Jump to content

Copenhagen


Recommended Posts

If we do something about it and are wrong, then there really is no major consequence.

Aside from the tens of millions ruined and killed because massive resources are turned towards a completely useless endeavor?

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Today at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen, the UK Met Office declared the past 10 years as the warmest in recorded history. Figures released show that despite 1998 being the warmest year on record, the noughties has been the warmest decade recorded in 160 years. In recognition of the failed and misguided Hackergate attempts to derail the conference, the Met Office also released the raw data from around 1,500 global monitoring stations... in a separate announcement today, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in Geneva said today that 2009 will be one of the 10 warmest individual years recorded.

“Noughties’ confirmed as the warmest decade on record

The first decade of this century has been, by far, the warmest decade on the instrumental record.

New figures released today in Copenhagen show that — despite 1998 being the warmest individual year — the last ten years have clearly been the warmest period in the 160-year record of global surface temperature, maintained jointly by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Similar results are revealed in the independent analyses made by the United State National Climatic Data Center and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

These figures highlight that the world continues to see global temperature rise, most of which is due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and clearly shows that the argument that global warming has stopped is flawed.

Separately, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has today revealed that 2009 looks set to become another top-ten warm year according to latest figures, with a provisional warming of 0.44 °C above the long-term average of 14.0 °C.

2009 has been warmer than 2008, owing to the emergence of El Niño conditions in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and is expected to be the fifth-warmest year in the instrumental record that dates back to 1850.

World Meteorological Organization - 2000–2009, THE WARMEST DECADE

Geneva, 8 December 2009 (WMO) – The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2009 (January–October) is currently estimated at 0.44°C ± 0.11°C (0.79°F ± 0.20°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.2°F. The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year. The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989). More complete data for the remainder of the year 2009 will be analysed at the beginning of 2010 to update the current assessment.

This year above-normal temperatures were recorded in most parts of the continents. Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average. Given the current figures, large parts of southern Asia and central Africa are likely to have the warmest year on record.

Climate extremes, including devastating floods, severe droughts, snowstorms, heatwaves and cold waves, were recorded in many parts of the world. This year the extreme warm events were more frequent and intense in southern South America, Australia and southern Asia, in particular. La Niña conditions shifted into a warm-phase El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in June. The Arctic sea ice extent during the melt season ranked the third lowest, after the lowest and second-lowest records set in 2007 and 2008, respectively.

This preliminary information for 2009 is based on climate data from networks of land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites. The data are continuously collected and disseminated by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs) of the 189 Members of WMO and several collaborating research institutions. The data continuously feed three main depository global climate data and analysis centres, which develop and maintain homogeneous global climate datasets based on peer-reviewed methodologies. The WMO global temperature analysis is thus based on three complementary datasets. One is the combined dataset maintained by both the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom. Another dataset is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the United States Department of Commerce, and the third one is from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The content of the WMO statement is verified and peer-reviewed by leading experts from other international, regional and national climate institutions and centres before its publication.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guardian UK editorial that appeared yesterday throughout the world - 56 newspapers / 45 countries / 20 languages... (Toronto Star in Canada):

Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year's inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world's response has been feeble and half-hearted.

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.

Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.

But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June's UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: "We can go into extra time but we can't afford a replay."

At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.

Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.

Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world's biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of "exported emissions" so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than "old Europe", must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.

But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.

Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.

Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".

It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.

The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history's judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen, the UK Met Office declared the past 10 years as the warmest in recorded history....

Wow...you don't say? I am sure somebody will be impressed by that bit of "climate news", but I am equally sure that many will yawn as they have already seen this movie. Last week was the warmest cold week ever! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow...you don't say? I am sure somebody will be impressed by that bit of "climate news", but I am equally sure that many will yawn as they have already seen this movie. Last week was the warmest cold week ever! :P

yes, facts can be tiring on some... some also don't do well with reinforcement, or illuminating detail. You should take solace in the fact others (yourself?) will be able to beaver-away with all that released raw data. Ha! The denier's worst nightmare... where deniers can't fallaciously claim data is hidden/manipulated... where FUD is no longer an option. Hackergate... it's good for you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, facts can be tiring on some... some also don't do well with reinforcement, or illuminating detail. You should take solace in the fact others (yourself?) will be able to beaver-away with all that released raw data.

Fine by me....it's fun to "beaver away" dendochronology.

Ha! The denier's worst nightmare... where deniers can't fallaciously claim data is hidden/manipulated... where FUD is no longer an option. Hackergate... it's good for you!

Who's a denier? I just don't give a damn either way. To be fair, it hasn't been a very good week for your side, so it is not surprising you would report the same schtick as before. Keep that hockey stick in play!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure somebody will be impressed by that bit of "climate news", but I am equally sure that many will yawn as they have already seen this movie.

Yes, some of us have seen this movie before, as in the global cooling panic of the 70s where scientists warned of an impending ice age. I guess there's more money to be made from the fear of frying than the fear of freezing. Al Gore and company seem to have caught on. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, some of us have seen this movie before, as in the global cooling panic of the 70s where scientists warned of an impending ice age. I guess there's more money to be made from the fear of frying than the fear of freezing. Al Gore and company seem to have caught on. :lol:

They can't even get their story straight....turns out that the words "likely" and "probably" were struck from the oh so dramatic news (LOL!) timed for our Copenhagen pleasure:

The decade 2000-2009 "is very likely to be the warmest on record, warmer than the 1990s, than the 1980s and so on," Jarraud told a news conference, holding a chart with a temperature curve pointing upward. The second warmest decade was the 1990s.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_sc/climate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, some of us have seen this movie before, as in the global cooling panic of the 70s where scientists warned of an impending ice age. I guess there's more money to be made from the fear of frying than the fear of freezing. Al Gore and company seem to have caught on. :lol:

Pliny, here's an example of a poster who submits this as a grand conspiracy to make Al Gore rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....., the Met Office also released the raw data from around 1,500 global monitoring stations... in a separate announcement today, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in Geneva said today that 2009 will be one of the 10 warmest individual years recorded.

Be suspicious of those 1500 monitoring stations and where they are located. A good number of them are smack dab in the middle of urban environments. Cities do create a warmer micro climate that is localized. If you exclude that set of data (I consider it unrealiable) from the overall data (stations in remote areas) then you have a clearer picture of the overall rise or decline of global temperatures.

One thing that a friend said to me last week might make some kind of sense. Iceburgs are all over the place, and ice shelves are breaking up and such and the currents carry these iceburgs around, would it be reasonable to say that these iceburgs are cooling the waters they flow through? In turn cooling the air and the rest of the planet? Put a lot of ice in your glass of water and what happens? On a large scale this I'd say is possible. But anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...indeed...it has made Al Gore very rich.

And that was the intention from the beginning I take it - to make Al Gore and Whoopi Goldberg wealthy ? Maybe the world's scientists are selfless after all, I mean they cared so much about Al and Whoopi that they put aside all ethics to work for their cause...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that was the intention from the beginning I take it - to make Al Gore and Whoopi Goldberg wealthy ? Maybe the world's scientists are selfless after all, I mean they cared so much about Al and Whoopi that they put aside all ethics to work for their cause...

....and Big Al didn't even share his Oscar with them.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/al-gore-oscar-global-warming.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be suspicious of those 1500 monitoring stations and where they are located. A good number of them are smack dab in the middle of urban environments. Cities do create a warmer micro climate that is localized.

Yes we must be suspicious because the people monitoring the stations and the good folks that compile the data are completely unaware of the microclimates in urban areas. Or the microclimates in sheltered areas, or other areas that have some mitigating geographic factor that create microclimates such as Shangri-la or caves. Are there any monitoring stations in caves? Because I would disregard that data because it might be biased towards dampness, darkness or rockiness. If they predict the future climate to be damp, dark and stalagmitey we know they got the data from monitoring stations in caves.

One thing that a friend said to me last week might make some kind of sense. Iceburgs are all over the place, and ice shelves are breaking up and such and the currents carry these iceburgs around, would it be reasonable to say that these iceburgs are cooling the waters they flow through? In turn cooling the air and the rest of the planet? Put a lot of ice in your glass of water and what happens? On a large scale this I'd say is possible. But anyways.

Yeah I noticed that when the ice melted in my glass of pop, the whole room cooled down quite a bit, except for the spot near the fireplace, which was pretty much the rest of the room. Which would lead me to conclude that since iceburgs "are all over the place" the ones near active volcanoes probably wouldn't cool things down too much. But check with your friend to see if that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pliny, here's an example of a poster who submits this as a grand conspiracy to make Al Gore rich.

Who said anything about a Gore conspiracy? Perhaps you skipped over the words "caught on". Just as the Ideal Toy company caught onto Shirley Temple in the 30s and made millions with a look-alike doll, as did other companies by releasing other celebrity dolls. Similarly, Gore caught onto the global warming frenzy and became wealthy in the process. Is that clearer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the link above stating a manifesto published by 56 newspapers:

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions.

Now, what 56 newspapers have to say about anything is largely irrelevant in this day and age but this quote is inadvertently useful.

As long as environmental protection is tied to "social justice", we won't protect the environment.

----

I have a suspicion that Copenhagen will be a sad repeat of Kyoto: everyone will send the bill to the US. Even Obama will have to disagree with that - if not now, certainly later.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that was the intention from the beginning I take it - to make Al Gore and Whoopi Goldberg wealthy ? Maybe the world's scientists are selfless after all, I mean they cared so much about Al and Whoopi that they put aside all ethics to work for their cause...

Speaking of Whoopi. Did you know she earned that nickname for being overly flatulent? Now, seeing that flatulence supposedly increases GHG, that global warming culprit, perhaps she should do her part by putting a cork in it. You know, as her personal contribution to reducing Green House Gases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen, the UK Met Office declared the past 10 years as the warmest in recorded history. Figures released show that despite 1998 being the warmest year on record, the noughties has been the warmest decade recorded in 160 years. In recognition of the failed and misguided Hackergate attempts to derail the conference, the Met Office also released the raw data from around 1,500 global monitoring stations... in a separate announcement today, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) in Geneva said today that 2009 will be one of the 10 warmest individual years recorded.

“Noughties’ confirmed as the warmest decade on record

World Meteorological Organization - 2000–2009, THE WARMEST DECADE

Released just in time for the Copenhagen summit. A convenient truth, no doubt.

All the news before this was the concern that climate models had incorrectly predicted climate change since 1998? Or is that too inconvenient?

Maybe I can find a link for that claim?

Oh..here's one!

Note the IPCC acknowledged what she said.

Oh and another...

here

We may be in the warmest decade in the last 160 years but the models don't predict what they should have if "anthropogenic" warming were the determining factor.

We have already reached the peak and now we are in the warmest decade on record? It dropped and then plateaued but it is still the warmest...hmm...further study on my part is necessary I think. Do you think you should study some more too, Waldo or are you pretty much settled in?

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the link above stating a manifesto published by 56 newspapers:

Now, what 56 newspapers have to say about anything is largely irrelevant in this day and age but this quote is inadvertently useful.

As long as environmental protection is tied to "social justice", we won't protect the environment.

----

I have a suspicion that Copenhagen will be a sad repeat of Kyoto: everyone will send the bill to the US. Even Obama will have to disagree with that - if not now, certainly later.

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions.

We ruined da lives o' d'ose po' folk but we's heah to hep 'em now. Heh! Heh! Wink! Wink! Nudge! Nudge! D'ey won't be emittin' nuttin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said anything about a Gore conspiracy? Perhaps you skipped over the words "caught on". Just as the Ideal Toy company caught onto Shirley Temple in the 30s and made millions with a look-alike doll, as did other companies by releasing other celebrity dolls. Similarly, Gore caught onto the global warming frenzy and became wealthy in the process. Is that clearer?

So when did they figure out that there was more money to be made ? Before the scientists started cooking the numbers or after ? Who planned the whole thing ? The whole plot, I mean ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be suspicious of those 1500 monitoring stations and where they are located. A good number of them are smack dab in the middle of urban environments. Cities do create a warmer micro climate that is localized. If you exclude that set of data (I consider it unrealiable) from the overall data (stations in remote areas) then you have a clearer picture of the overall rise or decline of global temperatures.

myth born out ignorance on how temp data is gathered and which has been thoughly disproven...urban temp stations are paired with rural stations ...in something like 42%(if recall correctly) urban temps were cooler than rural stations...
One thing that a friend said to me last week might make some kind of sense. Iceburgs are all over the place, and ice shelves are breaking up and such and the currents carry these iceburgs around, would it be reasonable to say that these iceburgs are cooling the waters they flow through? In turn cooling the air and the rest of the planet? Put a lot of ice in your glass of water and what happens? On a large scale this I'd say is possible. But anyways.
the same idea occurred to me but it's improbable.....what happens to the ice in your glass? it melts and it all becomes room temp, any cooling is very local and temporary...the amount of ice in the oceans is extremely small when compared to the entire contents of the oceans...the warmer oceans themselves are responsible for much of the breakup of of ice shelves...just as you would expect if you dumped ice cubes into a pot of water warming on the stove, a momentary drop in temp then continued rise in temp as the frozen H20 absorbs heat.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Released just in time for the Copenhagen summit. A convenient truth, no doubt.

All the news before this was the concern that climate models had incorrectly predicted climate change since 1998? Or is that too inconvenient?

Maybe I can find a link for that claim?

Oh..here's one!

oh yeah that's a real honest scientific method, cherry picking a starting date of 1998 an el Niño year lol...automatic fail with that attempt...

Oh and another...

here

We may be in the warmest decade in the last 160 years but the models don't predict what they should have if "anthropogenic" warming were the determining factor.

We have already reached the peak and now we are in the warmest decade on record? It dropped and then plateaued but it is still the warmest...hmm...further study on my part is necessary I think. Do you think you should study some more too, Waldo or are you pretty much settled in?

wow that's a great link, try understand what you read next time before you give a link that supports Climate Change...temperatures never rise or falls in straight lines...there are rises, falls and plateaus that's the way it always has been and always will be, it's why they plot data on graphs to determine trends.... :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, some of us have seen this movie before, as in the global cooling panic of the 70s where scientists warned of an impending ice age. I guess there's more money to be made from the fear of frying than the fear of freezing. Al Gore and company seem to have caught on. :lol:

I trust you didn't actually pay money for that mythical movie... skeptic/deniers just keep on recycling that ole myth - well done capricorn! Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s... study: THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then

dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

Don't you be worrying bout Al... his long standing environmental activism through his 30+ year Congressional and Vice-Presidential periods is on record to certainly attest to how far back he actually did catch on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be suspicious of those 1500 monitoring stations and where they are located. A good number of them are smack dab in the middle of urban environments. Cities do create a warmer micro climate that is localized. If you exclude that set of data (I consider it unrealiable) from the overall data (stations in remote areas) then you have a clearer picture of the overall rise or decline of global temperatures.

Yes we must be suspicious because the people monitoring the stations and the good folks that compile the data are completely unaware of the microclimates in urban areas. Or the microclimates in sheltered areas, or other areas that have some mitigating geographic factor that create microclimates such as Shangri-la or caves. Are there any monitoring stations in caves? Because I would disregard that data because it might be biased towards dampness, darkness or rockiness. If they predict the future climate to be damp, dark and stalagmitey we know they got the data from monitoring stations in caves.

myth born out ignorance on how temp data is gathered and which has been thoughly disproven...urban temp stations are paired with rural stations ...in something like 42%(if recall correctly) urban temps were cooler than rural stations...

'urban heat islands' touched upon briefly within MLW, in regards that bumpkin Watts surfacestations.org initiative here:

although globally focused, a well recognized and often cited study authored by David Parker of the Hadley Centre, Met Office: A Demonstration That Large-Scale Warming Is Not Urban

Abstract
: On the premise that urban heat islands are strongest in calm conditions but are largely absent in windy weather, daily minimum and maximum air temperatures for the period 1950–2000 at a worldwide selection of land stations are analyzed separately for windy and calm conditions, and the global and regional trends are compared. The trends in temperature are almost unaffected by this subsampling, indicating that urban development and other local or instrumental influences have contributed little overall to the observed warming trends. The trends of temperature averaged over the selected land stations worldwide are in close agreement with published trends based on much more complete networks, indicating that the smaller selection used here is sufficient for reliable sampling of global trends as well as interannual variations. A small tendency for windy days to have warmed more than other days in winter over Eurasia is the opposite of that expected from urbanization and is likely to be a consequence of atmospheric circulation changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Don't you be worrying bout Al... his long standing environmental activism through his 30+ year Congressional and Vice-Presidential periods is on record to certainly attest to how far back he actually did catch on.

That's why we ignored him....and continued to produce over 500 million internal combustion engines.

Count all the votes! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...