Jump to content

H1N1 and Climate Change


Recommended Posts

Watts should have been asked to review the paper since it was his data being used. They also refused Pieke's offer for a co-authorship - something that would have produced a balanced paper.

Currently Watts has two papers submitted to journals. It takes time to publish papers sceptical papers because the climate mafia do whatever they can to suppress them. The fact track given Menne's paper is a typical unprofessional alarmist tactic: publish smoke screen papers that "rebutt" sceptical claims before or shortly after the sceptical papers are published.

huh! where's your procedural concern over Watts' publishing data and making his unsubstantiated claim (trumpeted throughout the denialsphere and on up into the mainstream)... without actually publishing a paper to support his data/claim? What kind of, as you say, mafia... should we label and attribute that kind of action to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 418
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

all lacking or failing to present any independent thought or creativity, all lacking any desire to test, analyze and evaluate actual science in the interests of improving understandings within science.
You got it.

Look at the 'explanation' for why the screwup over glaciers occurred.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/explanation-offered-for-error-in-un-climate-report/

Dr. Kaser, who has been a report author and has also studied the retreating snows around Mount Kilimanjaro, said Monday in a telephone interview that he had sent the information to a “technical support unit” at the climate change panel rather to the lead authors directly. Dr. Kaser said he chose not to go “straightforward, to the lead authors” because “it is always a delicate matter” when criticizing other colleagues’ findings.
Think about that for second. A published scientist is aware of a gross error in the IPCC report which is being highlighted in media coverage and he makes no serious attempt in 3 years to correct it for fear of 'criticizing other colleagues’ findings'.

Of course, it is not simply a matter of 'criticizing other colleagues’ findings' because scientists have no problem criticizing research that is sceptical of AGW. He felt he had to tread carefully hear because he was criticizing 'pro-alarmist' science and doing that is a career killer.

There many many other examples of the pro-alarmist bais in climate science that pressures scientists to keep objections to themselves or find another field to do research in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watts' publishing data and making his unsubstantiated claim
For years Watts has avoided publishing any concrete analysis with an incomplete dataset. The only claims he has made is the photos make it pretty obvious the data is suspect but the magnitude of the error would not be known until he had information from 90% stations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For years Watts has avoided publishing any concrete analysis with an incomplete dataset. The only claims he has made is the photos make it pretty obvious the data is suspect but the magnitude of the error would not be known until he had information from 90% stations.

avoided publishing!!! Actually... your groupthink consensus has it that they've most certainly done their long overdue analysis and simply can't deal with the truth. In any case, they have another target to put into their (supposed) sights... Menne et al.

that's right... photographic evidence! Who needs actual data with accompanying analysis... when you have a TV weatherman/blogger providing photographic evidence. That's certainly more than enough for deniers to make claims over reliability - photographs!

you can't be serious - Watts has touted surfacestations.org to no end... it's outright feeding frenzy time over it in denialtown. As just one of many... many examples... would you like me to post links showing what the dynamic dolts Inhofe and Morano have done with Watts' surfacestations.org project?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your groupthink consensus has it that they've most certainly done their long overdue analysis and simply can't deal with the truth.
Anthony stated that he wanted to wait until 90% of stations were surveyed. That was a completely reasonable thing to do but it took time because he was depending on *volunteers*. Once it was complete he put out a call for volunteers to start helping him with the data processing. Once that was done he started on the peer reviewed papers.

The only people who a problem with the timeframe are whinging alarmists like yourself.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether notification was given is irrelevant. The fact that a scientist admits he had reservations about reporting this error shows that there is a big problem in climate science.

was he was having difficulty extricating himself from your groupthink borg

or perhaps you might actually read the article again - read what he said and recognize the action taken. There were no expressed reservations in reporting - he reported... to the technical support group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or perhaps you might actually read the article again - read what he said and recognize the action taken. There were no expressed reservations in reporting - he reported... to the technical support group.
Yet the error remained for 3 years and scientists who questioned were labelled as dabblers in 'voodoo', Whatever action was taken was obviously ineffective. Whether you want to admit it or not the error was likely not corrected because it was a convenient propaganda tool. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anthony stated that he wanted to wait until 90% of stations were surveyed. That was a completely reasonable thing to do but it took time because he was depending on *volunteers*. Once it was complete he put out a call for volunteers to start helping him with the data processing. Once that was done he started on the peer reviewed papers.

The only people who a problem with the timeframe are whinging alarmists like yourself.

I could give a rats patooey over the time frame that Watts did or didn't do the required analysis... the point you want to avoid is that he & Pielke (since they're a tag team) made an unsubstantiated claim concerning the supposed unreliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record... a claim without any foundation - no data analysis - no supporting paper. A claim based on..... photographs! A claim that has rocketed around and has been politicized to no end. And you accept that? What kind of groupthink are you subscribing to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

an unsubstantiated claim concerning the supposed unreliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record.
Unsubstantiated? Hardly. The photographic evidence shows it is incredibly unreliable and it pathetic that government paid scientists would expect anyone to trust data from such a network. The question on whether it introduces a net bias into the record is not that relevant because the data is so heavily adjusted it may be impossible to seperate the bias from the siting from the fictitous adjustments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet the error remained for 3 years and scientists who questioned were labelled as dabblers in 'voodoo', Whatever action was taken was obviously ineffective. Whether you want to admit it or not the error was likely not corrected because it was a convenient propaganda tool.

WG2 subgroup report... a single paragraph statement that didn't make it into the summary Synthesis report... didn't make it into the Summary for Policymakers report... was never touted as an IPCC claim. Simply sitting there in the thousands of pages - but enough to warrant your typical over-the-top propaganda. I linked to and quoted from the IPCC response statement and also offered a presentation document that actually speaks to the overall declining state of the Himalayan glaciers... the same challenge I now put to you was put to two others who bleated on about this inconsequential WG2 subgroup report single paragraph statement - step up and refute the IPCC response statement/presentation document that actually provides the Synthesis Report statement on glacier retreat (in general) and Himalayan glacier retreat (specifically). Of course, no one seems willing to take up that challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unsubstantiated? Hardly. The photographic evidence shows it is incredibly unreliable and it pathetic that government paid scientists would expect anyone to trust data from such a network. The question on whether it introduces a net bias into the record is not that relevant because the data is so heavily adjusted it may be impossible to seperate the bias from the siting from the fictitous adjustments.

right! Photographs... deniers base their politicized findings & claims on... photographs! Who needs actual data and supporting analysis! Far be it from you to actually have a look at that Menne et al paper I linked to - just how did they manage to identify that overall cooling bias... and actually attribute a cause to it? Given your zealous backing, I'm sure Watts/Pielke will have no difficulty in making their case... if they can ever get beyond photographs! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WG2 subgroup report... a single paragraph statement that didn't make it into the summary Synthesis report
Articals like this:

"Two billion face water famine as Himalayan glaciers melt"

http://www.indianmuslims.info/news/2008/feb/06/two_billion_face_water_famine_himalayan_glaciers_melt.html

Have been a primary staple of alarmist propoganda for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... you cherry-pick your coveted 2001 starting year and throw up your denier web-site cut&paste trend pics, trumpeting your ta-da
That is when the latest IPCC models started predicting the future. It is the ONLY suitable starting point since it is easy to get a model to "predict" temperatures when you already know what they are.

although it’s truly pointless to consider the validity of testing predictions based on your short game – I’ve shown what adding only a single year does to your preferred short game trend scam, let’s play… just a bit more.

I do find it somewhat interesting… that after discussing the actual observed temperatures and exposing your short game cherry-picking… you suddenly are keen to divert towards model projections, particularly after just a few posts back you summarily dismissed climate models because (I paraphrase), ‘consistency to the models can be shown quite easily’.

of course, you use the 2001 starting year justification provided by your go-to denier blogger… the one you cut/pasted the supposed cooling trend graphs from. Let’s see – in presuming to, as she stated, “falsify the AR4 IPCC models”, her original justification in selecting year 2008 as the start year to test the model projections was based on her belief that the starting year should be the immediate year following the 2007 release of AR4 – she coincided that justification based on some arbitrary thought that it should be coincident with the immediate period following the actual release of the models to the general public. As we know… she didn’t get the results she was after (since increased warming has begun again in 2009 given the cycle back into El Nino). So… she decides 2001 is a better starting point because, supposedly, she believes that’s the year (as you parrot) that AR4 model projections began.

notwithstanding the AR4 models are all baselined to 1980-1999, AR4 projections start from either year 2000… or year 2003 (depending on the modeling group a particular chosen model resides within). So – for what it’s really worth, (other than exposing your short game), either year 2000 or year 2003 could be the starting year. But again… it’s really somewhat pointless… to play the short time frame trending game.

... working with a period that over-emphasizes the existing natural influences during that period (predominate La Nina & solar cycle positioning).
The sun's effect was known to the modellers. If they believed it had such a strong role we would see the effect in the model outputs. The fact is the modellers ignore the sun because they believe it has no effect. It is rediculous to say now that they 'forgot' to take the sun into account. If they did forget they are incompetent if they left it out because they believed it had no effect then they are wrong. Take your pick.

there are a few models that do account for solar variability; however, again… if you don’t actually presume to short-term trend (which, again, is a meaningless pointless undertaking), the solar-cycle adjusts for itself over a 10-12 year time frame. By the way, you never actually bother to state which model(s) you’re presuming to falsify with your short game… which model(s) is your go-to denier blogger referencing? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So… she decides 2001 is a better starting point because, supposedly, she believes thats the year (as you parrot) that AR4 model projections began.
Here is here explaination and some graphs illustrating the effect.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/how-does-the-start-date-affect-the-hypothesis-test/

AR4 projections start from either year 2000… or year 2003 (depending on the modeling group a particular chosen model resides within).
Which makes 2001 a suitable mid-point when dealing with ensembles.
the solar-cycle adjusts for itself over a 10-12 year time frame.
The solar cycle is predictable. We should see evidence of that in the ensemble average. We don't see that because the solar effect is believed to be insignificant. That means it cannot be used to excuse the models for overpredicting warming now.
By the way, you never actually bother to state which model(s) youre presuming to falsify
The IPCC presents ensembles. It makes no attempt to seperate the good models from the bad models. More importantly, the alarmists insist on using all of the models whenever they want to show the observations are 'consistent' with the models.

I personally think taking the average of an ensemble of different models is a meanlingless excercise and that each model must be judged on its own. But doing that will make it much tougher to make the 'consistency' argument.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moving on from Climategate and Glaciergate, we now have Stormgate. As mentioned previously, several IPCC concoctions become poster-children for the alarmists....this one about Global Warming causing increasing storms, floods and hurricanes. The Himalayas melting, floods and hurricanes, and Polar Bears drowning are precisely the "pictures" that galvanize people into believing "the Science is settled". Of course, it's far from settled:

The latest controversy goes back to the IPCC's benchmark 2007 report on climate change, which warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s". It suggested part of the increase was because of global warming.

However, the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, by the time the climate body issued its report. When the paper was published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophic losses."

The IPCC failed to issue a clarification before the Copenhagen climate summit last month. Two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts, but were ignored.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a climatologist at the Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, who is vice-chairman of the IPCC, said the UN body was now "reassessing the evidence" and it would publish a report on natural disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings.

Link: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-caught-out-again-on-climate-claims/story-e6frg6n6-1225823075213

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is here explaination and some graphs illustrating the effect.

Which makes 2001 a suitable mid-point when dealing with ensembles.

The solar cycle is predictable. We should see evidence of that in the ensemble average. We don't see that because the solar effect is believed to be insignificant. That means it cannot be used to excuse the models for overpredicting warming now.

for sure - more of your cut & paste... again, not to legitimize your short-game, you now recognize & acknowledge that the model projections actually begin in 2000 (or 2003, depending on the model group) and you still say 2001 is a, according to you, “suitable mid-point” (say what!)... even though your explanation for previously using 2001 was that, as you stated, “it was the start of IPCC predictions”. Which is it... pick one - any one! :lol: (by the way... are you just deciding to throw out 2000 data because... it just doesn't fit your devious short-game scam. Oh my - you do know what cherry-picking is, right?)

as for your “expert” denier blogger, would you like me to post links to her comments where she acknowledges not knowing what she's doing... where she asks her minions for help & advice (repeatedly)... where her go-to comeback when challenged is to invoke the 2nd law of thermodynamics. She's considered a joke within serious legitimate blogs (you know... those hosted by legitimate practicing PhD scientists). But don't let that stop your cut&paste theatrics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's considered a joke within serious legitimate blogs (you know... those hosted by legitimate practicing PhD scientists).
Unlike you, I don't blindly depend on people to tell me what is right or wrong. I read the arguments and make my own decision on which have merit. i.e. I know enough about statistical analysis to know that is there is no such thing as a period of time which is too short compare models to reality - the only issue is how wide the uncertainty intervals are and for shorter periods they are much wider. Obviously, there is room for discussion on the best way to calculate those uncertainty intervals but anyone who says that it is impossible to test models against reality over a period of a few years is either an idiot or a liar.

I also know that using ensemble envelope to calculate uncertainty is the way to go if you have many runs from the *same* model but combining runs from different models into a single envelope is an extremely dubious approach since all you need are a couple bogus models to expand the envelope and make every possible outcome 'consistent' with the models. That is why I ignore any attempt to justify the models based on the ensemble envelope.

IOW, it really does not make a difference what you think of the background of people I reference. The only thing that matters is if the argument has merit. And if the only counter argument you can come up with is 'its wrong cause RC says so' then you don't have much of an argument.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike you, I don't blindly depend on people to tell me what is right or wrong. I read the arguments and make my own decision on which have merit. i.e. I know enough about statistical analysis to know that is there is no such thing as a period of time which is too short compare models to reality - the only issue is how wide the uncertainty intervals are and for shorter periods they are much wider. Obviously, there is room for discussion on the best way to calculate those uncertainty intervals but anyone who says that it is impossible to test models against reality over a period of a few years is either an idiot or a liar.

IOW, it really does not make a difference what you think of the background of people I reference. The only thing that matters is if the argument has merit. And if the only counter argument you can come up with is 'its wrong cause RC says so' then you don't have much of an argument.

whaaaa! No need to avoid the salient point about why you ignore 2000 data in your cherry-picking short game scam! In any case, pointing out the inadequacies of your go-to crew... those you cut & paste from... only acts to heighten and reveal your devious agenda in presuming to suggest a legitimate cherry-picked trend. Yes... most certainly, uncertainty intervals are significantly wider... great for you to finally acknowledge a problem in presuming to short-term trend... but you also favour and want to leverage a period start point (one you select without foundation) because it presents you a period that includes the height of predominant natural influences given your cherry-picked start year. Again... why are you simply throwing out 2000 year data - after all... you presumed to use 2001 as the start year because you (and your denier blogger) mistakenly presumed AR4 projections began in 2001 (notwithstanding she first arbitrarily thought to use 2008... but, obviously, didn't like the cocked-up results - right? Why ignore 2000 year data - other than because the results blow-up on you and your cherry-picking short term scam - right? The argument... your cut & paste argument... has no merit! None.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because it presents you a period that includes the height of predominant natural influences given your cherry-picked start year.
Here is a different analysis that includes all of the hindcast data back to the 50s.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/multi-model-mean-projection-rejects-gisstemp-start-dates-50-60-70-80/

You will find that with 60s years of data the models overpredict the amount of warming but the shorter trends are not statistically significant.

This is another analysis that shows all possible start dates

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/adding-apples-and-oranges-to-cherry-picking/

What it shows that the alarmists preferred start date of 1990 is actually a cherry pick that takes advantage of the cooling caused by Pinatubo which inflates the trends.

All of these different views illustrate that it is wrong to claim that the climate models have accurately predicted the changes in temperatures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of these different views illustrate that it is wrong to claim that the climate models have accurately predicted the changes in temperatures.

notwithstanding your improper use of predicted (versus projected), could you offer any published papers that speak to the inconsistency of TAR/AR4 modelled and observed temperature trends? We've certainly had this same discussion in the past - several times over... published papers have been offered that speak to consistency of modeled results to observations.

let's recap: we were discussing actual observed temperature towards debate over warming versus cooling trends. Your deceptive short term trending game (year 2001 versus year 2000 starting point) was exposed. You deflected to divert discussion towards climate modeling... now including blanket criticism towards IPCC multi-model (CMIP3) ensemble practice. I interpret you subscribe to one of your go-to denier blogger's suggestions that the IPCC is, as you typically infer, "scamming", concerning it's use of multi-model ensemble. Would you mind offering the IPCC's current stated AR4 position on multi-model ensemble?

are you willing to acknowledge the dynamic nature of modeling - that it's ever evolving, continually undergoing refinement? If you can at all lower your groupthink radar, do you recognize existing AR5 CMIP5 direction/initiatives? And... purely for entertainment purposes... do you subscribe to the denier notion that AGW climate change can't be shown to exist without the use of climate models?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo....you seem to be the only one on this board (except for mini-me Wyly) who will not accept any criticism directed at the IPCC. Regardless of one's position on AGW, it has become painfully obvious for some time that the IPCC is in need of major reform. AR7 was only the tip of the iceberg. Canada's leading IPCC contributor - Andrew Weaver - has now formally gone on record saying as such. This in no way relegates all IPCC science as "bad" science. It simply reinforces the fact that Climate Change science is too important to be kept in the hands of an advocacy group, headed by a corrupt chairman, utilizing questionable reporting procedures. Open your eyes and ears Waldo - and join the debate.

A senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations' panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled.

Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, says the leadership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has allowed it to advocate for action on global warming, rather than serve simply as a neutral science advisory body.

"There's been some dangerous crossing of that line," said Dr. Weaver yesterday, echoing the published sentiments of other leading climate scientists in the United States and Europe this week.

"Some might argue we need a change in some of the upper leadership of the IPCC, who are perceived as becoming advocates," he told Canwest News Service. "I think that is a very legitimate question."

Dr. Weaver also says the IPCC has become too large and unwieldy. He says its periodic reports, such as the 3,000 page, 2007 report that won the Nobel Prize, are eating up valuable academic resources and driving scientists to produce work on tight, artificial deadlines, at the expense of other, longer-term inquiries that are equally important to understanding climate change.

"The problem we have is that the IPCC process has taken on a life of its own," says Dr. Weaver, a climate-modelling physicist who co-authored chapters in the past three IPCC reports.

"I think the IPCC needs a fundamental shift."

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2488036

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

could you offer any published papers that speak to the inconsistency of TAR/AR4 modelled and observed temperature trends?
Truth is truth no matter where is it published.
We've certainly had this same discussion in the past - several times over... published papers have been offered that speak to consistency of modeled results to observations.
And those published papers used methods which I consider to be crap. Frankly, peer review is a next to useless criterion in climate science because so much crap gets through peer review in the name of 'promoting the cause'.
Your deceptive short term trending game (year 2001 versus year 2000 starting point) was exposed.
2001 is perfectly appropriate start date based on the publication date of the SRES scenarios. I am not waste time with your nonsense about short trends - cooling is cooling even if you think you can wish it would go away.
now including blanket criticism towards IPCC multi-model (CMIP3) ensemble practice.
It is politically motivated science because

1) more models means more spread so it harder for people to realize the models are crap.

2) The IPCC does not want to exclude obviously bad models for fear of upsetting the governments that paid for them.

that it's ever evolving, continually undergoing refinement?
And each time they change the models we have to wait 10-15 years to see if they are any good. If AR5 comes out in 2014 it will be 2025 before we could possibly justify any policies based on them. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth is truth no matter where is it published.

translation: sorry, no I can't produce any published papers... however, the "truth" from all my go-to denier bloggers (none of who actually do any real science/research... or publish any papers) is the "truth" that warms me all over. The fact that denier blogger "truthiness" fit's my personal belief/agenda is purely coincidental.

And those published papers used methods which I consider to be crap. Frankly, peer review is a next to useless criterion in climate science because so much crap gets through peer review in the name of 'promoting the cause'.

translation: why do I need to keep repeating my conspiracy position... don't you get it, after all this time - don't you get it! Besides... I know those methods are crap... they're just crap - I know it, cause my go-to denier bloggers assure me that's the case.

2001 is perfectly appropriate start date based on the publication date of the SRES scenarios. I am not waste time with your nonsense about short trends - cooling is cooling even if you think you can wish it would go away.

translation: even though I first stated the choice of 2001 was based on my (and my go-to denier blogger's) misunderstanding that it was the year IPCC projections started... once it was pointed out to me that year 2000 was actually the start date of AR4 projections (or 2003, depending on model group chosen)... I changed my mind and now will claim that 2001 was chosen based on the actual publication date. This is not at all inconsistent and you should recognize there is no hypocrisy in my flipping rationale once my initial error was pointed out to me. Even though I've acknowledged problems with short term trending (e.g. uncertainty) I'm not prepared to (also) acknowledge that my cherry-picking of 2001 best maximizes the natural influences at play during my cherry-picked short time frame. Look... I know I previously stated that "17 years was probably a reasonable time period for legitimate trending"... and I know that's even been pointed to me as inconsistent with standard time frames for legitimate trending... I don't care about what I previously stated, or what standards suggest. I know the truth - the truth is the truth!

It is politically motivated science because

1) more models means more spread so it harder for people to realize the models are crap.

2) The IPCC does not want to exclude obviously bad models for fear of upsetting the governments that paid for them.

translation: Although it may appear I don't know what I'm talking about... trust me... the ensembles are a part of the conspiracy. There's no way, the individual models can be isolated from the ensembles and run separately to isolate the per/model results. Oh wait... there is? Look... quit asking me what the IPCC actually states - how should I know what the stated position of the IPCC is on AR4 multi-model ensembles? You mean, you actually expect me to read their stuff? C'mon...

And each time they change the models we have to wait 10-15 years to see if they are any good. If AR5 comes out in 2014 it will be 2025 before we could possibly justify any policies based on them.

translation: Look... I know I've stated models are crap - just why do they keep messin wit da crap! Just why are they always presuming to advance science and improve the models... have I mentioned they're crap? All this talk of dynamic evolution/refinement in model practices and underlying advances in related science seems fishy to me - where's my kind of truth in any of that? What are they up to - anyway... "groupthink"! I tell ya, it's more brazen groupthink at play - don't you see it? Why don't you get it - what's wrong with you... anyway?

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
      10,712
    • 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...