Jump to content

H1N1 and Climate Change


Recommended Posts

Did you even read the second link I gave?

ya... as much as I now need a shower after visiting McIntyre's cesspool... all I read is continued self-serving whining.

of course, the role of the IPCC reviewers was to evaluate all published papers for consideration... on their merits. Your guys don't like that the merits of their paper weren't being considered; ultimately reference was included within AR4 WG1 Chapter 3 - Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change, page 244; specifically:

McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically signifi cant. In addition, observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans (Chapter 10), owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land.

I note McKitrick kept at it, publishing the same theme again in 2007 - again, with the co-author denier extraordinaire, Michaels... but, hey now... again, in your skeptical world, just how do those McKitrick/Michaels guys get their stuff published??? I mean, after all, that counters your spin on peer-review being against skeptical papers... how can this be happening - just how are they managing to get published?

In any case, along the way, other scientists took McKitrick/Michaels to task - I'm particularly fond of this refute to McKitrick and Michaels (2007) & De Laat and Maurellis (2006), if only to allow you to dismiss it simply based on your aversion to the author. In any case, I can't find countering comments or updates from McKitrick/Michaels or De Laat/Maurellis... can you?

Spurious correlations between recent warming and indices of local economic activity

abstract: A series of climate model simulations of the 20th Century are analysed to investigate a number of published correlations between indices of local economic activity and recent global warming. These correlations have been used to support a hypothesis that the observed surface warming record has been contaminated in some way and thus overestimates true global warming. However, the basis of the results are correlations over a very restricted set of locations (predominantly western Europe, Japan and the USA) which project strongly onto naturally occurring patterns of climate variability, or are with fields with significant amounts of spatial auto-correlation. Across model simulations, the correlations vary widely due to the chaotic weather component in any short-term record. The reported correlations do not fall outside the simulated distribution, and are probably spurious (i.e. are likely to have arisen from chance alone). Thus, though this study cannot prove that the global temperature record is unbiased, there is no compelling evidence from these correlations of any large-scale contamination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 418
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest TrueMetis

Did you even read the second link I gave?

1) Its not talking about a journal - the IPCC report which is supposed to cover all peer reviewed literature. He has no business trying to keep a paper out of the IPCC report simply because he does not like it.

I know he is talking about a paper he thinks is garbage and doesn't want to be published, hence the line.

The other paper by MM is just garbage

2) He was not joking. The papers were kept out of the first draft of the IPCC report. There were only included after repeated protests by SteveMc and RossMc (read the link for more detail on Jones's malfeasance).

You don't know that.

3) It does not make a difference whether the papers were included in the end - it is the fact that they even considered that to be an option which is problem.

Not really even if it wasn't a joke or him letting off steam everyone considers doing stuff. A person can consider killing another person but it doesn't matter unless they actually do something.

That is your opinion. It is not mine and it is not the opinion of many others. I do not trust these scientists and see no reason to. I am not interested in excuse making or rationalizations. If the institutions conducting the investigations choose to whitewash the events and pretend that there is nothing wrong then I will take that as evidence that the scientific establishment is corrupt and cannot be trusted to provide reliable scientific advice. I hope it does not come to that because I believe the system can be fixed if there is a willingness to confront the obvious problems.

So if the investigation says that nothing wrong happened than something wrong happened. Nothing can stop your preconceived notions I guess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really even if it wasn't a joke or him letting off steam everyone considers doing stuff.
Jones are Trenberth were the lead authors on Part 3 of the IPCC report. You can find it here.

You can find there official replies to the request to include the papers here.

3-145 A 3:44 3:44 Delete "not". You have suppressed the evidence that they DO affect the record. See for example, my paper , Gray, V R, 2000, "The Cause of Global Warming", Energy and Environment, Volume 11, pages 613-629, and McKitrick, R and P J Michaels 2004 "A test of corrections for extraneoous signals in gridded surface temperature data. "Climate Research" Vol 26 pages 159-173 297 3-297 322

Their reply:

Rejected. McKitrick and Michaels (2004) is full of errors. There are many more papers in support of the statement

than against it. 3-145

It is painfully obvious that Jones used his position as the author of the IPCC report to suppress research that he did not like. His job as the author of the IPCC report was to summarize the current scientific understanding which includes minority opinions. He was not entitled to keep them out simply because he disagrees with them. The fact that he tried demonstrates that he is not trustworthy.
So if the investigation says that nothing wrong happened than something wrong happened. Nothing can stop your preconceived notions I guess?
What did you think when the RCMP report came back and said the RCMP officers did nothing wrong at YVR? Would you have simply accepted that and agreed that no public inquiry was required? If not then you are just as guilty of using your own judgment to evaluate the publically available evidence and deciding in advance what conclusions would be acceptable.

In the climategate email case, the information is on the Internet. I can read the evidence myself and there is no possible context that could excuse what is already known. It is not possible for an unbaised investigation to conclude that Jones and the other scientists involved did nothing wrong.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rejected. McKitrick and Michaels (2004) is full of errors. There are many more papers in support of the statement than against it. 3-145

stop your whining... but thanks for quoting the justification, based on the lack of merit. And as it happens, reference did end up in AR4 - if only to highlight that lack of merit within McKitrick and Michaels (2004) & De Laat and Maurellis (2006). I've already quoted you what ended up in AR4 WG1 Chapter 3 - Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change, page 244. I've also provided you a link to one of the more recent refutes to their nonsense. Here... once again: Spurious correlations between recent warming and indices of local economic activity. Why don't you come forward with something... anything... that counters this or other challenges that have been made to McKitrick and Michaels (2004/7) & De Laat and Maurellis (2006). I highlighted I couldn't find anything directly from McKitrick/Michaels & De Laat/Maurellis... perhaps you have it in your citation holdback.

btw - are you noticing my purposeful reference to the published skeptic papers... you know... the stuff you say gets prevented from being published through peer review :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but thanks for quoting the justification, based on the lack of merit.
Jones is not entitled to make that determination as the lead author of the IPCC report. His duties are to summarize the state of the science including any minority opinions. He was eventually forced to include it for those reasons but added a bunch of baseless criticisms. The fact that he tried exclude it demonstrates that he is not is trustworthy.
are you noticing my purposeful reference to the published skeptic papers... you know... the stuff you say gets prevented from being published through peer review
And you think that makes a point? When they can, they keep skeptical papers out the peer reviewed literature. If that is not possible they collude with the journal editors to delay skeptical papers so they can produce a 'rebuttle paper'. If the journal editors won't cooperate they black ball the journal that published the paper. The fix is in. The evidence is available. People with open minds can see this. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change IS required. There have been plenty of accusations of wrong doing and the emails speak for themselves.....at a minimum, they constitute a departure from the traditional scientific approach of proving and disproving - not being afraid of having your theories challenged. More likely, it seems obvious that there has been manipulation, distortion and in some cases - outright fabrication disguised as "adjustments". In fact, this cadre of IPCC gateway scientists demonstrated a paranoia towards people who would challenge their work. But the emails are only a public (now) confirmation of much that was known but not reported. We simply can no longer stand idly by and take the IPCC position as gospel. It must be continually challenged - as all science must be. But the sad fact is, we can also no longer completely trust the accuracy and completeness of their conclusions.

They don't speak for themselves. Many of the points that came out are defensible as discussion, or because whatever they're purported to mean (such as people colluding to keep someone from being published) didn't happen.

That's why there's an investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are dealing with breaches of ethics - not law. There is no rule book or other document that must be consulted to determine whether they crossed the line. There are no technicalities or context that will excuse the individuals involved for the acts which are well documented online. It all comes down to what standard for professional conduct and ethical behavoir that we expect from scientists doing work that is used to set government policies.

Right, so an investigation is required first to see if that was breached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't speak for themselves. Many of the points that came out are defensible as discussion, or because whatever they're purported to mean (such as people colluding to keep someone from being published) didn't happen.
Perhaps they don't speak for themselves but skeptic's POV has been available on the web for awhile. When you compare the skeptic's long standing claims with the evidence in the emails one can only conclude that the scientists behavoir is grossly unprofessional and unethical.
That's why there's an investigation.
Please answer this question: did you agree that there was no need for a public inquiry after the RCMP internal investigation concluded that the officers did nothing wrong at YVR. If not why not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, so an investigation is required first to see if that was breached.
What was breached? There are no clear written policies that can be looked at. The question of whether a line was crossed depends entirely on the biases of the investigator. Investigators that wish to sweep it under the carpet will conclude that no line was crossed. Investigators that actually care about the public perception of science will conclude that many serious breaches occurred. In either case the investigator's opinion will not change the opinion of the public because the public has their own standard for what they expect from professional scientists. Just like the public has its own standard for what they expect from the police. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please answer this question: did you agree that there was no need for a public inquiry after the RCMP internal investigation concluded that the officers did nothing wrong at YVR. If not why not?

No. The findings need to be published, so that the public is satisfied that the system is sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was breached? There are no clear written policies that can be looked at. The question of whether a line was crossed depends entirely on the biases of the investigator. Investigators that wish to sweep it under the carpet will conclude that no line was crossed. Investigators that actually care about the public perception of science will conclude that many serious breaches occurred. In either case the investigator's opinion will not change the opinion of the public because the public has their own standard for what they expect from professional scientists. Just like the public has its own standard for what they expect from the police.

What was breached or not breached would be ethical boundries in place (published or not published) for university staff and scientific bodies.

I don't think the issue is whatever differences in standards exist between the public and scientists. The public looks to pundits to interpret the findings anyway, and those pundits are the ones in this situation who have no ethical body to report to, and exist to inflame situations for their own attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The findings need to be published, so that the public is satisfied that the system is sound.
In other words, you agree that it is the pubic that ultimately decides whether any wronging has occurred and the investigators only collect the information that will allow the public to make a determination. If you actually believed it was up to the investigators to make that determination then you would have to say that a public inquiry could not be justified once the investigators decided that no wrong had occurred.

For me the same logic applies here. It is public that decides whether those scientists crossed any ethical boundaries and, as with the RCMP case, the publicly available evidence makes it clear to many that boundaries were crossed and the only question is who exactly should be punished and what changes to the system are required.

What was breached or not breached would be ethical boundaries in place (published or not published) for university staff and scientific bodies.
The ethical boundaries are set by the public that provides the funding and are expected to accept policies that are based on the science. IOW - it is up to people like you and me to decide what the boundaries are - it is not up to a group of people who are biased by their desire to preserve their reputations.
The public looks to pundits to interpret the findings anyway, and those pundits are the ones in this situation who have no ethical body to report to, and exist to inflame situations for their own attention.
Blame the messenger? Give me a break. For every pundit saying that these emails show AGW is a hoax there is another saying that the leak was carefully planned attack by the oil industry.

We live in a society where we depend on many institutions which are given authority to act on behalf of the public. These institutions depend on the trust of the public to function and they must be accountable to the public and live up to the standards that the public sets for them. I realize that it is difficult to determine what exactly the 'public' expects because there are many different opinions but I think I can reasonably say that a large percentage of the public think those scientists crossed a line and should be held to account. This means that any investigation that does not come to that conclusion will be rightfully rejected by the public.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, you agree that it is the pubic that ultimately decides whether any wronging has occurred and the investigators only collect the information that will allow the public to make a determination. If you actually believed it was up to the investigators to make that determination then you would have to say that a public inquiry could not be justified once the investigators decided that no wrong had occurred.

For me the same logic applies here. It is public that decides whether those scientists crossed any ethical boundaries and, as with the RCMP case, the publicly available evidence makes it clear to many that boundaries were crossed and the only question is who exactly should be punished and what changes to the system are required.

The ethical boundaries are set by the public that provides the funding and are expected to accept policies that are based on the science. IOW - it is up to people like you and me to decide what the boundaries are - it is not up to a group of people who are biased by their desire to preserve their reputations.

As with the RCMP case, the public decides for themselves but they don't render the decision.

Blame the messenger? Give me a break. For every pundit saying that these emails show AGW is a hoax there is another saying that the leak was carefully planned attack by the oil industry.

The former pundits have the advantage of damaging emails that they can misrepresent and quote out of context, though. "Hide the decline" - to someone who doesn't know better - sounds like global temperatures were declining and that fact needed to be buried.

We live in a society where we depend on many institutions which are given authority to act on behalf of the public. These institutions depend on the trust of the public to function and they must be accountable to the public and live up to the standards that the public sets for them. I realize that it is difficult to determine what exactly the 'public' expects because there are many different opinions but I think I can reasonably say that a large percentage of the public think those scientists crossed a line and should be held to account. This means that any investigation that does not come to that conclusion will be rightfully rejected by the public.

Well, you sure have made up your mind.

As a side question, do you agree that we need to hold the press to the same standard as scientists, if not more so since they interpret the science for the general public ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with the RCMP case, the public decides for themselves but they don't render the decision.
And if the officials choose to ignore the public's view they will likely find that politicians will be pressured to get the officials to render a different decision.
"Hide the decline" - to someone who doesn't know better - sounds like global temperatures were declining and that fact needed to be buried.
It is true that many people misinterpreted what that email was talking and this error is something that bugs many sceptics too. However, that error does not change the significance of the email since manipulating any data to hide an inconvenient decline from the public is intellectually dishonest.
Well, you sure have made up your mind.
I don't outsource my ethical standards to institutions whose funding would be adversly affected if they admitted there were serious problems. I do my own research and feel I have enough facts to draw my own conclusions.
As a side question, do you agree that we need to hold the press to the same standard as scientists, if not more so since they interpret the science for the general public?
Anyone can dispute what a journalist says and they are not tolds to shut up because they are not a journalist. Scientists need to be held to higher standard as long as they expect to be taken at their word. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About your stated cooling trend position - and your continued inability/want to support that stated position... there's a rather expected tit-for-tat now playing out concerning Christy/Spencer's UAH data - isn't there? Oh my! Your team is being accused of "Hiding the Incline" :lol:

I'm particularly taken with this blog account that highlights the antics Spencer has been using past/present... of course, all the 'to do' has finally brought forward Spencer's response where, of course, he denies any such intent - notwithstanding his shifting trend scales, without initially acknowledging it, or rationalizing it... allows a downplay of the temperature trend incline and an ability to play with the endpoints. Of course, his now stated rational is most interesting in that he claims he wanted to eliminate the so-called outlier 1998 year data, and feared he would be accused of "hiding the decline since 1998"... interesting that it took him until Dec 2009 to finally do so (by changing scale) - very interesting, indeed. Should I also mention that 'UAH predictions' show the month of Jan, 2010 will be the warmest on record!

In any case, I guess your team's Christy/Spencer won't be providing the support for your stated cooling trend - will they? Still waiting...

Is this "weather report" in support of your argument re climate change?

so sad for you Pliny, you're not even in the game here... in the context of that related discussion concerning UAH trends... that prediction for Jan, 2010 will simply present the latest trend end point... at maximum positive temperature value - ever.

since you presume to have a game, perhaps you can assist Riverwind in helping supply citation support that shows evidence of his claim towards a legitimate cooling trend. You can do that, right Pliny?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jones is not entitled to make that determination as the lead author of the IPCC report. His duties are to summarize the state of the science including any minority opinions. He was eventually forced to include it for those reasons but added a bunch of baseless criticisms. The fact that he tried exclude it demonstrates that he is not is trustworthy.

And you think that makes a point? When they can, they keep skeptical papers out the peer reviewed literature. If that is not possible they collude with the journal editors to delay skeptical papers so they can produce a 'rebuttle paper'. If the journal editors won't cooperate they black ball the journal that published the paper. The fix is in. The evidence is available. People with open minds can see this.

you're so over the top it's truly ridiculous... the criticisms are/were most certainly not baseless. Even though you won't acknowledge it, I've given you but one example of a paper that completely and absolutely refutes McKitrick and Michaels (2004/7) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006). I suggested you present counter comment and or revised/additional papers to substantiate the initial premise presented within McKitrick and Michaels (2004/7) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) - that counters the example paper I presented. Rather than continue your whine, why don't you actually bring forward something... anything... to add some measure of credibility to their premise. As I said, thanks again for highlighting the original rationale behind rejection:

Rejected. McKitrick and Michaels (2004) is full of errors. There are many more papers in support of the statement than against it. 3-145

literally hundreds of skeptical papers have been published... and, of course, where appropriate/needed/justified, scientists have brought equal challenge to them. And yet, you continue your stated nonsense that peer review prevents the publishing of skeptical papers. You tried unsuccessfully to make something of the 2 Hackergate examples where you claimed influence over journals... more nonsense. It's very clear that even if there was but a single substantiated case of "whatever" influence, that's enough for you to lay your blanket charges and negatively paint the hundreds/thousands of scientists and tens/hundreds of journals. But you have to... otherwise your global conspiracy begins to unravel - doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been plenty of accusations of wrong doing and the emails speak for themselves.....
They don't speak for themselves. Many of the points that came out are defensible as discussion, or because whatever they're purported to mean (such as people colluding to keep someone from being published) didn't happen.

Michael, your continuing to state the actual facts is most disconcerting... for some. Equally troubling for the denier crowd is that their little orchestrated 15 minutes has long been over. It's only when they gather around their denialsphere campfires do they even read anything more about Hackergate. But they're also perplexed because they've woken up a somewhat complacent/sleeping giant that typically was previously focused only on the science... they're now seeing more direct rebuttals to their flavour of the day denial nonsense - more direct rebuttals given in a most timely manner. I've read recent examples where scientists have stated their department/faculty 2010 budgets were revised (are being revised) to include monies targeted to hire "technical communication specialists" aimed towards disseminating science for the media/general public. Oh my! What a concept...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was breached? There are no clear written policies that can be looked at. The question of whether a line was crossed depends entirely on the biases of the investigator. Investigators that wish to sweep it under the carpet will conclude that no line was crossed. Investigators that actually care about the public perception of science will conclude that many serious breaches occurred. In either case the investigator's opinion will not change the opinion of the public because the public has their own standard for what they expect from professional scientists. Just like the public has its own standard for what they expect from the police.

whine on! The anal email probing didn't produce your much dreamed upon 'smoking gun'... but even if... even if any degrees of questionable action/event could be shown to have actually occurred (which hasn't occurred), it would be narrowed to a very select few individuals - and none of it actually reflects on the science and the current overwhelming consensus. As Hackergate events progressed... the relentless anal email probing... it truly became quite comical to see the tit-for-tat across the blogs. Each and every hyped denier claim was soundly pushed back and shown for the denier idiocy it was. Truly comical, indeed. Unfortunately, unsubstantiated denier noise does influence public perception - but the science will prevail. The truth will set you free Riverwind - the truth will set you free!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that many people misinterpreted what that email was talking and this error is something that bugs many sceptics too. However, that error does not change the significance of the email since manipulating any data to hide an inconvenient decline from the public is intellectually dishonest.

give it up... your 2 sentences contradict themselves. We've been over that particular ditty many times now - "hiding in plain sight"! When the basis for the presentation is soundly understood within dendroclimatology... when the authors definitively and absolutely define what they're doing, nothing is being hidden. If not, why do you use the word "misinterpreted"?

I don't outsource my ethical standards to institutions whose funding would be adversly affected if they admitted there were serious problems.

you're an absolute hypocrite in saying that... where does the Heartland Institute fit in your ethical evaluations? Or the Competitive Enterprise Institute... or the American Enterprise Institute... or the George C. Marshall Institute... or the Exxon Mobil Foundation... or the Heritage Foundation... or the Cato Institute... or etc., etc., etc.

Anyone can dispute what a journalist says and they are not tolds to shut up because they are not a journalist. Scientists need to be held to higher standard as long as they expect to be taken at their word.

allrightee - just because the scientific consensus doesn't align to your wishes, you offer another backhanded slap to the integrity of thousands of scientists while reinforcing your global conspiracy meme... beauty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're so over the top it's truly ridiculous... the criticisms are/were most certainly not baseless.
Show me anything that was in the peer reviewed literature before May 2006 (IPCC AR4 cutoff date). You will find nothing. The criticisms that Jones added to the IPCC report were nothing but his opinion and were never submitted to any peer review process. Jones had an obligation as the lead IPCC author to include the MM paper in the IPCC report. Jones knew this and that is why he said he would have to 'redefine what peer reviewed literature is' in the climategate emails. It was unethical for him to use his position as an IPCC author to suppress research that he did not agree with and it is unethical for any scientist to defend what he did. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the basis for the presentation is soundly understood within dendroclimatology... when the authors definitively and absolutely define what they're doing, nothing is being hidden.
The "basis for the presentation" is NOT soundly understood in dendroclimatology. It basically crap that Briffa pulled out of a** in order to salvage what would otherwise be a useless reconstruction. He needed to hide the decline in the public graphs because showing it would make it painfully clear that his tree rings were garbage. It was dishonest.
where does the Heartland Institute fit in your ethical evaluations?
Why should I? The Heartland institute was not a lead author on a IPCC report. The Heartland institute is not responsible for one of the major temperature datasets which are used to determine the extent of warming.
allrightee - just because the scientific consensus doesn't align to your wishes
Get over yourself. If a scientist expects me to trust their scientific judgment they better be prepared to demonstrate that their scientific judgment is sound. As far as I am concerned, any scientist who defends Mann and Jones has no integrity and their scientific judgment cannot be trusted. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get over yourself. If a scientist expects me to trust their scientific judgment they better be prepared to demonstrate that their scientific judgment is sound. As far as I am concerned, any scientist who defends Mann and Jones has no integrity and their scientific judgment cannot be trusted.

As I said earlier, it's unfortunate that Waldo has been so utterly duped by the CC establishment. Shame really....putting aside his (or her) narcissistic attitude, he seems to have a passion for the subject matter.... and to continually turn a blind eye to valid questions and observations does science an injustice. Any sort of "balance" would make Waldo a much more effective debater. For Waldo's sake, he'd better hope that the IPCC and their entire theory is correct.....when a narcissist who has been duped finds out that indeed they HAVE been duped, the results are not pretty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the officials choose to ignore the public's view they will likely find that politicians will be pressured to get the officials to render a different decision.

And sometimes this is the right thing to do, and sometimes not.

It is true that many people misinterpreted what that email was talking and this error is something that bugs many sceptics too. However, that error does not change the significance of the email since manipulating any data to hide an inconvenient decline from the public is intellectually dishonest.

If that's what was meant. That's not clear.

I don't outsource my ethical standards to institutions whose funding would be adversly affected if they admitted there were serious problems. I do my own research and feel I have enough facts to draw my own conclusions.

Ok, well your ethical standards presumably include allowing those accused of wrongdoing to defend themselves, and the investigation by UEA will give you that input.

Scientists need to be held to higher standard as long as they expect to be taken at their word.

That's a good point, but inherent in that is the idea that scientists should be taken at their word and commentators should not be. That's not the case with the political media that has developed over the past 10-20 years. They're not held accountable for what they say, and their adherents trust them more and more.

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
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

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