Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

Sorry - generalized statements mean nothing. What *specific* conclusions are you talking about? That the world is warming and humans are a contributing cause? Well I agree. That CO2 is a GHG? I agree too. That our knowledge of the consequences of increased CO2 is certain enough to justify causing real harm today? I don't agree.

nice! Once again, you weasel word it... as you've done in the past, you refuse to accept that humans are the principal contributing factor. Let me try once again... let me ask you to state what your alternative principal cause is? In the past you've refused to respond to this request. Apparently, it's a problem for you.

what "real harm today" are you claiming now? That taking initiatives to increase the percentage of alternative sourced energy... that's harmful? That working toward binding emission reduction commitments... that's harmful? That eliminating all subsidies for fossil-fuels... that's harmful? C'mon, step up... explain yourself... just what is the "real harm today" you're so concerned over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bottom line: I believe in the scientific process. I don't believe in scientists.

In terms of skills and ability there are plenty of people who are just as smart as any "top" scientist. The only difference is they choose a career in private industry where their skills were directed towards practical objectives. Some of these people have blogs. You have to actually read the blogs to determine which ones are run by smart people with a deep knowledge of the material and which ones are just political rants. Most alarmists what to assume that all skeptical blogs are the latter because it allows them the preserve the illusion that there is nothing wrong with their institutions.

we haven't seen much of your conspiracy theme lately... of course, it's always your underlying play. As you've been challenged in the past, even if you could come up with a half-dozen scientists... even a dozen... that you claim are fraudsters/liars/cheats/etc., that would still represent the most miniscule percentage of the overall world-wide complement. The overall complement of scientists you're so willing to trash, simply based on your conspiracy rants and your preference for fake-skeptic "scientists" (aka bloggers) and your favoured "blog science"... the kind that never/rarely gets formally published!

as before, this, your latest conspiracy play simply lines up with your many past statements detailing your, "themes of conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption, selling disaster porn, rent seeking, etc., etc., etc.".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What causes someone to accept blog posts over peer reviewed papers, produced by the world's top scientists? And why would they want to prolong the use of fossil fuels when they are harmful on so many fronts?

I have a hard time understanding the conspiracy theory rationale that deniers cling to. They remind me of young earth creationists. Why do people choose to be embarrassingly on the wrong side of the collective evidence produced by the foremost experts from around the world? Creationists have the excuse of being indoctrinated at a young age, facing the effects of brainwashing plus familial and social systems that are difficult to escape from.

This isn't the case for deniers though; their conspiracy belief was a choice. So what's the motivation? A small percentage directly benefit from fossil fuel profits though I'd bet that most do not. So do they just feel it's their duty as conservative foot soldiers to put corporate interests ahead of humanity's? To borrow a Bill Maher phrase it appears that most are "just corporate America's useful idiots"

Good questions. I ask the same of those against GMOs and nuclear energy.

I also ask the same questions to "alarmists" that are predicting the collapse of civilization due to climate change.

I am with Vaclav Smil:

"Because of the complex and poorly understood feedback mechanisms involved, he concludes that “even our most complex models are only elaborate speculations.” And although he does expect continued warming, he thinks that the overall effects will be manageable, with little damage done to crop production and a relatively small rise in sea level. Smil also cautions that excessive concern about climate distracts attention from other pressing environmental threats, including those generated by invasive species, water shortages, and the excessive use of nitrogen-based fertilizers."

http://issues.org/25-1/br_lewis-12/

Are you familiar with his work? If so what do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you familiar with his work? If so what do you think?

he appears to have some cred... is a prolific "generalist" writer... in skimming his 1990 forward writings it's clear he isn't and has never been an active scientist/researcher publishing peer-reviewed journal papers. And he's written nothing (that I see) dedicated singularly and solely to AGW/CC. He appears to say all the "right things" in acknowledging warming, that he expects continued warming, that he accepts the principal human influence on warming, etc.. He appears to divert from the consensus in suggesting a relative impact as simply "manageable effects". One is left to ponder where he gains his AGW/CC expertise from... and what he bases his risk analysis/assessments and uncertainty qualifications on???

your linked article doesn't speak to his "management of effects"... the free book preview that your linked article references doesn't include the chapter(s) one would expect "the management" to be clarified/detailed/explained. Since you appear to be, as you say, "familiar with his work", perhaps you can enlighten in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good questions. I ask the same of those against GMOs and nuclear energy.

I also ask the same questions to "alarmists" that are predicting the collapse of civilization due to climate change.

I am with Vaclav Smil:

"Because of the complex and poorly understood feedback mechanisms involved, he concludes that “even our most complex models are only elaborate speculations.” And although he does expect continued warming, he thinks that the overall effects will be manageable, with little damage done to crop production and a relatively small rise in sea level. Smil also cautions that excessive concern about climate distracts attention from other pressing environmental threats, including those generated by invasive species, water shortages, and the excessive use of nitrogen-based fertilizers."

http://issues.org/25-1/br_lewis-12/

Are you familiar with his work? If so what do you think?

Sound like an intelligent, rational fellow......Suzuki and his ilk would be apoplectic if this view was given any credibility.......I doubt it will see the light of day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he appears to have some cred... is a prolific "generalist" writer... in skimming his 1990 forward writings it's clear he isn't and has never been an active scientist/researcher publishing peer-reviewed journal papers. And he's written nothing (that I see) dedicated singularly and solely to AGW/CC. He appears to say all the "right things" in acknowledging warming, that he expects continued warming, that he accepts the principal human influence on warming, etc.. He appears to divert from the consensus in suggesting a relative impact as simply "manageable effects". One is left to ponder where he gains his AGW/CC expertise from... and what he bases his risk analysis/assessments and uncertainty qualifications on???

your linked article doesn't speak to his "management of effects"... the free book preview that your linked article references doesn't include the chapter(s) one would expect "the management" to be clarified/detailed/explained. Since you appear to be, as you say, "familiar with his work", perhaps you can enlighten in that regard.

I am not yet qualified to enlighten, but my take is that the effects are realtively easy to manage: " He concludes surprisingly that the market impacts of a moderate warming will be “a trivial sum in all affluent countries” (which prorates to about $180 a year per capita), citing in support work by Yale economist William D. Nordhaus." http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-worst-is-yet-to-be

Sound like an intelligent, rational fellow......Suzuki and his ilk would be apoplectic if this view was given any credibility.......I doubt it will see the light of day.

I got his name as one of the most recommended authors listed by Bill Gates and then saw his recent Scientific American article - he is seeing the light of day. I am reading "Should We Eat Meat?" - fascinating stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sound like an intelligent, rational fellow......Suzuki and his ilk would be apoplectic if this view was given any credibility.......I doubt it will see the light of day.

"Suzuki and his ilk"??? Is that the best you can do, Simple? In relation to what the guy does acknowledge, I hardly see how your many past years display of 'fake-skepticism' would allow you to suggest he's an "intelligent, rational fellow". It's clear, you like dropped names of someone who appears to favour no immediate mitigation actions... and "claims" (with what substantiation???) that effects will be quite manageable. But wait Simple... there's a qualifier there... one he attaches to "affluent countries". Even if one were to accept MLW member 'carepov's' name dropping has any degree of credibility, Simple... what about those "less than affluent countries", hey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not yet qualified to enlighten, but my take is that the effects are realtively easy to manage: " He concludes surprisingly that the market impacts of a moderate warming will be “a trivial sum in all affluent countries” (which prorates to about $180 a year per capita), citing in support work by Yale economist William D. Nordhaus." http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-worst-is-yet-to-be... "(Other respected economists disagree.)"

note: I've taken the liberty of adding in a few short words from your linked reference: "(Other respected economists disagree.)"

yes, clearly... as I expected, you simply dropped Smil's name, after reading a most generic summary article on his latest book; a book that dedicates a most smallish portion to discussing climate change and its impacts. So, you were taken with a couple of sentences from your linked article that seemed to line up with your (apparent) personal predilection for "doing nothing".

perhaps you should have quit before you dug yourself any deeper... there's a ton of economists lending their weight to the discussion. And here you are dropping yet another name... one your own linked article's author equally gets wrong in terms of the actual position/writings of your latest dropped name! Perhaps you should have done some basic research to cover your continued name dropping. Economist Nordhaus recently took a group of skeptics to task for incorrectly interpreting and drawing reference upon his writings... here's an example:

The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs).

This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B ). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs.

This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10

My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities.

One might argue that there are many uncertainties here, and we should wait until the uncertainties are resolved. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed. Indeed, my experience in studying this subject for many years is that we have discovered more puzzles and greater uncertainties as researchers dig deeper into the field. There are continuing major questions about the future of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; the thawing of vast deposits of frozen methane; changes in the circulation patterns of the North Atlantic; the potential for runaway warming; and the impacts of ocean carbonization and acidification. Moreover, our economic models have great difficulties incorporating these major geophysical changes and their impacts in a reliable manner. Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers that suddenly emerge to threaten our economies or environment. So, if anything, the uncertainties would point to a more rather than less forceful policy—and one starting sooner rather than later—to slow climate change.

carry on... with your name dropping!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if one were to accept MLW member 'carepov's' name dropping has any degree of credibility, Simple... what about those "less than affluent countries", hey?

Those countries should work on getting more affluent in the next little while. Probably by producing and consuming more energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those countries should work on getting more affluent in the next little while. Probably by producing and consuming more energy.

of course... how silly of me! I forgot that all countries have their own isolated atmospheres, oceans/waterways, ecosystems, etc. ... I forgot that all countries share equally in the cumulative development of atmospheric CO2, related warming and resultant climate change. Those slacker 'less than affluent' countries!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of course... how silly of me! I forgot that all countries have their own isolated atmospheres, oceans/waterways, ecosystems, etc. ... I forgot that all countries share equally in the cumulative development of atmospheric CO2, related warming and resultant climate change. Those slacker 'less than affluent' countries!

.

You mock, but we know that China and India are the "growth countries" for GHG emissions. Even the promoters of Kyoto and Copenhagen recognize that getting those countries to reign in emissions is quixotic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

note: I've taken the liberty of adding in a few short words from your linked reference: "(Other respected economists disagree.)"

...there's a ton of economists lending their weight to the discussion.

I am glad to see that you are acknowledging that the question of weighing the pros and cons of mitigation and adaptation has moved into the realm of economics.

yes, clearly... as I expected, you simply dropped Smil's name, after reading a most generic summary article on his latest book; a book that dedicates a most smallish portion to discussing climate change and its impacts. So, you were taken with a couple of sentences from your linked article that seemed to line up with your (apparent) personal predilection for "doing nothing".

Never have I advocated "doing nothing" and Smil has plenty of recommended actions:

"ET: What do you think the U.S., Canada, and the rest of the world should be doing about carbon dioxide emissions?

VS: Not panicking, but surely trying to reduce the overall level of emissions. Even if we had no carbon dioxide out of combustion we still have enormous amounts of sulfur and nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, none of them good for people or ecosystems. And a high level of GHG emissions per dollar of GDP is simply a sign of an inefficient, wasteful economy. Opportunities are enormous: in the U.S. and Canada we could retain our quality of life (unless you thinks that four ATVs per family, two snowmobiles, and two Hummers are a must for living well) by consuming easily one-third less than we do now."

http://www.robertbryce.com/articles/351-an-interview-with-vaclav-smil

Thanks for the info on Nordhaus, so far I see no contradictions between him and Smil.

carry on... with your name dropping!

Nicholas Stern - what do you think about his predictions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad to see that you are acknowledging that the question of weighing the pros and cons of mitigation and adaptation has moved into the realm of economics.

huh! Acknowledging??? Are you that new, that naive to the discussion? I've certainly written my share of MLW posts that have an economic theme to dealing with the impacts of AGW/CC. I suggest you quit trying to "save face" on your failed name-dropping by attempting to belittle the understanding/knowledge of others.

Never have I advocated "doing nothing"

what you did was first set-up your over-riding strawman... your "I also ask the same questions to "alarmists" that are predicting the collapse of civilization due to climate change.", opening line. Why don't you start there... qualify that statement - specifically speak to the what/who you're referring to.

from there you started down your name-dropping path keyed to your focused "overall effects will be manageable" theme... your "my take is that the effects are realtively easy to manage". I work with what you give me... what you provided was an article book review... I indicated the free preview of that book didn't speak to the climate change related single chapter of that book. When one speaks of "manageable effects", that context is adaptation - only. You now present a separate follow-up with your initial reference actually speaking to a mitigating emissions reduction need. Since you initially said "I am with Vaclav Smil"... thanks for, as you said, "acknowledging" the need for emissions reduction mitigation. Just what was your point again? Notwithstanding you still haven't provided details on your original linked book reference that presumed to speak to risk analysis/assessment and uncertainty determination relative to your initial "manageable effects" theme.

and Smil has plenty of recommended actions:

"ET: What do you think the U.S., Canada, and the rest of the world should be doing about carbon dioxide emissions?

VS: Not panicking, but surely trying to reduce the overall level of emissions. Even if we had no carbon dioxide out of combustion we still have enormous amounts of sulfur and nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, none of them good for people or ecosystems. And a high level of GHG emissions per dollar of GDP is simply a sign of an inefficient, wasteful economy. Opportunities are enormous: in the U.S. and Canada we could retain our quality of life (unless you thinks that four ATVs per family, two snowmobiles, and two Hummers are a must for living well) by consuming easily one-third less than we do now."

http://www.robertbryce.com/articles/351-an-interview-with-vaclav-smil

like I said, what was your point again? Other than to, now in follow-up, as you say, "acknowledge" that you advocate for emission reduction mitigation!

Thanks for the info on Nordhaus, so far I see no contradictions between him and Smil.

then you're not reading! You initial linked reference speaks to, "the market impacts of a moderate warming will be “a trivial sum in all affluent countries” (which prorates to about $180 a year per capita), citing in support work by Yale economist William D. Nordhaus". I quoted extensively from Nordhaus' own comments where he takes skeptics to task for misinterpreting and misrepresenting his position/writings... nothing he states speaks to an emphasis on "trivial sums". I suggest you read it again.

Nicholas Stern - what do you think about his predictions?

yet another name drop? If you having something specific to reference, do so. I do find it quite amusing that you've got this "economists emphasis" without really qualifying your own position... maybe start there, hey. Perspective always helps in responding to someone - and it always takes the thrust away from someone trying to dance around his previous comments!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mock, but we know that China and India are the "growth countries" for GHG emissions. Even the promoters of Kyoto and Copenhagen recognize that getting those countries to reign in emissions is quixotic.

I suggest you update your quixotic assessment... at the 2011 UNFCCC COP in South Africa, all world countries agreed to establish a binding international climate action agreement..... that negotiation is scheduled to be completed in 2015 at the COP 21 in Paris. What will actually come forward from the current and ongoing lead-up negotiations? I suggest you wait with your quixotic breath baited! Of course, this is a handy go-to for me to once again play this graphic that truly gives perspective for China bashers... I haven't read any recent updates so I'll hold for others (perhaps yourself) to correct those assessments that have China (at it's current emissions production level) not ursuping the cumulative U.S. emissions until "the mid-to-late 2020s". And, of course, given the cumulative nature, the life-time of atmospheric CO2, accumulation is the reality of the overall impact.

china-us-carbon-emissions.jpg?w=594&h=59

another graphic for your perusal/comment:

738px-Percentage_share_of_global_cumulat

and don't allow the waldo to not look a gifthorse... lest we not forget about 'developed countries' outsourcing their emissions to China/Asia:

carbon-export-map.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what you did was first set-up your over-riding strawman... your "I also ask the same questions to "alarmists" that are predicting the collapse of civilization due to climate change.", opening line. Why don't you start there... qualify that statement - specifically speak to the what/who you're referring to.

like I said, what was your point again? Other than to, now in follow-up, as you say, "acknowledge" that you advocate for emission reduction mitigation!

Point 1: Like me, Mighty AC is a fan of reason and dislikes superstition as a basis for making decisions. "Alarmists" such as those people that think that global warming will result in the collapse of civilization are, IMO, as irrational as "deniers". Both camps often call for actions that, if followed, would worsen the plight of humanity.

Point 2: It is hypocritical to support and use the "scientific consensus" about climate change while rejecting "scientific consensus" on nuclear energy and GMOs.

My position in a nutshell:

-Cut emisions by conserving energy and switching to nuclear.

-Eliminate poverty to allow people to protect their environment and adapt to climate change. If Holland can do it why can't Bangladesh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest you update your quixotic assessment... at the 2011 UNFCCC COP in South Africa, all world countries agreed to establish a binding international climate action agreement..... that negotiation is scheduled to be completed in 2015 at the COP 21 in Paris. What will actually come forward from the current and ongoing lead-up negotiations? I suggest you wait with your quixotic breath baited! Of course, this is a handy go-to for me to once again play this graphic that truly gives perspective for China bashers... I haven't read any recent updates so I'll hold for others (perhaps yourself) to correct those assessments that have China (at it's current emissions production level) not ursuping the cumulative U.S. emissions until "the mid-to-late 2020s". And, of course, given the cumulative nature, the life-time of atmospheric CO2, accumulation is the reality of the overall impact.

china-us-carbon-emissions.jpg?w=594&h=59

Why the emphasis on cumulative emissions rather than current emissions if we cannot change the past? What should matter is how to move forward.

Bit of a rhetorical question since I know that it is due to some ridiculous anti-western guilt complex.

But if people claim that developed countries should be punished for past CO2 emissions relative to developing countries, then shouldn't developing countries pay developed countries for the positive externatilities that result from the technologies that the developing countries could develop in the past (in part due to higher CO2 emissions)? Of course both are ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the emphasis on cumulative emissions rather than current emissions if we cannot change the past? What should matter is how to move forward.

and moving forward, for some countries, presumes on negotiations that factor... that give consideration to... cumulative emissions and the degree of responsibility that various countries hold for current/future warming. Notwithstanding, again, emission outsourcing practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point 1: Like me, Mighty AC is a fan of reason and dislikes superstition as a basis for making decisions. "Alarmists" such as those people that think that global warming will result in the collapse of civilization are, IMO, as irrational as "deniers". Both camps often call for actions that, if followed, would worsen the plight of humanity.

typical dodge/cop-out! You didn't answer the request; again, in regards your "I also ask the same questions to "alarmists" that are predicting the collapse of civilization due to climate change", statement... specifically, what/who are you referring to? Other than establishing a strawman, unless you offer qualification, meaningful qualification, what's the point of your statement... other than as a strawman? I'd like to know what recognized authorities you're presuming upon - simple request, yes?

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

typical dodge/cop-out! You didn't answer the request; again, in regards your "I also ask the same questions to "alarmists" that are predicting the collapse of civilization due to climate change", statement... specifically, what/who are you referring to? Other than establishing a strawman, unless you offer qualification, meaningful qualification, what's the point of your statement... other than as a strawman? I'd like to know what recognized authorities you're presuming upon - simple request, yes?

I was not referring to anyone in particular. I was thinking of a conversation that I had with my brother about the issue. He just graduated from high school and he "learned" that humanity is doomed to extinction due to climate change. If you want names then James Lovelock, Nicholas Stern and Al Gore come to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Suzuki and his ilk"??? Is that the best you can do, Simple? In relation to what the guy does acknowledge, I hardly see how your many past years display of 'fake-skepticism' would allow you to suggest he's an "intelligent, rational fellow". It's clear, you like dropped names of someone who appears to favour no immediate mitigation actions... and "claims" (with what substantiation???) that effects will be quite manageable. But wait Simple... there's a qualifier there... one he attaches to "affluent countries". Even if one were to accept MLW member 'carepov's' name dropping has any degree of credibility, Simple... what about those "less than affluent countries", hey?

I have no idea what you are talking about - but Waldo - Smil's writing is one that I can very easily relate to and perhaps mostly agree with. The tone and rational thought process is one that could foster a much better dialogue that the continual, shrill alarmist rhetoric that permeates the "Global Warming" debate.

BTW Waldo - are you implying that you are somewhat in agreement with Smil's views? It's be nice if you could answer clearly for a change - like yes, no, most, some. Any chance of that....or is more bluster on the way? <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not referring to anyone in particular. I was thinking of a conversation that I had with my brother about the issue. He just graduated from high school and he "learned" that humanity is doomed to extinction due to climate change. If you want names then James Lovelock, Nicholas Stern and Al Gore come to mind.

right! Just your run-of-the-mill strawman then, hey! Oh wait... your brother!!! Do you run into/across much from those other names you're pressed to come up with? Keep the strawman faith!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you are talking about - but Waldo - Smil's writing is one that I can very easily relate to and perhaps mostly agree with. The tone and rational thought process is one that could foster a much better dialogue that the continual, shrill alarmist rhetoric that permeates the "Global Warming" debate.

you read a couple of sentences from a guy reviewing a book... and suddenly the book writer is your guy... cause, apparently, you like the suggestion that "effects will be quite easily managed"! Of course, you do. Let me put the same request/challenge to you - since you're suddenly so enamored with the guy, extend upon that book review and speak to the presumed rationale behind the suggestion of "easily managed effects". Notwithstanding, of course, your new found guy isn't an active scientist focused on AGW/CC. Take a shot, Simple.

BTW Waldo - are you implying that you are somewhat in agreement with Smil's views? It's be nice if you could answer clearly for a change - like yes, no, most, some. Any chance of that....or is more bluster on the way? <_<

you define what you presume are your new found guy's views Simple. And like I said, your past MLW history of outright denial is easily and quite readily available... that's my reference to your apparent contradiction in suggesting your new found guy is, as you declared him, an "intelligent, rational fellow"

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
      10,717
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Watson Winnefred
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

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