Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Climate models used by GWers suck


  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#31    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 02 April 2013 - 11:50 AM

I hate to be a deranged thread derailer but our environment will be destroyed by man made and natural disasters long before climate change significantly impacts us IMO. That being at the rate we are destroying our planet. A significant polar ice cap melt will be all we need to tip the iceberg so to speak in the GW area IMO. Im not much of a graphs and numbers person but thats how Im seeing it go down.

On a side note I found an interesting theory being bounced around about earthquake prediction, Not yet worthy of a thread on its own but perhaps this crowd will understand well whats being talked out and shown in the data and graphs. Ive been watching this one for a few weeks and seems to be somewhat interesting. Also this is a good u-tuber for weather and space phenomenon and does a daily update. I have it bookmarked myself. (shameless plug)




#32    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,142 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 11:58 AM

View PostMerc14, on 02 April 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

Just not the last twenty years huh?  CArbon levels go up and warming goes down but I am the idiot for questioning what the warmers are telling us.  LOL



So does your's.  I love how climate-gate has been completely forgotten or worse, nodded off as a big nothing by you folks.   It was actually a heinous scandal that discredits ALL their work, maybe you should read up on it.
Warming has continued and is evident in the data and the total heat content of the planetary system.

Climate gate was a big deal for the skeptics but nothing of significance was found and certainly no malpractice was evident. Only the CT'er believe otherwise.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#33    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,877 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 02 April 2013 - 12:33 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 02 April 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Warming has continued and is evident in the data and the total heat content of the planetary system.

Climate gate was a big deal for the skeptics but nothing of significance was found and certainly no malpractice was evident. Only the CT'er believe otherwise.

Br Cornelius

'Nuff said and by that statement you condemn yourself.  Sorry.  Climategate was a big deal and seriously damaged the credibility of all the manmade global warming proponents as evidenced by the liberal shiift to the title "Climate Change".

The hysterics that are used by warmers is compleletely out of proportion to what we are seeing and it begs the question "Just what in the hell is wrong with a little warming?"  The last warm period saw a massive increase in arable land and plentiful food production.  The hubris of assiuming the last century was the perfect climatical conditions is absurd and needs to be questioned everytime a warmer starts doomsaying.

Any "science" which finds a problem, whose only solution is a massive shift of first world money to third world economies, must be looked at with a huge amount of skepticism, especially when the money flows through the hands of the very scientists that decided the solution in the first place.  What is cause for even more skepticicm is that after all of the economic destruction caused by this so-called soultion, the temperature increase would be alll of 1.2c less...after 100 years....as shown by the flawed models used to derive the solutuion in teh first place.

Also very suspect is that a primary polluter like China is not required to abide by any treaties dealing with this dire problem.  Why?  Guess I'd have to ask the corrupt UN economist chairman of IPCC.  I have alweays contended that when the USSSR fell, the socialist and communist fellow travelers (or useful idiots as per V. Lenin) found a new home in the environmentalist movement.  Most of this crapola started at about that time and both the USSR and the environmentalist movement have the destruction of capitalism as a primary objective.

Let me repeat that:  Both communism and environmentalism have the same objective, the destruction of capitalism.  What better way to destroy the capitalist west than
abide by the repulsive Kyoto treaty

Edited by Merc14, 02 April 2013 - 12:34 PM.

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#34    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,209 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 02 April 2013 - 12:47 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 01 April 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

"So ignore the climate models.  Go by other indicators."

I prefer science.
That is not evidenced by your preferred sources.  And science is wasted on someone without enough ambition to learn the difference between a climate signal and statistical noise.

Quote

specifically, empirical evidence that shows human produced co2 controls temperature, quantified and shown to have significant net negative consequences.

if it existed, I would have heard about it by now. it doesn't exist.
You will never find those studies if you don't look for them.  You have never even commented on the critical issue here - the earth's carbon budget.  I suspect that's because you don't want to find the answer.  I have pointed out before that you lack the ambition to actually study the subject,  You have not done anything of late to change that opinion.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#35    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,209 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:16 PM

View PostMerc14, on 01 April 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

Bad models,
Models are constantly being improved:  that's what scientists do - look for more-accurate methods, explain how two phenomena interact, make the model better.

Quote

hacked data, cherry-picked data,
Aren't you forgetting who hacked who?  The East Anglia stuff was stolen (hacked), then published out of context in an extreme case of cherry-picking the evidence.  So much for denier integrity.

Quote

suppression of differing views,
I don't know what you are referring to here.  If your study isn't good enough to make it through peer review, it shouldn't see print.

An interesting note:  studies that have failed peer review, then been revised and re-submitted get more citations than those that made it through the first time.  Peer review is having the unintended consequence of improving the studies.

I had an article rejected for being too long.  I'm thinking about trying a treatise, but haven't started yet.  There are many reasons that an article gets rejected.  What is rejected by one journal is often picked up by another.

A herpetologist across the hall from me submitted an article and had it declined with some very uncomplimentary comments.  He let it sit around for a couple years, then submitted it to another publication and won a prize for the best article of the year.

Lack of persistence is not a reason to claim suppression of opposing views.

Quote

outright lies,
I am well aware that many people lie, scientists included.  For example:  on UM we have often referred to Anthony Watts' site.  I'm sure you can find a whole bunch of anti-science sites to quote.

Quote

billions of dollars transferred from one economy to others and frauds getting rich by fear mongering an idiot population (this would be Al Gore).
I'm glad you specified who.  I thought it was the big polluters, like the coal and oil industries (Think:  Koch Brothers.) who were making billions by NOT curbing pollution - and not wanting to adopt technologies that will weaken their monopolies.

Actually, I'm not much impressed by Al Gore, either.  Wish I could get a Nobel Prize for a PowerPoint.

Quote

That pretty much sums up the science behind man-made global warming, oops, I mean climate change, I forgot they changed the name to avoid further embarrassment.
Kind of hard to use the term "global warming" when you're talking about rainfall.

I'm working with "ice storms" - really a catch-all term for any severe winter storm.  Glaze icing forms between +1 and -3 degrees C.  That never changes.  So "warming" doesn't really apply.  But the frequency with which those storms occur does change.  So what I do deals with "climate change" but not "global warming."

BTW:  anybody (like BFB) ever notice that there was a 50-year gap in ice storm occurrence during the Dalton Minimum?  My records don't go all the way through the Maunder Minimum, but as far as they go, there were no ice storms then, either.  Disclaimer:  there's not very much data on that, but it might be worth a study.

And ice storm occurrence appears to fluctuate with El Nino.  That's all "climate change" but not a bit of it is "warming."  I think you should find out what the terms really mean.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 02 April 2013 - 01:18 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#36    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,209 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:32 PM

View PostMerc14, on 02 April 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

Just not the last twenty years huh?  CArbon levels go up and warming goes down but I am the idiot for questioning what the warmers are telling us.  LOL
Daniel just commented that carbon emissions slowed slightly during the last decade.  Want to see if that's true?  Bet I can find a dataset to test.

You should question what is being said, but you need to do it in an informed way.  If you can't actually cite a problem with a study, or point out an inconsistency with observed phenomena, then you are just blowing smoke.  And, yes, that happens all the time.

Quote

I love how climate-gate has been completely forgotten or worse, nodded off as a big nothing by you folks.   It was actually a heinous scandal that discredits ALL their work, maybe you should read up on it.
Because you have been keeping up on it, I presume you have read the 20 or so studies vindicating the East Anglia folks and Michael Mann, in particular.  For those who haven't been keeping up, maybe you could reiterate who said what for us.  What did Wegman say?  How about McKittrick?  What about McEntyre?  Were THEY telling the truth?  What makes you think that?  How do you answer the counter-claims?  This is your chance.  Educate us.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#37    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,877 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:51 PM

Global Warming was the disaster D'Jour for a decade until it bcame an embarrassment of climategate and the uncooperative weather when it was suddenly changed to Climate Change.  You can try and explain the sudden and radical change as something other than it is but listen, anyone with a modicum of common sense saw what happened.  The drones don't care and just keep mouthing the MSM mantra so warmers got away with it.

Climate Gate did use cherry picking when putting the data out because there was a massive amount of data to go through but to say that cherry picking in any way changed what these crooks were doing.  They cherry picked teh data they plugged into their models, suppressed dissenting opinion, rewrote executive summaries after peer review agreed on something different, fudged models and on and on.  They wanted a certain outcome and By God they got it and smother dissenters.

I am no scientist, obviously, but i know to call BS when someone p***ing down my leg tells me it is raining.  You guys are a looonnng way from proving that man is causing massive climate change.  A long way and the hysterics of the last 5 years is astounding until one considers the massive amounts of money that would change hands if comething like Kyoto was ever signed.  The UN woiuld've skimmed billions from that treaty just like the skimmed billions from the oil for food program.  The UN is perhaps the most corrupt institution on earth and the fact that the IPCC is run from there should make anyone put their hands up and say no way.

Scientists, have an immense amount of power in today's society and the climate change industry is a blatant example of the abuse of that power.  Peer review is all well and good until the folks in charge of it decide any dissenters will not have access to it.   The MSM has done the same thing.   Denying man-made global warming is tantamount to heresy in modern society and dissenters are treated as heretics by the MSM and mainstream politically driven science.  Money, politics and ideology run climate change, not science.

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#38    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,209 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:53 PM

View PostMerc14, on 02 April 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Let me repeat that:  Both communism and environmentalism have the same objective, the destruction of capitalism.  What better way to destroy the capitalist west than
abide by the repulsive Kyoto treaty
While that is not the objective of environmentalism, per se, we might want to fall off a few points in that direction.  The abuses of monopoly capitalism have not abated since they broke up Standard Oil.

Communism does not oppose capitalism; even the Soviet Union (a perversion of communism by dictatorship), encouraged small businesses.  What they opposed was destruction of the free market by monopolies.  Something we should do, too.

Right here in the US we have communism (government ownership of capital) in the form of the TVA and the Postal Serevice.  We have socialism (employee ownership of capital) in the form of employee-owned companies like Davey Tree Service and investor-owned companies like Northwestern Mutual Life.  We have near-monopoly (read that as Fascism - business control of government through the use of bribes - "campaign contributions") in the form of our large banks, like Bank of America, Citibank and Wells Fargo and large oil companies like Exxon and Mobile.  And we have capitalism in the form of hundreds of small businesses.  We can coexist - we are doing it.  What is being debated is the balance.

In the US, the banks built a house of cards (Even I, a forester, could see it coming.) with bad investments.  Then the oil companies kicked the bottom card out.  Nobody intended the resulting recession to happen, but neither did they try to stop it.  And what we need to consider is whether any person or organization should exercise that kind of power over other people, over an entire economy.  Five years later, the world is still reeling from what our economic "leaders" did to us.  And I want to see them lose that power through regulation and the breaking up of any company "too large to fail."

But that's politics.

What concerns me more is the functioning of the earth's ecosystems.  Climate change is only important as it affects that.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#39    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,209 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:58 PM

View PostMerc14, on 02 April 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Global Warming was ... science.
You didn't address a single issue that has been raised on this thread or make any attempt to explain your thinking.  Your rants are not helping your cause or contributing to a discussion.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#40    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,142 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 02:17 PM

View PostMerc14, on 02 April 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Global Warming was the disaster D'Jour for a decade until it bcame an embarrassment of climategate and the uncooperative weather when it was suddenly changed to Climate Change.  You can try and explain the sudden and radical change as something other than it is but listen, anyone with a modicum of common sense saw what happened.  The drones don't care and just keep mouthing the MSM mantra so warmers got away with it.

Climate Gate did use cherry picking when putting the data out because there was a massive amount of data to go through but to say that cherry picking in any way changed what these crooks were doing.  They cherry picked teh data they plugged into their models, suppressed dissenting opinion, rewrote executive summaries after peer review agreed on something different, fudged models and on and on.  They wanted a certain outcome and By God they got it and smother dissenters.

I am no scientist, obviously, but i know to call BS when someone p***ing down my leg tells me it is raining.  You guys are a looonnng way from proving that man is causing massive climate change.  A long way and the hysterics of the last 5 years is astounding until one considers the massive amounts of money that would change hands if comething like Kyoto was ever signed.  The UN woiuld've skimmed billions from that treaty just like the skimmed billions from the oil for food program.  The UN is perhaps the most corrupt institution on earth and the fact that the IPCC is run from there should make anyone put their hands up and say no way.

Scientists, have an immense amount of power in today's society and the climate change industry is a blatant example of the abuse of that power.  Peer review is all well and good until the folks in charge of it decide any dissenters will not have access to it.   The MSM has done the same thing.   Denying man-made global warming is tantamount to heresy in modern society and dissenters are treated as heretics by the MSM and mainstream politically driven science.  Money, politics and ideology run climate change, not science.
In that single highlighted statement you show your complete ignorance of the subject.
Global Warming and climate change have been used concurrently since the beginning of the realization of AGW. Climate change describes the consequences of Global warming. they are different but related things. Your lack of awareness of this basic fact shows that you are really ignorant of the whole field of climate science and you are expressing sentiments motivated by your political biases and the politically motivated sources you use to inform yourself about the issues concerning climate science.

Here is proof that the term Climate change was used as far back as 1956;

Quote

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now.  However, this is simply untrue.  For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C).  Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'.  The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today).  The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'.  There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago.  There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.
http://www.skeptical...print.php?r=326


When you can succinctly differentiate between Global warming and climate change and why they are used in different contexts, maybe we could start a conversation about the issues rather than indulging us with your political rants.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 02 April 2013 - 02:37 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#41    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,142 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 03:06 PM

Let it be said that I have zero confidence that either the communists or the capitalists will do diddly squat to address climate change and so I tend not to engage with their pointless efforts.
I believe that there are ways to address climate change, but there are no economic solutions on offer which offer us anything but disaster.

Politics are kicking the growth without end bubble back and forward without addressing the reality that there are limits and climate change is just one such limit.

Neither the socialists or the capitalists are coming riding over the horizon to save us, and talk of communist plots to destroy the capitalist dream are so grossly naive in the circumstances that they stagger my ability to understand how far some people are from understanding the underlying truth of a system of think which is so fundamentally wrong that it will doom us all.

The IPCC and the Kyoto protocol was a political effort to do something about the science which was been presented to political leaders. It is not and never has been the science itself.  It fails because it compromises on the inescapable fact that  on some things there is simple effective action which allows for no compromise, such is the brick wall of resource limits and limits of a finite space to absorb expanding populations and pollution.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 02 April 2013 - 03:12 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#42    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,877 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 02 April 2013 - 03:11 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 02 April 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

In that single highlighted statement you show your complete ignorance of the subject.
Global Warming and climate change have been used concurrently since the beginning of the realization of AGW. Climate change describes the consequences of Global warming. they are different but related things. Your lack of awareness of this basic fact shows that you are really ignorant of the whole field of climate science and you are expressing sentiments motivated by your political biases and the politically motivated sources you use to inform yourself about the issues concerning climate science.

Here is proof that the term Climate change was used as far back as 1956;


http://www.skeptical...print.php?r=326


When you can succinctly differentiate between Global warming and climate change and why they are used in different contexts, maybe we could start a conversation about the issues rather than indulging us with your political rants.

Br Cornelius

Hey brother, your side commands the lexicon, not mine.  Your argument is specious at best as I am not arguing scientific journals, where both terms obviously have existed for decades if not longer, but what was being used in popular culture.  What were little kids being indoctrinated in at school?  Global Warming right up until a couple of years ago when it, literally, disappeared form popular culture or at least they tried to make it disappear but the late night comedians took note and made jokes even if you missed it. .  There was a rapid switch from one to the other in popular culture when climategate hit and the blizzards made jokes out of the various global warming gatherings in the capitol.  

Hey, the nice thing about Climate Change is you guys can switch to New Ice Age hysterics in a decade or so when the GWing money has dried up and use the same old posters!  Just have the polar bear staliking through a city street instead of teetering on a chunk of ice.  Easy to do with photoshop.  Same bear, same pose, just a different background for a new crisis.

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#43    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,142 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 03:18 PM

View PostMerc14, on 02 April 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

Hey brother, your side commands the lexicon, not mine.  Your argument is specious at best as I am not arguing scientific journals, where both terms obviously have existed for decades if not longer, but what was being used in popular culture.  What were little kids being indoctrinated in at school?  Global Warming right up until a couple of years ago when it, literally, disappeared form popular culture or at least they tried to make it disappear but the late night comedians took note and made jokes even if you missed it. .  There was a rapid switch from one to the other in popular culture when climategate hit and the blizzards made jokes out of the various global warming gatherings in the capitol.  

Hey, the nice thing about Climate Change is you guys can switch to New Ice Age hysterics in a decade or so when the GWing money has dried up and use the same old posters!  Just have the polar bear staliking through a city street instead of teetering on a chunk of ice.  Easy to do with photoshop.  Same bear, same pose, just a different background for a new crisis.
Popular culture was interpreting the science. You are blaming the scientists for the flaw of journalists simplifying their message. This is incredible, fantastic, unbelievable.
Your argument is holed and yet you bluster on as if the scientists weren't been clear from the very start about what they meant and what they said would happen.

I suppose I shouldn't expect anything better from someone who gets his scientific information pre-digested from FOXNEWS.

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

I worship your staggering bare faced gaul :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#44    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 4,877 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 02 April 2013 - 03:25 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 02 April 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

Popular culture was interpreting the science. You are blaming the scientists for the flaw of journalists simplifying their message. This is incredible, fantastic, unbelievable.
Your argument is holed and yet you bluster on as if the scientists weren't been clear from the very start about what they meant and what they said would happen.

I suppose I shouldn't expect anything better from someone who gets his scientific information pre-digested from FOXNEWS.

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

I worship your staggering bare faced gaul :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Br Cornelius

Gall, brother, not gaul.  Gaul was a region in wesrtern europe during the roman empire.

You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it.  Stand by for suck or as Pelosi says, "Embrace the suck".

#45    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,142 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 03:39 PM

View PostMerc14, on 02 April 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

Gall, brother, not gaul.  Gaul was a region in wesrtern europe during the roman empire.
I stand corrected O master of wisdom. :nw: :nw:

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users