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.

(Popular Science)   Global warming isn't all bad news, especially if you're a snake, a mountain pine beetle, an orca, a jellyfish or an invasive plant species   (popsci.com) divider line 41
    More: Interesting, global warming, mountain pine beetle, floras, invasive plant species, jellyfish, killer, animals and plants, Hudson Bay  
•       •       •

932 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Jan 2013 at 11:23 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-16 10:20:12 AM
Invasive plants?  This can't be good.  We must waste no time, and we strike by night since that's when they are defenseless as they all need the sun to photo-sensitize their venom.  Be careful, they are immune to our herbicidal battering.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-16 10:48:59 AM
It's good for the professional climate change "skeptic" trolls too.
 
2013-01-16 11:28:17 AM
Don't forget spiders. Giant f*cking spiders. They are just waiting there in the tropics for us to let our frosty, wintery guard down.
 
2013-01-16 11:38:13 AM

I_Am_Weasel: Invasive plants?  This can't be good.  We must waste no time, and we strike by night since that's when they are defenseless as they all need the sun to photo-sensitize their venom.  Be careful, they are immune to our herbicidal battering.


God I hope those plants never take serious root here.

*Looks up to see if there's a bad infestation here*
... People use it as an ORNAMENTAL PLANT? And try to sneak it over here? WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?!
 
2013-01-16 11:46:28 AM
 
2013-01-16 12:02:40 PM
Cheatgrass: Introduced and spread mainly by habitat destruction and our cows all over the west. Cows won't eat it either; they like the native grasses that are being crowded out by invasives.
Solution: we need to kill any other animal that eats grass or preys on cows, so that we can bring in more cows.   And can you feds come in here and spray all these weeds and kill all these coyotes and wolves and prairie dogs, so our cows can have better forage? After all, it's your land. Kthxbye.
 
2013-01-16 12:10:34 PM
I live in Michigan. All the problems with global warming seem to effect other areas of the country and Michigan always seems to come out looking pretty good.
 
2013-01-16 12:18:59 PM

Muta: I live in Michigan. All the problems with global warming seem to effect other areas of the country and Michigan always seems to come out looking pretty good.


Yeah... northern Illinois here. Setting all kinds of records for snow-free winter here.

I know, it's the end of the world as we know it. But I feel fine.
 
2013-01-16 12:19:49 PM

cryinoutloud: Cheatgrass: Introduced and spread mainly by habitat destruction and our cows all over the west. Cows won't eat it either; they like the native grasses that are being crowded out by invasives.
Solution: we need to kill any other animal that eats grass or preys on cows, so that we can bring in more cows.   And can you feds come in here and spray all these weeds and kill all these coyotes and wolves and prairie dogs, so our cows can have better forage? After all, it's your land. Kthxbye.


Cows aren't native to North America.

Cows aren't particularly smart; they can easily kill themselves by eating poisonous plants.
 
2013-01-16 12:21:16 PM

Muta: I live in Michigan. All the problems with global warming seem to effect other areas of the country and Michigan always seems to come out looking pretty good.


Until the Great Lakes levels drop significantly. They're already down 2' from early 2011. If that goes above 5', then a lot of ports and barge traffic will be impacted on the lakes.
 
2013-01-16 12:39:22 PM

germ78: Until the Great Lakes levels drop significantly. They're already down 2' from early 2011. If that goes above 5', then a lot of ports and barge traffic will be impacted on the lakes.


Yeah, those bad boys aren't looking too good lately.
 
2013-01-16 12:52:07 PM

HMS_Blinkin: germ78: Until the Great Lakes levels drop significantly. They're already down 2' from early 2011. If that goes above 5', then a lot of ports and barge traffic will be impacted on the lakes.

Yeah, those bad boys aren't looking too good lately.


It just means there's more Michigan to love.
 
2013-01-16 01:07:42 PM
It's great for the AGWers to get more tax dollars to waste!

/Climate: It's a continuum, folks!
 
2013-01-16 01:09:15 PM
After 3 crappy ski seasons I think I have to sell my ski condo to a denier.
 
2013-01-16 01:10:51 PM

Muta: I live in Michigan. All the problems with global warming seem to effect other areas of the country and Michigan always seems to come out looking pretty good.


Care for a zebra mussel with your lack of fish?
 
2013-01-16 01:17:16 PM

cryinoutloud: Cheatgrass: Introduced and spread mainly by habitat destruction and our cows all over the west. Cows won't eat it either; they like the native grasses that are being crowded out by invasives.
Solution: we need to kill any other animal that eats grass or preys on cows, so that we can bring in more cows.   And can you feds come in here and spray all these weeds and kill all these coyotes and wolves and prairie dogs, so our cows can have better forage? After all, it's your land. Kthxbye.


Prairie dogs have been controlled to the point that they might become federally protected soon, wolves in many places are already protected, and trying to control coyote populations has been shown to be a money sink hole and incredibly ineffective. I'm not sure where you are but in my experience the feds do not hesitate in spraying public land as they spend billions every year trying to get rid of invasive placts...and as heavily subsidized as dry land grazing is and as little beef as it produces it is hard for me to feel sympathetic.
 
2013-01-16 01:48:00 PM
What global warming?
img441.imageshack.us


Cue the idiots to come in and tell us how the entire surface of the earth for 140+ months straight is probably just weather.
 
2013-01-16 02:09:21 PM
I'm an invasive mountain pine orca, why do I get no loving?
 
2013-01-16 02:12:04 PM

SevenizGud: What global warming?
[img441.imageshack.us image 798x558]


Cue the idiots to come in and tell us how the entire surface of the earth for 140+ months straight is probably just weather.


You can count Dr. James Hansen among those idiots, although he only says it's been flat for 120 months.
Link
 
2013-01-16 02:50:13 PM

SevenizGud: What global warming? Cue the idiots to come in and tell us how the entire surface of the earth for 140+ months straight is probably just weather.


www.skepticalscience.com
www.skepticalscience.com
 
2013-01-16 03:00:40 PM
Back in the 80s we had a thing called "chaos theory". It showed that certain feedback systems, and combinations of them would give rise to the so-called "butterfly effect" where the beat of a butterfly's wing could cause a tornado on the other side of the earth six months later. The theory is well understood, and many natural systems (climate included) fit with the predictions.

Chaos theory does not attempt to model the actual phenomena (as climatists do) but rather the type of system. It's predictions do not specify the actual ups and downs, but rather the character of the behaviour. To the climate system, it says two things:
1. No, you will not be able to predict it accurately, over *any* time-scale and
2. The fluctuations will resemble pink noise, not white noise as is commonly implied.

This is why we do not hear about chaos theory any more: it undermines the very basis of climatology.

To those who protest that chaos only applies to weather, and that climate is different, please note that:
1. Actual models of compound chaotic systems produce fluctuations on a much longer timescale than the individual chaotic subsystems - which is why you get pink noise, in which there is more energy in lower frequencies and
2. The records, normalising for known cycles, appear perfectly pink over time-scales ranging from days to about the 100,000 year time-scale, and everywhere in between. There is no change of behaviour.

Specifically, there is no reversion to white noise, which would be necessary for any "climate is the predictable average over a certain time-scale" claim. Pink noise is scale-invariant which means it looks the same as you zoom in or out. Zooming out, which is similar to taking averages over increasing periods of time, introduces the effects of the larger low-frequency components, and the result is that the deviations do not decrease. Thus a meteorological (weather forecasting) approach to all time-scales (including climatology time-scales) is required, and we must accept correspondingly large error margins.

Conclusion: Climatology does not exist as a separate discipline.
 
2013-01-16 03:29:14 PM

chimp_ninja: SevenizGud: What global warming? Cue the idiots to come in and tell us how the entire surface of the earth for 140+ months straight is probably just weather.

[www.skepticalscience.com image 850x578]
[www.skepticalscience.com image 677x461]


Your first graph illustrates clearly the effect of choosing the boundaries when discerning trends. Choose a different period of time, and you get a different slope. It also illustrates the debating fallacy of "straw-man" as it misrepresents the time-scales that sceptics prefer to use.

Certainly, if the data were smoothed to remove sub-decadal fluctuations (as climatists say it should be since they say weather is nothing to do with climate) then the straight line you imply with your "red" trend, would not be in evidence. It would not be straight, and more importantly it would not resemble the shape of the human CO2 emissions curve. Which means the only correspondence is the overall rise, which is a single data point, and is only very weak corroboration.

The reality is that you do indeed see different slopes at different time-scales because, as I mentioned above, climate fluctuation is chaos-driven and therefore has the character of pink noise. You can zoom out further, looking at a longer period of time, and it retains the same character. There is nothing about the period shown that supports the anthropogenic claim against a pink-noise based null hypothesis.
 
2013-01-16 03:49:34 PM
It's only okay if the cute ones thrive? Ya bunch of speciests!
 
2013-01-16 03:57:09 PM

THE GREAT NAME: more importantly it would not resemble the shape of the human CO2 emissions curve. Which means the only correspondence is the overall rise, which is a single data point, and is only very weak corroboration.


well stated

i1057.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-16 04:45:32 PM

SevenizGud: What global warming?
[img441.imageshack.us image 798x558]


Cue the idiots to come in and tell us how the entire surface of the earth for 140+ months straight is probably just weather.



This again? We know you already acknowledge the problem inherent in making inferences from such a short period of time relative to short-term variability, so we might as well skip ahead:

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: [socratic]
Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes?
[/socratic]

Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.



So we know you are very much aware that a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading. You contend that this is similar to what James Hansen used (supposedly only 8 years) in past congressional testimony. This is not the case, as his testimony and the papers it was based on used a longer period of time than that and did not solely rely on some sort of simple linear regression or simple correlation.
 
2013-01-16 04:55:33 PM

DesertDemonWY: THE GREAT NAME: more importantly it would not resemble the shape of the human CO2 emissions curve. Which means the only correspondence is the overall rise, which is a single data point, and is only very weak corroboration.

well stated

[i1057.photobucket.com image 600x350]


Nothing in climate science says the Earth's temperature must move in perfect lockstep every year with increasing atmospheric CO2. There is a lot of short term variability in the climate. We see CO2 caused warming over many decades and it's not some simple monotonically increasing function.
 
2013-01-16 05:02:56 PM

SevenizGud: What global warming?
[img441.imageshack.us image 798x558]


Cue the idiots to come in and tell us how the entire surface of the earth for 140+ months straight is probably just weather.


Forgot to add that you might as well update your graph:

www.woodfortrees.org

If you're going to cherry-pick, it might as well be fresh cherries, hm?
 
2013-01-16 05:38:57 PM

Baryogenesis: Nothing in climate science says the Earth's temperature must move in perfect lockstep every year with increasing atmospheric CO2. There is a lot of short term variability in the climate. We see CO2 caused warming over many decades and it's not some simple monotonically increasing function.


Of course there are short term variabilities in the climate, but climate science absolutely says that CO2 controls the earth's thermostat. Given that it hasn't gotten any warmer since 1998 (as far as I can tell, GISS is the only temperature record that has a warmer year), and in fact it has been relatively cooler in the years since then, that thermostat is not nearly as sensitive or dependent on CO2 as you think
 
2013-01-16 06:45:45 PM

DesertDemonWY: Baryogenesis: Nothing in climate science says the Earth's temperature must move in perfect lockstep every year with increasing atmospheric CO2. There is a lot of short term variability in the climate. We see CO2 caused warming over many decades and it's not some simple monotonically increasing function.

Of course there are short term variabilities in the climate, but climate science absolutely says that CO2 controls the earth's thermostat. Given that it hasn't gotten any warmer since 1998 (as far as I can tell, GISS is the only temperature record that has a warmer year), and in fact it has been relatively cooler in the years since then, that thermostat is not nearly as sensitive or dependent on CO2 as you think


Two ideas would help here. First, CO2 isn't the only thing that controls the Earth's thermostat, and the 'thermostat' is not entirely dependent on CO2. You're knocking down a straw-man here.

The second idea is easily seen with this (reposted from upthread):
www.skepticalscience.com

What you should be getting from this graphic is that drawing trends from short periods of time relative to variability can be misleading. Short-term variability has existed in the past, and of course continues to do so. There's nothing new there.
 
2013-01-16 06:54:12 PM

Damnhippyfreak: www.woodfortrees.org

If you're going to cherry-pick, it might as well be fresh cherries, hm?


That's pretty fresh considering that my graph includes the, you know, latest data, whereas your graph, you know, doesn't, which can be seen quite clearly by any person who, you know, bothers to, you know, actually go to the URL I put right on the FARKing graph and look.

Stellar argument, Einstein.
 
2013-01-16 09:59:04 PM

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: www.woodfortrees.org

If you're going to cherry-pick, it might as well be fresh cherries, hm?

That's pretty fresh considering that my graph includes the, you know, latest data, whereas your graph, you know, doesn't, which can be seen quite clearly by any person who, you know, bothers to, you know, actually go to the URL I put right on the FARKing graph and look.

Stellar argument, Einstein.



In this case, it looks like the woodfortrees.org database is off. Your graph is current. Sorry about that, and I should have checked first instead of assuming the woodfortrees database was accurate.

However, when one does look at the original data you're pointing me to, one thing that stands out is that it looks like you've cherry-picked even finer than usual - you've chosen to display 142 months (12 years minus 2 months). This, besides being a strange choice, is a problem because of seasonality - you've essentially undersampled winter (and it's colder temperatures) for one year. So what does it look like it we plot the whole 12 years:

i47.tinypic.com

A positive trend, although most likely statistically insignificant and definitely not climatologically significant.

Of course, there's the more important point that, as I've pointed out repeatedly and you seem to be irrationally and somewhat dishonestly ignoring, you are aware that the short length of time you've cherry-picked can be misleading. At least have the courage to stand by your own words, if nothing else.
 
2013-01-16 10:14:34 PM

Damnhippyfreak: This, besides being a strange choice, is a problem because of seasonality - you've essentially undersampled winter (and it's colder temperatures) for one year.


LOL. Another Chicken Little who doesn't realize that when it is winter in one hemisphere...TA-DA!...it's summer in the other hemisphere.

Durrrr, I can understand seasonality to potato.
 
2013-01-17 03:31:42 AM

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: This, besides being a strange choice, is a problem because of seasonality - you've essentially undersampled winter (and it's colder temperatures) for one year.

LOL. Another Chicken Little who doesn't realize that when it is winter in one hemisphere...TA-DA!...it's summer in the other hemisphere.

Durrrr, I can understand seasonality to potato.


Damnhippyfreak: SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: www.woodfortrees.org

If you're going to cherry-pick, it might as well be fresh cherries, hm?

That's pretty fresh considering that my graph includes the, you know, latest data, whereas your graph, you know, doesn't, which can be seen quite clearly by any person who, you know, bothers to, you know, actually go to the URL I put right on the FARKing graph and look.

Stellar argument, Einstein.


In this case, it looks like the woodfortrees.org database is off. Your graph is current. Sorry about that, and I should have checked first instead of assuming the woodfortrees database was accurate.

However, when one does look at the original data you're pointing me to, one thing that stands out is that it looks like you've cherry-picked even finer than usual - you've chosen to display 142 months (12 years minus 2 months). This, besides being a strange choice, is a problem because of seasonality - you've essentially undersampled winter (and it's colder temperatures) for one year. So what does it look like it we plot the whole 12 years:

[i47.tinypic.com image 850x567]

A positive trend, although most likely statistically insignificant and definitely not climatologically significant.

Of course, there's the more important point that, as I've pointed out repeatedly and you seem to be irrationally and somewhat dishonestly ignoring, you are aware that the short length of time you've cherry-picked can be misleading. At least have the courage to stand by your own words, if nothing else.


Originally, climatologists argued that timescales of the order of decades were long enough to be significant in climate terms. Now that we have had 15 years of level temps (and the UK Met Office has recently predicted a further five), climatists are quietly shifting ground and trying to increase that limit to longer periods of time, in order to keep the real evidence inadmissible.

I can always tell when a climatist is trying to "frame the debate" in this way because they hide it behind accusatory arguments as you have here - trying to put the other guy on the defensive so that he does not spot the sleight of hand.

Because, of course, if 20 years really is "just a blip", then the original 1978-1998 rise was "just a blip" and climate change does not exist, only weather.
 
2013-01-17 03:35:24 AM

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: This, besides being a strange choice, is a problem because of seasonality - you've essentially undersampled winter (and it's colder temperatures) for one year.

LOL. Another Chicken Little who doesn't realize that when it is winter in one hemisphere...TA-DA!...it's summer in the other hemisphere.

Durrrr, I can understand seasonality to potato.



You would be right if there wasn't more land area in the Northern hemisphere (and therefore more affected by seasonality). One way we can test this out is by looking at the separate NH and SH data. If we compare the two months you left out (January and February) between NH and SH with a simple paired t-test, they're pretty very close to statistically different (df=265, t=-1.47, p=0.07).

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that you most likely cherry-picked slightly less than 12 years since 12 years didn't give you the result you wished. This also doesn't change the fact that you are aware that the short length of time you've cherry-picked can be misleading. Every time you ignore this you're further demonstrating yourself to be approaching this topic somewhat irrationally and dishonestly. I'm sorry but this doesn't go away if you simply ignore it.
 
2013-01-17 03:51:24 AM

Damnhippyfreak: SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: This, besides being a strange choice, is a problem because of seasonality - you've essentially undersampled winter (and it's colder temperatures) for one year.

LOL. Another Chicken Little who doesn't realize that when it is winter in one hemisphere...TA-DA!...it's summer in the other hemisphere.

Durrrr, I can understand seasonality to potato.


You would be right if there wasn't more land area in the Northern hemisphere (and therefore more affected by seasonality). One way we can test this out is by looking at the separate NH and SH data. If we compare the two months you left out (January and February) between NH and SH with a simple paired t-test, they're pretty very close to statistically different (df=265, t=-1.47, p=0.07).

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that you most likely cherry-picked slightly less than 12 years since 12 years didn't give you the result you wished. This also doesn't change the fact that you are aware that the short length of time you've cherry-picked can be misleading. Every time you ignore this you're further demonstrating yourself to be approaching this topic somewhat irrationally and dishonestly. I'm sorry but this doesn't go away if you simply ignore it.


I responded to that claim and you ignored me. Or are you cherry-picking who you respond to now?
 
2013-01-17 04:00:22 AM
Just looked at HippyFreak's profile. He's an extremist post-modernist/cultural relativist/subjectivist. The form of his arguments don't match the substance because there is no substance, only self-gratification through dialectic. Don't waste your time on him.
 
2013-01-17 05:14:35 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Originally, climatologists argued that timescales of the order of decades were long enough to be significant in climate terms. Now that we have had 15 years of level temps (and the UK Met Office has recently predicted a further five), climatists are quietly shifting ground and trying to increase that limit to longer periods of time, in order to keep the real evidence inadmissible.


Two things you should keep in mind. First, periods of level temps have happened in past, and are not uncommon. This is the third time this has been posted in this thread, but let's do it again:

www.skepticalscience.com

The idea is that with temperature is so variable over shorter periods of time you're going to find potentially spurious trends if you choose to look at similarly short periods of time. In simpler terms, looking at a short period of time means the trend has a greater chance of being 'noise' instead of 'signal'.

Second, and the more important point, the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't solely based on some sort of simplistic linear regression or correlation. This is more of a sideshow to the actual science behind it.


THE GREAT NAME: Originally, climatologists argued that timescales of the order of decades were long enough to be significant in climate terms. Now that we have had 15 years of level temps (and the UK Met Office has recently predicted a further five), climatists are quietly shifting ground and trying to increase that limit to longer periods of time, in order to keep the real evidence inadmissible.


For the reasons explained in the first bit, your contention about 'what was claimed originally' is somewhat absurd given the numerous periods of so-called level temps in the past (which are again, due to short-term variability). In addition, the idea that "we have had 15 years of level temps" is somewhat contentious. I'm sitting in front of the GISTEMP data set and for the last 15 years there has been a statistically significant positive trend (b=0.68, R2=0.052, F(1,178)=9.77, p=0.002). Pulling up HadCRUT4, it also shows a statistically significant positive trend (b=0.004, R2=0.023, F(1,178)=4.17, p=0.04). Where did you get the idea that "we have had 15 years of level temps", because as of right now, this doesn't appear to be true for the global surface instrumental record.


THE GREAT NAME: I can always tell when a climatist is trying to "frame the debate" in this way because they hide it behind accusatory arguments as you have here - trying to put the other guy on the defensive so that he does not spot the sleight of hand.


The other explanations are that accusatory statements are common in this context because I tend to respond to those misrepresenting evidence, and of course, one particular side tends to do this more than the other.


THE GREAT NAME: Because, of course, if 20 years really is "just a blip", then the original 1978-1998 rise was "just a blip" and climate change does not exist, only weather.


Again, be aware that the attribution (and therefore existence) of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple regression or correlation. In addition, I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding "20 years" and "the original 1978-1998 rise". Maybe you're referring to Hansen's testimony in 1988 that I brought up in an earlier post. Note that in this case, what is explicitly referred to is a 30 year mean, and he considers the instrumental record since 1880.
 
2013-01-17 05:20:15 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: This, besides being a strange choice, is a problem because of seasonality - you've essentially undersampled winter (and it's colder temperatures) for one year.

LOL. Another Chicken Little who doesn't realize that when it is winter in one hemisphere...TA-DA!...it's summer in the other hemisphere.

Durrrr, I can understand seasonality to potato.


You would be right if there wasn't more land area in the Northern hemisphere (and therefore more affected by seasonality). One way we can test this out is by looking at the separate NH and SH data. If we compare the two months you left out (January and February) between NH and SH with a simple paired t-test, they're pretty very close to statistically different (df=265, t=-1.47, p=0.07).

Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that you most likely cherry-picked slightly less than 12 years since 12 years didn't give you the result you wished. This also doesn't change the fact that you are aware that the short length of time you've cherry-picked can be misleading. Every time you ignore this you're further demonstrating yourself to be approaching this topic somewhat irrationally and dishonestly. I'm sorry but this doesn't go away if you simply ignore it.

I responded to that claim and you ignored me. Or are you cherry-picking who you respond to now?



Sorry. I tend to respond to posts sequentially and sporadically. Hopefully my response should be visible to you now and addresses your concerns.

Also note that the response you did post really doesn't affect what I've said. Your opinion on the wider issue of an appropriate temporal scale does not excuse SevenizGud's cherry-picking and dishonesty.
 
2013-01-17 05:30:36 AM

THE GREAT NAME: Just looked at HippyFreak's profile. He's an extremist post-modernist/cultural relativist/subjectivist. The form of his arguments don't match the substance because there is no substance, only self-gratification through dialectic. Don't waste your time on him.


That's a bit of a stretch from my profile. While I do try to value different points of view, I also try to temper this with an emphasis on empiricism. I try to back up my points with evidence and clear argumentation.

This attitude and emphasis on empiricism while valuing other opinions has served me well so far - it lets me solidly argue for or against against a position while it discourages me from casually dismissing the opinions of others (unlike some people) ;)
 
2013-01-17 11:15:34 AM

Damnhippyfreak: One way we can test this out is by looking at the separate NH and SH data. If we compare the two months you left out (January and February) between NH and SH with a simple paired t-test, they're pretty very close to statistically different (df=265, t=-1.47, p=0.07).


This isn't quite right, is it. Given that there's that much variability, though, it would be useless to test without having to removing some.
 
2013-01-17 04:35:22 PM
I AM an invasive plant species so this is good news for me.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report