Scientists debunk man made global warming.

zippy 99

Hi guys,

Just come across a few interesting links about a group of courageous scientists who went along to the world UN climate meeting to debunk the man made global warming theory. Just a couple of links here:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=8f5c9829-c459-4d17-89bb-3e3b04d8d444&Region_id=&Issue_id=

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=8f5c9829-c459-4d17-89bb-3e3b04d8d444&Region_id=&Issue_id=


Have a read and post any opinions.

Regards
Ian

fictionaire

I've also posted about this over here

Still no thoughts back from more vocal posters in support of the popularised theory. I guess they must be reading the report.

I wonder why this has not gotten much attention since it was first release?

It just goes to show that there is a much bigger agenda at play since global warming is being rammed down peoples throats almost world wide.

RedPlanet

I haven't read the "report", but seriously... anything from Senator James Inhofe has got to be regarded with extreme prejudice!
That guy is an idiot.

Mr. Presentable

RedPlanet wrote: »

I haven't read the "report", but seriously... anything from Senator James Inhofe has got to be regarded with extreme prejudice!
That guy is an idiot.

But you haven't read it. This is just your pronouncement, eh?

Lennoxschips

In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the
Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

No, scientists don't believe that. No source given either.

Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today’s temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

Nobody is making the case for global warming by comparing now with the "little ice age". Only people intent on muddying the waters are doing this. It's a straw man again.

In addition, something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions
could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.
Let me repeat, temperatures got colder after C02 emissions exploded. If C02 is the driving force of global climate change, why do so many in the media ignore the many skeptical scientists who cite these rather obvious inconvenient truths?

Oh for god's sake, the scientists have addressed all of this, none of it has been ignored. And the industrial revolution and agricultural land changes all started well before 1940...

I don't want to read anymore of this report. It's the same old tired crap...

mike65

tbh all the above was exploded as nonsense a few years ago.

Mike.

fictionaire

Lennoxschips wrote: »

No, scientists don't believe that. No source given either.



Nobody is making the case for global warming by comparing now with the "little ice age". Only people intent on muddying the waters are doing this. It's a straw man again.



Oh for god's sake, the scientists have addressed all of this, none of it has been ignored. And the industrial revolution and agricultural land changes all started well before 1940...

I don't want to read anymore of this report. It's the same old tired crap...

Wow! Tell me, what do you think of the media aspect of what this man is saying? Does it have any truth in it at all?

How about the attack on the IPCC [its beginnings, statements etc..] by other scientists? Why do you reckon their motives are?

I think that all the proposed technologies that we are seeing now should have been pushed for at an earlier stage and without the added extra of ridiculous taxation policies.

I just do not agree with how it is being pushed along in a vehicle of fear. Would you not agree?

Lennoxschips

It's not a vehicle of fear.

The Arctic will warm massively and be ice-free in summer by 2050.

There's a good chance the Amazon rainforest will dry out.

Bangladesh will disappear off the map.

Those are just some predictions. It's up to you to be fearful or not.

NP14

And then there is this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI


MMGW is a fraud. It's a Punch and Judy to entertain the foolish majority.

This is what's really going on.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8677389869548020370

fictionaire

Lennoxschips wrote: »

It's not a vehicle of fear.

The Arctic will warm massively and be ice-free in summer by 2050.

There's a good chance the Amazon rainforest will dry out.

Bangladesh will disappear off the map.

Those are just some predictions. It's up to you to be fearful or not.

What about the scientists who are skeptics on this issue and who have publically come out against the fear and hype of the one sided media? Are they wrong in their conclusions? If so, why?

luckat

One of the figures in Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth that really drives this point (or rather, it's opposite) home is the one on the number of peer-reviewed studies in serious scientific journals, versus the number of articles in the popular press.

The peer-reviewed studies were overwhelmingly giving evidence of man-made climate change. The popular press articles were sceptical.

Scientists who study climate change know that it is happening, it is devastating, and it is accelerating.

Many of the 'scientists' quoted as dissing climate change are actually from totally different disciplines, not experts on the subject at all. Just because someone's a scientist, s/he's not necessarily a specialist in that area.

fictionaire

luckat wrote: »

One of the figures in Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth that really drives this point (or rather, it's opposite) home is the one on the number of peer-reviewed studies in serious scientific journals, versus the number of articles in the popular press.

The peer-reviewed studies were overwhelmingly giving evidence of man-made climate change. The popular press articles were sceptical.

Scientists who study climate change know that it is happening, it is devastating, and it is accelerating.

Many of the 'scientists' quoted as dissing climate change are actually from totally different disciplines, not experts on the subject at all. Just because someone's a scientist, s/he's not necessarily a specialist in that area.

How about the guys who wrote an open letter to the Canadian prime minister?

Their names are and fields are as follows:

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences,
University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of
Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide;
currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University,
Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth
Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of
Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury,
Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics
and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member
and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in
63
Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member,
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate
change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University,
Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World
Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants,
Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and
Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past
president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of
Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville,
Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre,
Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization
Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience
Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
64
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University,
Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of
Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State
University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of
Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert
reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy &
Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands
Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist,
Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief
meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of
‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores
University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University
of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural
Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director,
U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht
University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the
65
Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in
Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official
IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former
professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology,
Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past
board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public
health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

RedPlanet

Jus hop on over to wikipedia are read a bit about Senator Jim Inhofe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
A couple of choice comments he made:

In March 2002, Inhofe also made a speech before the U.S. Senate that included the explicit suggestion that the 9/11 attacks were a form of divine retribution against the U.S. for failing to defend Israel. In his words: "One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them."

Inhofe states, "I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel, and that it has a right to the land, because God said so.

Inhofe had previously claimed that Global Warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state."

In a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World newspaper, Inhofe compared environmentalists to Nazis. He said, "It kind of reminds... I could use the Third Reich, the Big Lie... You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy.

fictionaire

RedPlanet wrote: »

Jus hop on over to wikipedia are read a bit about Senator Jim Inhofe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
A couple of choice comments he made:

And we all know how balanced wikipedia.org is.

I am trying to get to the point of the scientists who is cites, do you have any comment on these people?

RedPlanet

The quotes from the Senator are a matter of public record.
If you care to dispute a quote, the sources are provided on the wikipedia article.
I'm not willing to entertain Inhofe's report because i think he's a complete idiot and has an established record for being hostile to environmental matters.
It's ironic that you are here posting his report on in a discussion on "Green Issues".

MajorMax

you'll always find some idiot willing to ignore the obvious, I guarantee there was someone on the Titanic saying
"all is well, remain calm"
You want to believe that the Earth isn't going to hell in a handbasket, I hereby nominate you for the prestigious "oblivious idiot of the year":eek: award

luckat

Ottowa certainly seems to be a centre of dissent!

zippy 99

RedPlanet wrote: »

Jus hop on over to wikipedia are read a bit about Senator Jim Inhofe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
A couple of choice comments he made:

Again, the normal debunkers to all serious posts around here are in overdrive trying to divert this off topic.

There are various other respectable scientists mentioned in the two articles I posted links off, why not discuss the points made by these people instead??

blackbox

RedPlanet wrote: »

I haven't read the "report", but seriously... anything from Senator James Inhofe has got to be regarded with extreme prejudice!
That guy is an idiot.

Inhofe may or may not be an idiot.

Just because an idiot supports a theory, doesn't make the theory wrong. Are you trying to tell me that there are no idiots who support the MMGW theory?

RedPlanet

blackbox wrote: »

Inhofe may or may not be an idiot.

Just because an idiot supports a theory, doesn't make the theory wrong. Are you trying to tell me that there are no idiots who support the MMGW theory?

[sarcasm]Yeah, that's EXACTLY what i'm sayin[/sarcasm]
Can you tell the difference Blackbox, between one whom supports a theory, and one whom creates it and circulates their own propaganda about it?

“The American people are fed up with the media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific “consensus” that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a 'climate emergency' that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve,” Senator Inhofe said in October.

Rather opinionated for a report to be taken seriously, don'tcha think?

Sorry i didn't source that last quote.
It's taken from here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=8f5c9829-c459-4d17-89bb-3e3b04d8d444&Region_id=&Issue_id
Which is the same link "zippy 99" provided above

piraka

Lennoxschips wrote:

No, scientists don't believe that. No source given either.

Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058. Note: Figure 1 data are available in a CSV file

Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 19(1): 93-100. Note: Supplemental data are available in a ZIP file.

Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.

Copyright © 2007 by Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd. All rights reserved. Article posted on this website with permission.

zippy 99

“The American people are fed up with the media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific “consensus” that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a 'climate emergency' that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve,” Senator Inhofe said in October.

RedPlanet wrote: »

[sarcasm]Yeah, that's EXACTLY what i'm sayin[/sarcasm]
Can you tell the difference Blackbox, between one whom supports a theory, and one whom creates it and circulates their own propaganda about it?


Rather opinionated for a report to be taken seriously, don'tcha think?

Sorry i didn't source that last quote.
It's taken from here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=8f5c9829-c459-4d17-89bb-3e3b04d8d444&Region_id=&Issue_id
Which is the same link "zippy 99" provided above

Really, well I think he is correct in his assumption.

We are provided these images of Pitt & Jolie flying all over the world trying to reduce global warming. If Pitt & Jolie had a conscience they would do it by web link or something.

Stick to the films guys.

piraka

Many of the 'scientists' quoted as dissing climate change are actually from totally different disciplines, not experts on the subject at all. Just because someone's a scientist, s/he's not necessarily a specialist in that area.

Are you talking about the IPCC?

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/people-in-greenhouses-throwing-stones.html

Lennoxschips

piraka wrote: »

Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058. Note: Figure 1 data are available in a CSV file

Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 19(1): 93-100. Note: Supplemental data are available in a ZIP file.

Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.

Copyright © 2007 by Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd. All rights reserved. Article posted on this website with permission.

Right, I've just read this paper. This guy doesn't conduct any original research, he picks and chooses a bunch of temperature proxy studies that agree with his premise and averages them out. He leaves out tree ring proxies because he doesn't like them (or perhaps because they don't agree with them). Furthermore, the journal in which it appears is "Energy and Environment" which is not a journal about climate science, it is a journal from the energy sector.

Secondly, "proving" that the MWP may or may not have been warmer than the current climate says absolutely nothing about the current climate changes. All it says is that the Earth's climate can indeed fluctuate without man's input, but that was never under doubt by any climate scientist. We knew this already, pointing it out is yet another straw man argument. There have been ice ages as well, we know that. When the dinosaurs were alive it was much warmer, we know that. That doesn't mean that humans can't also influence climate.

djpbarry

zippy 99 wrote: »

Just come across a few interesting links about a group of courageous scientists who went along to the world UN climate meeting to debunk the man made global warming theory.

Eh, that's not what that article is about at all. It's about James Inhofe challenging the media coverage of climate science.

fictionaire wrote: »

How about the guys who wrote an open letter to the Canadian prime minister?

Where's the letter?

piraka wrote: »

Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058.

Difficult to draw any conclusions without seeing the full article, but:

• "...eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained..." We do not know what these series are or where they were obtained from.
• "...the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values..." It's the 21st century.
• Why is this study any more relevant than these?

It is worth bearing in mind that any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate; a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence. Anyway, what really matters is not how warm it is now, but how warm it is going to get in the future.

Jack Sheehan

Guys, guys, havn't we had this a million times before? No one is going to be convinced by this kind of thing so why do people keep making threads about it?

zippy 99

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

Guys, guys, havn't we had this a million times before? No one is going to be convinced by this kind of thing so why do people keep making threads about it?

Ive heard a million times before that we are the cause of global warming, AND IM NOT CONVINCED.

If your not convinced dont bother reading the post and leave it for people who are interested.

lostinsuperfunk

But why do people keep making new threads about it? There have been two other threads on the same subject in this subject forum in the last few days. You don't need to keep telling us you're not convinced by means of new threads.

Now it's my turn to be not convinced. The Loehle 2007 paper was published in Energy & Environment which isn't a climate science journal (read a few tables of contents online and look at the editorial board if you don't believe me). It's more of an interdisciplinary journal with a strong slant towards politics and social science. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a strange place to be publishing papers about tree rings and the temperature record. Having said that, Loehle him/herself seems to have a reasonably strong publication record elsewhere.

Jack Sheehan

zippy 99 wrote: »

Ive heard a million times before that we are the cause of global warming, AND IM NOT CONVINCED.

If your not convinced dont bother reading the post and leave it for people who are interested.

Right well THATS WONDERFUL but you're CLOGGING UP GREEN ISSUES with these threads.

zippy 99

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

Right well THATS WONDERFUL but you're CLOGGING UP GREEN ISSUES with these threads.

And your clodding up this thread with your posts. Please refrain.

You have all the character traits of Peter Keating.

oscarBravo

Again with the conspiracy theories. There was a thread for skeptics' views; well-reasoned counter-arguments can be posted there.