO2. When the temperature of Earth goes up, the oceans are such a HUGE heat sink that it takes them about 800 years to catch up.

Magically enough, if you look at the record, CO2 increases almost EXACTLY track the temperature, only about 800 years later. It is not a "kinda the same direction," it is a very close to identical curve. For those who understand how feedback systems work, I will point out that the curves do not flatten on either upwards or downwards changes, as they would if there was a positive feedback of more than a negligible amount.

Now, you will see, on Fark threads, post after post "proving" that the temperature is rising. You will see post after post "proving" that man is dumping CO2 into the air. But, you won't see any proof that the two are related. And, people will try to convince you that the causal link is the other way around. They will point to PhDs whose grants are tied to proving AGW exists expounding upon how important it is to reduce CO2. They will keep telling you that the faster your car goes, the more your foot is sucked down to the floorboard. But the causal link goes the other way. So far as we know, time travel does not exist, and temperatures do NOT rise to follow what WILL happen with CO2 800 years in the future.

The scientific process behind climatology has been corrupted in an ongoing process for about twenty years. IF AGW is a big problem, THEN governments won't get much resistance to huge taxes, and giving huge powers of control over to an international group to "solve" the "problem." The U.N. has skewed the research, and made an outrageous number of lying statements in their reports. It was proved in court that climate data was altered in New Zealand, data has been altered by NASA, and most people have heard of the problems associated with the Hadley CRU, who prepared rigged graphs of temperatures of which the most famous is the "hockey stick." The Hadley CRU feeds data directly into the U.N.'s IPCC, from which many, if not most, governments take their cue.

Much of the data, and almost all of the programs involved in processing the data, of and through these couple of agencies is "secret." That means nobody can check it, outside the clan. That means it is not science -- science needs to be repeatable.

Recent peer-reviewed studies are showing that previous estimates of expected temperature rises have been, to put it mildly, grossly exaggerated. But, (and it's a really BIG but) quite a few people have a large, vested interest in keeping it going. Climate research into how to avoid problems from AGW is a booming field. If you can work "climate change" into a proposal somehow, it increases your odds of getting a grant immensely. There is, as in few cases in science, a political following for AGW. Supporters are quick to cast aspersions on anyone not bleating along with the group-think on the subject. Threats to grant funding, certifications, and access to publications have all been used to extort support of AGW from scientists.

But, the dam has broken. Reviewers are now letting AGW-skeptical articles back into journals. When this fully breaks, those who have committed scientific fraud will be discredited, and probably will have to find other work; a few could even be prosecuted. Nobody wants that, and with full exposure becoming ever more certain as time goes by, fewer are willing to do the extortion necessary. And, as the mix of papers released becomes less biased, more and more scientists, who have long trusted the peer-review system to be neutral, will be seeing the formerly suppressed papers, and more researchers will be writing them. AGW has been falsified, and people are beginning to notice it.

Piltdown Man was a scientific fraud perpetrated by filing bones. AGW is a scientific fraud perpetrated by "filing" data and data analysis programs. It took 40 years to fully clear up the Piltdown Man scandal, and it had ardent supporters, too. Information travels faster today. But don't expect all of the ardent supporters of AGW to admit their buffoonery, ignorance, or hubris -- or whatever else may have motivated them to support a falsified hypothesis. They will look rather idiotic when the truth is known, and nobody likes looking like a fool.

 
2010-12-12 09:41:53 AM
LasersHurt:
Since when did arguing a point become a high sin? This is science, not religion, dickweeds.

Ha! Wrong again. It displays MANY more characteristics of religion than of science.

It's all over; we have all the answers.
Listen to the authorities.
The juicy bits are secret; just take our word on it.
Destroy those who are different.
Etc.

 
2010-12-12 10:03:31 AM
Allow me to summarize every GeneralJim post ever:

"You can't trust any of the worlds' scientific institutions or the experts in this field because they're all in on the fraud! Reading random forum posts and internet blogs run by non-scientists is the only way to learn the TRUTH!"

And yet he gets all huffy when you point out how his arguments are goddamn near identical to those made by every other conspiracy theorist.
 
2010-12-12 10:13:38 AM
mrshowrules:
I believe it has been proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community and I accept it on faith in that community.

Science as a faith-based activity? WTF?

 
2010-12-12 10:27:12 AM
Gunther:
Allow me to summarize every GeneralJim post ever:

"You can't trust any of the worlds' scientific institutions or the experts in this field because they're all in on the fraud! Reading random forum posts and internet blogs run by non-scientists is the only way to learn the TRUTH!"

And yet he gets all huffy when you point out how his arguments are goddamn near identical to those made by every other conspiracy theorist.

No, I won't allow you to summarize all my posts. Why not? Because you don't have the brains God gave a slime mold, that's why.

"Every other conspiracy theory." What an ass. Of course, any conspiracy theory that involves money from oil companies is just reporting, not a conspiracy theory.

If a troofer conspiracy nut had a confession from GWB given in an interview that the U.S. government really WAS behind the 9/11 attacks... Would that be a crazy conspiracy theory then?

Well, let me repeat myself:

Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, said, in an interview with Neue Zurcher Zeitung, "climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth" and "it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization," and "[ U.N. climate policy] has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

Again, what do you need? It's time to believe there was a conspiracy when the perps start owning up to it. Do you think there has NEVER been a conspiracy? If so, you're a vegetable. Do you think ALL scientists have to be corrupt for the U.N. to have corrupt scientists? If so, you have no imagination. Do you think no scientist could ever be corrupted? If so, you have to buy this bridge; it will NEVER be cheaper.

 
2010-12-12 10:29:57 AM
sammyk:
LouDobbsAwaaaay: sammyk: Am I really making an absurd strawman argument?

Nobody has ever claimed that all climate change is solely caused by man. Your opinion on a scientific issue is being based on your opposition to a non-existent scientific issue. Absurd.

I don't even know what that means. What opposition to wha non-existant scientific issue. Are you just cruising fark today looking to be a dick to anyone that holds a different opinion than yours?

At least he only does that on days that end in a "Y"...

 
2010-12-12 10:46:31 AM
yakmans_dad:
As near as I can tell, the argument between people who believe in AGW and those who don't devolves down to this: AGW deniers believe that 1+1 = 2 UNTIL it become economically advantageous for it to stop. AGW deniers believe that gases trap heat but those gases will stop trapping heat as long as there's someone around with some carbon to sell.

That certainly speaks more to your lack of understanding of at least my position, than it does to my position. It's also clear that anyone not toeing the line on every detail of AGW might as well be denying, as far as you're concerned, what, that the climate has ever changed?

Here's my beef: The AGW hypothesis assumes that water vapor has a net positive feedback as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, and that effect is at least twice the effect of CO2 without feedbacks. I disagree: Several factors, some spelled out above, indicate that the sum of all feedbacks is NEGATIVE, especially that of water vapor.

What kind of fetid, steaming pile of horse dung does one need to have in one's head to take that, and get to "anti-science?" Face it, you're an AGW religious fundamentalist, and you simply won't brook ANYONE questioning the tenets of your religion. Fark, you're a Westboro Baptist Fundamentalist warmist, along with a few others here. Silly wabbits, vilification of skepticism is PROFOUNDLY anti-science.
 
2010-12-12 10:58:57 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
On a side note, I wouldn't be careful not to read too much hostility into the lines of questioning you're receiving here. Blunt and terse, sure :)

NOBODY expects the AGW inquisition...

And... "I wouldn't be careful not to read too much hostility" means... what? I think that might be a Freudian slit er, slip.

 
2010-12-12 11:11:34 AM
GeneralJim: it is the alarmist camp

GeneralJim: You know, demonizing people by using names like "deniers" is a tactic used by those hoping to incite relatively normal group-think into mob rule.

I lol'd

/you're a hack
 
2010-12-12 02:17:34 PM
GeneralJim: Here's my beef: The AGW hypothesis assumes that water vapor has a net positive feedback as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, and that effect is at least twice the effect of CO2 without feedbacks. I disagree: Several factors, some spelled out above, indicate that the sum of all feedbacks is NEGATIVE, especially that of water vapor.

Your stated "belief" that the sum of all feedbacks must be negative is one of the reasons why I figure/hope that you're just clowning. You can't possibly actually believe that the sum of all feedbacks would be negative or the temperature of the Earth would be colder than the Moon.

Maybe you want to revise your position a bit.
 
2010-12-12 09:15:35 PM
Hm. Well, if the reply vanished, it probably wasn't that exciting.
 
2010-12-12 09:58:36 PM
Flood them with ridiculousness so people give up even trying to respond.

joannenova.com.au

This picture doesn't exist.
 
2010-12-13 06:07:45 AM
LasersHurt:
This whole stupid conversation went off the rails, as everyone assumed I was questioning their pet topic. I'm not. Chrissakes.

Well, you kind of ARE. To some, many of which you have heard from, if you don't follow (swallow?) the whole line, you are a denier of science, probably a creationist, vaxxer, troofer, birfer, etc., and will be badgered until you surrender or give up, and go away. Assimilate them or silence them. One must not question the priests scientists and their pronouncements. Welcome to AGW.

 
2010-12-13 08:40:44 AM
metalliska:
Who's on the list? Watch and See

This is clearly one of the most childish dodges ever. "Somebody's on the list who isn't a PhD. climatologist." Well, yeah. Even the much maligned Oregon petition was analyzed by Scientific American, and they found around 200 people who met the following criteria:

o PhD. in climatology or related field.
o Credentials verified by university.
o Currently active.
o Active ten years earlier, when petition signed.
o Could be contacted by phone.
o Affirmed signing the petition.
o Affirmed that they still agreed with the petition.

The idea that some bozo, probably a greenie, managed to sign the petition as "Mickey Mouse" invalidates the whole petition is pegging the stupidity meter. If I go sign the IPCC report with "George Washington," can we all forget about this, because the report is invalid?

 
2010-12-13 10:01:24 AM
GeneralJim: metalliska: Who's on the list? Watch and See
This is clearly one of the most childish dodges ever. "Somebody's on the list who isn't a PhD. climatologist." Well, yeah. Even the much maligned Oregon petition was analyzed by Scientific American, and they found around 200 people who met the following criteria:

o PhD. in climatology or related field.
o Credentials verified by university.
o Currently active.
o Active ten years earlier, when petition signed.
o Could be contacted by phone.
o Affirmed signing the petition.
o Affirmed that they still agreed with the petition.

The idea that some bozo, probably a greenie, managed to sign the petition as "Mickey Mouse" invalidates the whole petition is pegging the stupidity meter. If I go sign the IPCC report with "George Washington," can we all forget about this, because the report is invalid?



Careful about your wording here, lest you misrepresent the petition. Scientific American did not find 200 people. They found one person using one sample of 30 people total, and extrapolated from there. Second, that sampling took place in 2001, not ten years after the petition was signed, as you claim.

And, as has been pointed out to you in the past, the actual petition as it stood in 2009 had only 39 climatologists. It's probably not a good idea to rely on a small sample (as compared to the complete list) 8 years out of date, when there's more recent information available.
 
2010-12-13 10:02:32 AM
GeneralJim: The idea that some bozo, probably a greenie, managed to sign the petition as "Mickey Mouse" invalidates the whole petition is pegging the stupidity meter. If I go sign the IPCC report with "George Washington," can we all forget about this, because the report is invalid?

Now this is a good point, and I agree.
 
2010-12-13 01:54:00 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
And, as has been pointed out to you in the past, the actual petition as it stood in 2009 had only 39 climatologists. It's probably not a good idea to rely on a small sample (as compared to the complete list) 8 years out of date, when there's more recent information available.

Oh, please. Certain parrots squawk "97%" again and again, and quote a dumb-ass study that has as much relevance to the real world as Castro's 100% of the vote election. Surveying specific literature, she found that there was "NO DISAGREEMENT," thus forgetting one of the cardinal rules of pulling data out of one's arse: Make it within reason. I mean, as I have demonstrated, among peer-reviewed papers, there is not 100% agreement on evolution; and climate is a mathematically chaotic system.

Climatologists Dispute Oreskes

The May 1 London Telegraph, however, noted Oreskes' "unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line."

The newspaper reported that Dr. Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, "decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents [cited by Oreskes]--and concluded that only one-third backed the consensus view, while only 1 percent did so explicitly."

The London Times then reported on Professor Dennis Bray, of Germany's GKSS National Research Centre. Bray surveyed hundreds of international climate scientists, asking the question, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?" Bray received 530 responses from climatologists in 27 different countries.

With a value of 1 indicating "strongly agree" and a value of 7 indicating "strongly disagree," Bray reported the average of the 530 responses was 3.62, almost right down the middle. More climatologists "strongly disagreed" than "strongly agreed" that climate change is mostly attributable to humans.

"The results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong," Bray reported in his findings. "Results of surveys of climate scientists themselves indicate the possibility that Oreskes' conclusion is not as obvious as stated."


From THIS ARTICLE. (new window)
 
2010-12-13 02:31:21 PM
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: And, as has been pointed out to you in the past, the actual petition as it stood in 2009 had only 39 climatologists. It's probably not a good idea to rely on a small sample (as compared to the complete list) 8 years out of date, when there's more recent information available.
Oh, please. Certain parrots squawk "97%" again and again, and quote a dumb-ass study that has as much relevance to the real world as Castro's 100% of the vote election. Surveying specific literature, she found that there was "NO DISAGREEMENT," thus forgetting one of the cardinal rules of pulling data out of one's arse: Make it within reason. I mean, as I have demonstrated, among peer-reviewed papers, there is not 100% agreement on evolution; and climate is a mathematically chaotic system.

Climatologists Dispute Oreskes
The May 1 London Telegraph, however, noted Oreskes' "unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line."

The newspaper reported that Dr. Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, "decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents [cited by Oreskes]--and concluded that only one-third backed the consensus view, while only 1 percent did so explicitly."

The London Times then reported on Professor Dennis Bray, of Germany's GKSS National Research Centre. Bray surveyed hundreds of international climate scientists, asking the question, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?" Bray received 530 responses from climatologists in 27 different countries.

With a value of 1 indicating "strongly agree" and a value of 7 indicating "strongly disagree," Bray reported the average of the 530 responses was 3.62, almost right down the middle. More climatologists "strongly disagreed" than "strongly agreed" that climate change is mostly attributable to humans.

"The results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong," Bray reported in his findings. "Results of surveys of climate scientists themselves indicate the possibility that Oreskes' conclusion is not as obvious as stated."

From THIS ARTICLE. (new window)



First off, the 97% number comes from Doran 2009, not Oreskes.

Second, you have to be aware that methodological differences between these different studies do not make them directly comparable, nor mutually exclusive. Notably Peiser's and Oreskes' studies both suffer from the fact that neither of them gave exact criteria as to how they categorized a somewhat subjective notion of what is implicit vs explicit approval. Bray's methods involved simply posting the link to various electronic lists, and supposedly it got out to other people (new window) than it was intended to go, notably a 'climatesceptics' list. This problem was exacerbated by the fact that the level of competence of the respondents was not checked in the Bray study, while it was in the Doran one. The 97% number represents only those climatologists that are actively publishing. The number goes down from there the further away one gets from the research - and is therefore not mutually exclusive with what Bray finds.

These allowances for differences in methods do not apply quite as well to the Oregon Petition. We're talking about the exact same petition here, with a severe difference in the quality of data. Again, the difference between a sample of only 30 people, and a complete, verified list 8 years later. There is little room for subjectivity here in which to judge the quality of information. The complete, verified list is clearly superior, and to eschew it in favor of the inferior and minimum sampling is borderline inexcusable. To boot, you didn't even get that information about the Scientific American analysis right.

And finally, and probably even more importantly, that others are quoting a source does not somehow magically excuse you from using poor information about a completely different source. I'm sorry, but as an excuse, 'because the other guy did it first' didn't fly when you were 8, and it still doesn't fly now. Come one now. Be mature and take responsibility for your own posts.
 
2010-12-13 02:43:00 PM
Damnhippyfreak: These allowances for differences in methods do not apply quite as well to the Oregon Petition. We're talking about the exact same petition here, with a severe difference in the quality of data. Again, the difference between a sample of only 30 people, and a complete, verified list 8 years later. There is little room for subjectivity here in which to judge the quality of information. The complete, verified list is clearly superior, and to eschew it in favor of the inferior and minimum sampling is borderline inexcusable. To boot, you didn't even get that information about the Scientific American analysis right.

I forgot to add here that you chose to ignore complete and verified information self-reported from the petition itself in favor of an sample of only 30 people done 8 years previously. Again, that's not good.
 
2010-12-13 02:55:34 PM
GeneralJim: quote a dumb-ass study that has as much relevance to the real world as Castro's 100% of the vote election.

Sorry, I'm being somewhat forgetful today - I forgot to add here that I agree with this in sentiment, but you go way too far. Opinion is not everything, but it is still conveys useful heuristic information about something. If a large majority of the people directly involved with and have have the necessary training, knowledge, and expertise to be able to judge the merits of a topic tell you something, that is relevant. It's not everything, and should be taken with a larger-than-normal grain of salt, but it remains relevant nevertheless.
 
2010-12-13 08:21:59 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
I forgot to add here that you chose to ignore complete and verified information self-reported from the petition itself in favor of an sample of only 30 people done 8 years previously. Again, that's not good.

Uh, that would have to be "later," rather than "previously." And the methodology, from Wikipedia is:

"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition -- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."

In the first place, *I* originally used this to show that the claim that "all" climate scientists agreed with AGW was bollocks. And, if you have a problem with a random sampling being representative, surely you must cringe at Keith Briffa's use of THE ONE TREE that shows characteristics most in line with AGW. One tree... from which the historical record takes the only temperature data -- BTW, does anyone know for how long the record comprises a single tree? Random sampling works, within error limits, but selecting one out of billions is cheesy, even for AGW proponents.

To be approximately the same, The Scientific American study to which we are referring would have to have selected that ONE PhD. active climatologist, and extrapolated that NOBODY believes AGW.

As a matter of fact, that's what caused the furor over Oreskes' study -- she claimed that NO papers critical of AGW had been published, and most of the readers knew of a couple from personal experience.
 
2010-12-13 09:06:29 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
I'm sorry, but as an excuse, 'because the other guy did it first' didn't fly when you were 8, and it still doesn't fly now. Come one now. Be mature and take responsibility for your own posts.

I do. And I'm sick and tired of being "required" to do research to be "allowed" to post anything that is not part of the group-think, and be told that only peer-reviewed articles are acceptable debate points, and when I provide them, the rebuttal is "that's a joke" with the only explanation being whaargarbl that reduces, semantically, to "I don't understand how he's using the math, so it's wrong."

If you want to hold both sides of this to the same standards, I'm okay with that, whether the standards are just spouting opinion, having some actual logic and a couple facts, a cogent systems view, peer-reviewed papers, divine revelation, or pretty much any point in between. But, either apply the same standards to both sides, or STFU.

In an environment in which I am criticized for not having my references in APA format on farking FARK.COM, surely the concept of discarding the data when it doesn't match the theory or model should be a capital offense; the SkepticalScience advocacy blog does that ALL THE TIME.

It all boils down to this: It's a simple Orwellian approach; Pro-AGW good, AGW-skeptical, bad. An off-hand comment that's pro-AGW is taken to cancel widely accepted peer-reviewed literature, and then, is a "stopper" whenever that topic comes up again. "Oh, we DEALT with that before." I am utterly amazed that, apparently, not a ONE of you alarmists gets the one-to-one correspondence of your beliefs to religious tenets.

I mean, you folks do the whole fundamentalist thing, tactic by tactic. Read the first couple of sections of THIS WEBSITE, and substitute "AGW supporter" for Fundamentalist, "somewhat AGW-skeptical" for theists, and "reactionary anti-science types" for Fundamentalist Atheists, and it reads smoothly.

I mean, get over it. No doubt it started as an honest mistake, and then politicians ran with it, and bought research with bias, even in the RFPs. If you're applying for a grant "To determine how best to ameliorate the damage done by anthropogenic climate change to highway infrasturcture," only a moron would NOT know that questioning AGW in the research would be taken badly. You want to get funded? Play along.

But, it's coming apart at the seams. Actual scientific fraud has been committed, and even the folks who were just over-enthusiastic about supporting their positions are backing slowly away from extremism. Historically, the way these things work, some few people will be left holding the bag, and the wrath will fall upon those people disproportionally. Nobody wants to be in that group, so things are suddenly a LOT more fair, open, and honest, when it comes to, for instance, peer-review.

When the U.S.S.R. began allowing a few freedoms to its people, it was doomed. Terror was all that was holding the soviet state together; in climatology, it was fear of the cutoff of funds, and inability to publish -- but the end was the same: the quelling of dissent.
 
2010-12-13 09:16:54 PM
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I forgot to add here that you chose to ignore complete and verified information self-reported from the petition itself in favor of an sample of only 30 people done 8 years previously. Again, that's not good.

Uh, that would have to be "later," rather than "previously." And the methodology, from Wikipedia is:

"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition -- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers - a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."

In the first place, *I* originally used this to show that the claim that "all" climate scientists agreed with AGW was bollocks.
And, if you have a problem with a random sampling being representative, surely you must cringe at Keith Briffa's use of THE ONE TREE that shows characteristics most in line with AGW. One tree... from which the historical record takes the only temperature data -- BTW, does anyone know for how long the record comprises a single tree? Random sampling works, within error limits, but selecting one out of billions is cheesy, even for AGW proponents.

To be approximately the same, The Scientific American study to which we are referring would have to have selected that ONE PhD. active climatologist, and extrapolated that NOBODY believes AGW.

As a matter of fact, that's what caused the furor over Oreskes' study -- she claimed that NO papers critical of AGW had been published, and most of the readers knew of a couple from personal experience.



For the underlined bit, I'm pretty sure I'm right here. Don't forget that the Scientific American sample was done in 2001, while the petition was revamped (and the actual fields of study actually listed) later. The article that I linked to was from 2009, after all.

As for the rest, again because you think someone else has done something you think is shoddy in the past does not somehow excuse you from relying on poor information now, especially as a much better source of information is the actual petition itself. As I said, the excuse that 'because someone else did it first' probably didn't work on your mother and it certainly does not work now. Come on now - you seem to be chafing at me pointing out you should get your information directly from the petition itself. The horror ;)

As for the bit in bold, that's not quite true, is it:

GeneralJim: metalliska: Who's on the list? Watch and See
This is clearly one of the most childish dodges ever. "Somebody's on the list who isn't a PhD. climatologist." Well, yeah. Even the much maligned Oregon petition was analyzed by Scientific American, and they found around 200 people who met the following criteria:

o PhD. in climatology or related field.
o Credentials verified by university.
o Currently active.
o Active ten years earlier, when petition signed.
o Could be contacted by phone.
o Affirmed signing the petition.
o Affirmed that they still agreed with the petition.

The idea that some bozo, probably a greenie, managed to sign the petition as "Mickey Mouse" invalidates the whole petition is pegging the stupidity meter. If I go sign the IPCC report with "George Washington," can we all forget about this, because the report is invalid?


If you follow that link, it questions the qualifications of certain scientists, but nowhere does it make the claim that ""all" climate scientists agreed with AGW". Even the 97% put forward by Doran (that I linked to earlier) does not extend that far. So not only are you fighting a bit of a straw-man, you're managing to do so in a poor way.

All I suggest that if you're going to use the Oregon Petition as a example, at least use accurate and up-to-date information about it. That shouldn't be that much of a burden for you, neh? ;)
 
2010-12-13 09:29:28 PM
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I'm sorry, but as an excuse, 'because the other guy did it first' didn't fly when you were 8, and it still doesn't fly now. Come one now. Be mature and take responsibility for your own posts.
I do. And I'm sick and tired of being "required" to do research to be "allowed" to post anything that is not part of the group-think, and be told that only peer-reviewed articles are acceptable debate points, and when I provide them, the rebuttal is "that's a joke" with the only explanation being whaargarbl that reduces, semantically, to "I don't understand how he's using the math, so it's wrong."

If you want to hold both sides of this to the same standards, I'm okay with that, whether the standards are just spouting opinion, having some actual logic and a couple facts, a cogent systems view, peer-reviewed papers, divine revelation, or pretty much any point in between. But, either apply the same standards to both sides, or STFU.

In an environment in which I am criticized for not having my references in APA format on farking FARK.COM, surely the concept of discarding the data when it doesn't match the theory or model should be a capital offense; the SkepticalScience advocacy blog does that ALL THE TIME.

It all boils down to this: It's a simple Orwellian approach; Pro-AGW good, AGW-skeptical, bad. An off-hand comment that's pro-AGW is taken to cancel widely accepted peer-reviewed literature, and then, is a "stopper" whenever that topic comes up again. "Oh, we DEALT with that before." I am utterly amazed that, apparently, not a ONE of you alarmists gets the one-to-one correspondence of your beliefs to religious tenets.

I mean, you folks do the whole fundamentalist thing, tactic by tactic. Read the first couple of sections of THIS WEBSITE, and substitute "AGW supporter" for Fundamentalist, "somewhat AGW-skeptical" for theists, and "reactionary anti-science types" for Fundamentalist Atheists, and it reads smoothly.

I mean, get over it. No doubt it started as an honest mistake, and then politicians ran with it, and bought research with bias, even in the RFPs. If you're applying for a grant "To determine how best to ameliorate the damage done by anthropogenic climate change to highway infrasturcture," only a moron would NOT know that questioning AGW in the research would be taken badly. You want to get funded? Play along.

But, it's coming apart at the seams. Actual scientific fraud has been committed, and even the folks who were just over-enthusiastic about supporting their positions are backing slowly away from extremism. Historically, the way these things work, some few people will be left holding the bag, and the wrath will fall upon those people disproportionally. Nobody wants to be in that group, so things are suddenly a LOT more fair, open, and honest, when it comes to, for instance, peer-review.

When the U.S.S.R. began allowing a few freedoms to its people, it was doomed. Terror was all that was holding the soviet state together; in climatology, it was fear of the cutoff of funds, and inability to publish -- but the end was the same: the quelling of dissent.



Hey, now. Nobody is expecting you to write a thesis here. All I was pointing is some problems with what the evidence you used. It's about being honest in the way you argue. If your response is, when confronted with these problems, not to honestly admit it or correct yourself, not even to argue the point and instead choose to talk about someone else's problems,that really isn't honest argumentation, is it. Again, I urge you to have the courage and integrity to take responsibility for your own posts instead of attempting to deflect by bringing up problems elsewhere, or trying to play the victim, as you're doing here. None of what you've posted here again, magically makes the problems with what you originally posted go away.

If you can't handle honestly what should be easily-admitted to minor errors, what does this say about your ability to rationally judge larger things?
 
2010-12-13 09:38:01 PM
GeneralJim: if you have a problem with a random sampling being representative

Forgot to add here that random sampling can be representative - but it is nowhere as 'representative' as the actual, complete list. Again, my point was about the relative quality of information. You're relying on a statistic when the actual parameter that the statistic is attempting to approximate is readily available. And yet again, that's not good.

This really shouldn't be that contentious of an issue - this is as black-and-white as you can really get in terms of different quality of information. Again, you seem to be chafing at my suggestion that you get your information about the petition from the petition itself.
 
2010-12-13 09:57:24 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
Bray's methods involved simply posting the link to various electronic lists, and supposedly it got out to other people (new window) than it was intended to go, notably a 'climatesceptics' list.

Now, THIS is what I am talking about. You fail to point out that each SELECTED QUESTIONEE had a unique identifier, and could not even answer the survey twice, let alone let it "get out." You make it sound like an "American Idol" poll, where the more random people call in, the more they can sway things. THAT IS UNTRUE. And, of course, since you commit this lapse, that means you just finished chiding me for the same thing. Okay if you do it, not okay if I do it? Here's the methodology as described on Wikipedia, instead of a warmist blog run by a computer scientist. Could he be a modeler? Anyway, here's the methodology:

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[97] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[98]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5-6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2-4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5-6), 15.1% to a small extent (2-4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.


Note: This was BEFORE Climategate, and the recent revelations of scientific fraud.

The same group also did an earlier study in 1996, via mail to climate scientists and climate-related scientists. The paper is HERE. (new window)

And, again, the 97% figure is tainted by the fact that it comprises only frequently published authors, in a field with widespread claims of outright fraud (and admissions of undue influence) in the peer-review process.

 
2010-12-13 10:01:28 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
For the underlined bit, I'm pretty sure I'm right here. Don't forget that the Scientific American sample was done in 2001, while the petition was revamped (and the actual fields of study actually listed) later. The article that I linked to was from 2009, after all.

M'Kay... I think we're talking of different surveys here. I was speaking of the Scientific American validation of the Oregon Petition. Clearly, the signatories list got farked, but they were able to use sound statistical methods to determine that quite a few were WAY real, and meant to sign it, and confirmed their beliefs years later.

 
2010-12-13 10:03:00 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
As for the bit in bold, that's not quite true, is it:

Yes, it is. It was months ago, not this thread.

 
2010-12-13 10:05:29 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
If you follow that link, it questions the qualifications of certain scientists, but nowhere does it make the claim that ""all" climate scientists agreed with AGW". Even the 97% put forward by Doran (that I linked to earlier) does not extend that far. So not only are you fighting a bit of a straw-man, you're managing to do so in a poor way.

Again, different references. I was responding to a Farker's opinion... I suspect it was chimp_ninja, but not sure. I can't find dick in threads once they're a couple of months old. Anybody have a good method?

 
2010-12-13 10:08:26 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
If you can't handle honestly what should be easily-admitted to minor errors, what does this say about your ability to rationally judge larger things?

So, any time there is not a clear communication, your immediate assumption is that I am lying. I haven't yet. You know, getting the benefit of the doubt is SUPPOSED to be a perk for telling the truth.

Say... Didn't you say you'd try to stop that? Which means...

 
2010-12-13 10:26:16 PM
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Bray's methods involved simply posting the link to various electronic lists, and supposedly it got out to other people (new window) than it was intended to go, notably a 'climatesceptics' list.
Now, THIS is what I am talking about. You fail to point out that each SELECTED QUESTIONEE had a unique identifier, and could not even answer the survey twice, let alone let it "get out." You make it sound like an "American Idol" poll, where the more random people call in, the more they can sway things. THAT IS UNTRUE. And, of course, since you commit this lapse, that means you just finished chiding me for the same thing. Okay if you do it, not okay if I do it? Here's the methodology as described on Wikipedia, instead of a warmist blog run by a computer scientist. Could he be a modeler? Anyway, here's the methodology:

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[97] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[98]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5-6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2-4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5-6), 15.1% to a small extent (2-4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

Note: This was BEFORE Climategate, and the recent revelations of scientific fraud.

The same group also did an earlier study in 1996, via mail to climate scientists and climate-related scientists. The paper is HERE. (new window)

And, again, the 97% figure is tainted by the fact that it comprises only frequently published authors, in a field with widespread claims of outright fraud (and admissions of undue influence) in the peer-review process.



This is a different survey than the one you referenced earlier:

GeneralJim: From THIS ARTICLE. (new window)

That article was written in 2005. How could it possibly be talking about a study done in 2008?
 
2010-12-13 10:30:17 PM
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: As for the bit in bold, that's not quite true, is it:
Yes, it is. It was months ago, not this thread.



Lol. This is what I mean by not-quite-honest argumentation.You're trying to post-hoc rationalize your argument by stating you're not in fact responding to the post you're actually quoting, but instead another response in a different thread, from months ago.

Now come on now. How do you think this sounds to others?
 
Displayed 50 of 303 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report