Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
darkmoonlady

Global Warming Total Fraud

494 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Br Cornelius

So we've managed to avert an ice age?

If it stopped at that things might be fine - however the trend points to 2-6 centigrade rise by the century end - which will not be fine. Somewhat overcompensating for a degree or two fall over 20 thousand years.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elfin

If it stopped at that things might be fine - however the trend points to 2-6 centigrade rise by the century end - which will not be fine. Somewhat overcompensating for a degree or two fall over 20 thousand years.

Br Cornelius

Better warm than cold.

During the Atlantic period, 7.5 to 5 thousand years ago, temperatures were much warmer than today.

http://en.wikipedia....tlantic_(period)

During the succeeding Subboreal period, 5 to 2.5 thousand years ago, they were still warmer than today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subboreal

Edited by Elfin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Better warm than cold.

During the Atlantic period, 7.5 to 5 thousand years ago, temperatures were much warmer than today.

http://en.wikipedia....tlantic_(period)

During the succeeding Subboreal period, 5 to 2.5 thousand years ago, they were still warmer than today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subboreal

Exactly as I explained it.

The post glaciation temperature rebound was due to the substantial release of trapped glacial CO2 which created a spike in temperature, the temperature oscillated around this before beginning its slow decline as more CO2 became accumulated in the dormant part of the carbon cycle (forest humus, ocean sedimentation, soil carbon). This was influenced by the rise and fall of agriculture with the ebb and flow of civilization and consummate impacts on forest cover and agricultural lands.

I don't think it is true to say that we will be better off 6 degrees warmer rather than 2 degrees colder. The uninhabitable desert zones would expand massively and the increase in productivity in the high latitudes could not offset them because of the extreme seasonal winters without any growth to speak of.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elfin

Exactly as I explained it.

The post glaciation temperature rebound was due to the substantial release of trapped glacial CO2 which created a spike in temperature, the temperature oscillated around this before beginning its slow decline as more CO2 became accumulated in the dormant part of the carbon cycle (forest humus, ocean sedimentation, soil carbon). This was influenced by the rise and fall of agriculture with the ebb and flow of civilization and consummate impacts on forest cover and agricultural lands.

Br Cornelius

The point being, though, that warmer temperatures are not a bad thing. Colder temperatures lead to less food production and famine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

The point being, though, that warmer temperatures are not a bad thing. Colder temperatures lead to less food production and famine.

Within reason that maybe true, but in the case of what we are doing it is not.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elfin

Within reason that maybe true, but in the case of what we are doing it is not.

Br Cornelius

How on earth can what we do affect the sun, or the orbit of the earth? These are the major engines of climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

How on earth can what we do affect the sun, or the orbit of the earth? These are the major engines of climate change.

They are not the major engines of this phase of climate change - that belongs to CO2.

The milankovich cycles predict the major transitions in and out of glaciation. The various solar intensity cycles fail to map to current warming trends.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elfin

They are not the major engines of this phase of climate change - that belongs to CO2.

The milankovich cycles predict the major transitions in and out of glaciation. The various solar intensity cycles fail to map to current warming trends.

Br Cornelius

I suppose we'll just have to plug all those volcanoes then, which produce the vast bulk of CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I suppose we'll just have to plug all those volcanoes then, which produce the vast bulk of CO2.

Not even close to matching mans current output.

The question you have to ask is - has volcanic activity risen in line with temperatures over the last 2 centuries ? The answer is no.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elfin

Not even close to matching mans current output.

The question you have to ask is - has volcanic activity risen in line with temperatures over the last 2 centuries ? The answer is no.

Br Cornelius

As a matter of fact, volcanic activity was abnormally low in the period following the end of the medieval warming period, and only picked up again in the 20th century. The reasons for this are probably quite complex, in addition to random fluctuations, but it must be remembered that overall, the earth is cooling, as its inititial heat from its formation very slowly dissipates. Like Mars, it will one day end up with no volcanic activity at all, and be very, very cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

As a matter of fact, volcanic activity was abnormally low in the period following the end of the medieval warming period, and only picked up again in the 20th century. The reasons for this are probably quite complex, in addition to random fluctuations, but it must be remembered that overall, the earth is cooling, as its inititial heat from its formation very slowly dissipates. Like Mars, it will one day end up with no volcanic activity at all, and be very, very cold.

In about 3 billion years. I don't think we have anything to worry about there - our problems are much more immediate. Almost all mass extinctions in the planets history are associated with carbon dioxide poisoning of the biosphere.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

A detailed explanation of why its not a natural cycle which covers all of the main points discussed in this thread. Follow the links down into the text to see more detailed explanations of each of the relevant points;

"What if global warming is just a natural cycle?" This argument is, perhaps, one of the most common raised by the average person, rather than someone who makes a career out of denying climate change. Cyclical variations in climate are well-known to the public; we all studied the ice ages in school. However, climate isn't inherently cyclical.

A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

Of course, it's always possible that some natural cycle exists, unknown to scientists and their instruments, that is currently causing the planet to warm. There's always a chance that we could be totally wrong. This omnipresent fact of science is called irreducible uncertainty, because it can never be entirely eliminated. However, it's very unlikely that such a cycle exists.

Firstly, the hypothetical natural cycle would have to explain the observed "fingerprints" of greenhouse gas-induced warming. Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to discount the direct measurements showing an increased greenhouse effect, other lines of evidence point to anthropogenic causes. For example, the troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere) is warming, but the levels above, from the stratosphere up, are cooling, as less radiation is escaping out to space. This rules out cycles related to the Sun, as solar influences would warm the entire atmosphere in a uniform fashion. The only explanation that makes sense is greenhouse gases.

What about an internal cycle, perhaps from volcanoes or the ocean, that releases massive amounts of greenhouse gases? This wouldn't make sense either, not only because scientists keep track of volcanic and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but also because CO2 from fossil fuels has its own fingerprints. Its isotopic signature is depleted in the carbon-13 isotope, which explains why the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 has been going up as anthropogenic carbon dioxide goes up. Additionally, atmospheric oxygen (O2) is decreasing at the same rate that CO2 is increasing, because oxygen is consumed when fossil fuels combust.

A natural cycle that fits all these fingerprints is nearly unfathomable. However, that's not all the cycle would have to explain. It would also have to tell us why anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not having an effect. Either a century of basic physics and chemistry studying the radiative properties of greenhouse gases would have to be proven wrong, or the natural cycle would have to be unbelievably complex to prevent such dramatic anthropogenic emissions from warming the planet.

It is indeed possible that multidecadal climate variability, especially cycles originating in the Atlantic, could be contributing to recent warming, particularly in the Arctic. However, the amplitude of the cycles simply can't explain the observed temperature change. Internal variability has always been superimposed on top of global surface temperature trends, but the magnitude - as well as the fingerprints - of current warming clearly indicates that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant factor.

Despite all these lines of evidence, many known climatic cycles are often trumpeted to be the real cause, on the Internet and in the media. Many of these cycles have been debunked on Skeptical Science, and all of them either aren't in the warming phases, don't fit the fingerprints, or both.

For example, we are warming far too fast to be coming out of the last ice age, and the Milankovitch cycles that drive glaciation show that we should be, in fact, very slowly going into a new ice age (but anthropogenic warming is virtually certain to offset that influence).

The "1500-year cycle" that S. Fred Singer attributes warming to is, in fact, a change in distribution of thermal energy between the poles, not a net increase in global temperature, which is what we observe now.

The Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period ended due to a slight increase in solar output (changes in both thermohaline circulation and volcanic activity also contributed), but that increase has since reversed, and global temperature and solar activity are now going in opposite directions. This also explains why the 11-year solar cycle could not be causing global warming.

ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) and PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) help to explain short-term variations, but have no long-term trend, warming or otherwise. Additionally, these cycles simply move thermal energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, and do not change the energy balance of the Earth.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

No dishonesty, just the way I post, a sort of evolving stream of consciousness as my thoughts develop on a subject. However the edit was within 5mins of the original swo I fail to see how you could have missed it.

Get back to me when you have a specific point to raise and we can look at the underlying science behind Carters claims.

There’s nothing wrong with having an evolving stream of consciousness as your thoughts develop. I do the same. But you should realize that with more than 7800 posts on this forum alone that the nano-second you post something, a million people have already read it. That’s why I write everything to a file first, then I can always tweak it and then when I feel that it is right, then I post it. (It’s also not bad having a copy if the Moderators start deleting things.)

If you are naïve about this, what else are you naïve about?

I don’t need to have a specific point. Carter is quite clear. What I have noticed is that his detractors don’t understand him because they are politically motivated. I do like that term “Gish Gallop” though, but that better describes Carter’s opponents. Ward’s paper, even though I am not finished with it and I probably won’t. I think I’ve seen enough to intelligently comment. But there are several places in which his doublespeak is obvious.

You’re right in that it takes time to analyze everything, so I will address your “shortcomings” and “lack of interest” comments later, as well as my comments on Ward. I just happen to be fairly busy at work today.

Yes, I’m writing this in a word document, correcting spelling and grammar and tweaking it, and now I will post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I find it incredible that you could not acknowledge that carter is deeply politically motivated and this is evidenced by his list of politically motivated sponsors. If you are going to throw the political card into the ring - you had better be holier than thou and squeaky clean to boot. Carter fails that test.

Carter has claimed not to receive any political or business sponsorship when in fact he has received funding from;

International Climate science Coalition (front for Heartland institute)

Institute for Public Affairs

Galileo movement

Science and Public Policy Institute

International Climate Science coalition

Australian Climate Science coalition

Global warming Policy Foundation

Repeal the Act (Carbon trading Act)

Climate Science Coalition New Zealand

Australian Environment Foundation (front for institute for Public Affair)

Non of these bodies conduct any climate science research - all of them are Lobbying groups. No wonder he didn't have any time to keep up his academic career.

Unfortunately Carters mistakes can only be analysed one at a time and that is the only way I can engage with a discussion of his ideas, otherwise each post would be pages long and take weeks to prepare. The initial critiques of the IPCC cannot be considered as science and so would be a waste of time to discuss. Maintaining a discussion at the level of generalities isn't going to enlighten anyone.

Not going to waste that much time on a charlatan.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmoonlady

One of the biggest issues that isn't talked about is that because of mans output of CO2 it's accelerating natures output as well. If the temps rise enough to thaw out the permafrost, there is methane and CO2 previously locked in permafrost being released into the atmosphere.

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/08/22/permafrost/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

I find it incredible that you could not acknowledge that carter is deeply politically motivated and this is evidenced by his list of politically motivated sponsors. If you are going to throw the political card into the ring - you had better be holier than thou and squeaky clean to boot. Carter fails that test.

Carter has claimed not to receive any political or business sponsorship when in fact he has received funding from;

I’m not going to try to deny that he has sponsorship from these groups but I’m pretty sure he didn’t have them when he first published the results of his research. If you’re a lobbyist and discover someone with solid science to support your view, you’re going to solicit them. Why do you think the AGW proponents are going crazy with support from one world government type lobbyist groups?

I’m not the one bringing up the political card. In fact you are by bringing Ward into this. First off, you claim that I’m not acknowledging how deeply politically motivated Carter is. I do acknowledge it but it doesn’t affect the points he makes and that is where my focus is. Now no one is perfect, but his data is hard to ignore. And then there is Ward that spends three or four pages trying to defend that the IPCC is not a political entity and yet states that it was established by UNEP. Anything that is established by the UN is political, based on the concept of one world rule. I do believe that the world should be united but as a collection of individual nations and entities and not cogs under the yoke of some central government.

AGW is a political device to create enough anarchy for a certain ruling elite to gain more power. It is right out of Alinski. Climate Change presents not necessarily a problem for today’s world but a set of challenges of how we will govern ourselves in the future. There are two different mindsets with different solutions to these challenges. One mindset wants to create fear and blame Man for Climate change. The idea is to use that to siphon the wealth of this nation and throw it at questionable actions. And when these don’t work, just throw trillions more at the problem. Then when the wealth of the nation is exhausted, all that is left is the ruling elite controlling people’s lives. The other mindset acknowledges that Man affects his environment but he is not the cause of natural cycles but that we can always be better custodians of our environment and learn how to adapt to the changes these cycles bring. We still would be spending trillions, but it would be spent wisely and correctly the first time. And the bottom line is that everyone retains their independence from government.

Anyway, I’ve got the state games this weekend and I won’t have the time to delve further into this. Although I did find some interesting things that I will share probably next week. So after that, if you still believe in AGW, then I’d suggest that you renew your membership to the Flat Earth Society.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ciriuslea

There are natural cycles that happen over tens of thousands and more years. The time frame of what we are doing is measured over the centuries. Natural cycles are slow enough for ecosystems to adjust. What we are doing may be entirely too fast.

The point is we are in a cycle, possibly more than one judging from your reply which has shown a warming every 100,000 years...so the earth gets warmer regardless of any help from us, the temp spikes and regularity match those found in the current warming, but I'll say it again for those who missed it earlier

earth temps fluctuate in cycles so its more likely we are experiencing a natural temp change which has been either strengthened and or hastened by the effects of man, I don't however believe we have singularly caused global temp rises.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

I'm not going to try to deny that he has sponsorship from these groups but I'm pretty sure he didn't have them when he first published the results of his research. If you're a lobbyist and discover someone with solid science to support your view, you're going to solicit them. Why do you think the AGW proponents are going crazy with support from one world government type lobbyist groups?

I'm not the one bringing up the political card. In fact you are by bringing Ward into this. First off, you claim that I'm not acknowledging how deeply politically motivated Carter is. I do acknowledge it but it doesn't affect the points he makes and that is where my focus is. Now no one is perfect, but his data is hard to ignore. And then there is Ward that spends three or four pages trying to defend that the IPCC is not a political entity and yet states that it was established by UNEP. Anything that is established by the UN is political, based on the concept of one world rule. I do believe that the world should be united but as a collection of individual nations and entities and not cogs under the yoke of some central government.

AGW is a political device to create enough anarchy for a certain ruling elite to gain more power. It is right out of Alinski. Climate Change presents not necessarily a problem for today's world but a set of challenges of how we will govern ourselves in the future. There are two different mindsets with different solutions to these challenges. One mindset wants to create fear and blame Man for Climate change. The idea is to use that to siphon the wealth of this nation and throw it at questionable actions. And when these don't work, just throw trillions more at the problem. Then when the wealth of the nation is exhausted, all that is left is the ruling elite controlling people's lives. The other mindset acknowledges that Man affects his environment but he is not the cause of natural cycles but that we can always be better custodians of our environment and learn how to adapt to the changes these cycles bring. We still would be spending trillions, but it would be spent wisely and correctly the first time. And the bottom line is that everyone retains their independence from government.

Anyway, I've got the state games this weekend and I won't have the time to delve further into this. Although I did find some interesting things that I will share probably next week. So after that, if you still believe in AGW, then I'd suggest that you renew your membership to the Flat Earth Society.

The best way to gain more power is not "to create enough anarchy," as that can backfire, but to have "business as usual," which is increasing production and consumption of goods to ensure higher profits and higher returns on investment. This is critical for the financial elite because much of its wealth consists of money whose value can only be maintained given increased economic activity.

This explains why the major supporters of AGW denialism include members of the financial elite, oil companies, etc. See the "Denial Machine" documentary for more details.

This also explains why governments in general will not act with regards to AGW. Much of manufacturing and food production worldwide is heavily dependent on the use of fossil fuels, and governments earn more tax revenues from increased production and consumption of goods.

If any, what will make AGW denialism worthless is peak oil. It's the two hammers of AGW and peak oil that will cause the global capitalist system to grind to a halt and eventually fall apart, not to mention fallout from financial risks as the elite continue gambling to keep their wealth intact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

We can do something about pollution thou and I have seen examples, but climate, yea sure, tall that myth someone else.

we can change climate just as much as we can affect volcanos, and earthquakes.

we will continue to cut trees, and will continue to pump co2 in the air by factories and transportation, and it will only get larger. we consume earth resurses, and we can't live if we don't. may be if we didn't know all the things we have now are possible, we might, but than we would not have such a large population, modern medicine and progress increased our life span greatly, and now baby survival vs 100 years ago is increased by 8- 10 fold.

So, it seems that in this same post you are saying that We can't affect the climate. But then you go on to point out deforestation, population increases, resource consumption, factories, CO2 and such have made it worse.

So which is it? We can not affect the climate? Or, we can only make it worse? Because saying we made it worse is that same as saying we can make it better. Planting more trees. Reducing immissions. population controls and resource management.... All would help turn the climate back toward cooler... where it was. That seems obvious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

By saying that Man is the cause of Climate Change is like that whenever I go outside it rains and then saying that therefore I am the cause of it raining. This is the low hanging fruit. Billions of dollars have been spent in research to state the obvious. That man causes an increase in CO2 levels, maybe 100ppm in the last 200 years. But all life produces CO2. 95% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. In the times past, there has been far more life than there is now. In all of the previous eras, CO2 levels have been higher than they are now.

There is a big difference in believing in climate change and calling it the end of the world. It is the Enviromentalist Elite's desire that nothing change. That every tree stays where it is, and that every field stays a field. They're belief is that if the temp raises 2 degrees C that we're all going to DIE! Because.... it is a change and they can't clearly predict what would happen. The truth is that just about all animals on Earth will figure it out pretty quick and adapt. Their ranges will move north or south, their food sources will slowly change. It is the way of the world. It is just going to happen a little faster then usual is all.

This also is something that could be engineered. But, I don't see the point, when it would be so much simpler and easier to simply engineer the issue causing climate change.

If seeding the oceans could sequester CO2, how much easier would it be to collect the CO2 directly from the air and scrub the carbon off and store it? Expensive... sure! Able to be implemented right now... definately!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The cooling that occurred during the late Middle Ages could repeat if the sunspot cycle were to stop, or if there were to be a major volcanic event. This sort of thing would hide the underlying warming that the scientific community is confident we are causing.

Otherwise it probably won't cause doomsday (although there are scenarios that show that even that is possible) but we are headed into a period of adversity that will probably cost us a lot of money and lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

There is a big difference in believing in climate change and calling it the end of the world. It is the Enviromentalist Elite's desire that nothing change. That every tree stays where it is, and that every field stays a field. They're belief is that if the temp raises 2 degrees C that we're all going to DIE! Because.... it is a change and they can't clearly predict what would happen. The truth is that just about all animals on Earth will figure it out pretty quick and adapt. Their ranges will move north or south, their food sources will slowly change. It is the way of the world. It is just going to happen a little faster then usual is all.

This also is something that could be engineered. But, I don't see the point, when it would be so much simpler and easier to simply engineer the issue causing climate change.

If seeding the oceans could sequester CO2, how much easier would it be to collect the CO2 directly from the air and scrub the carbon off and store it? Expensive... sure! Able to be implemented right now... definately!!

Question is: who is going to pay for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

The cooling that occurred during the late Middle Ages could repeat if the sunspot cycle were to stop, or if there were to be a major volcanic event. This sort of thing would hide the underlying warming that the scientific community is confident we are causing.

Otherwise it probably won't cause doomsday (although there are scenarios that show that even that is possible) but we are headed into a period of adversity that will probably cost us a lot of money and lives.

There are no sunspot cycles that last over 400 years.

At the end of the medieval optimum stands the black plague, and more or less (give some 15 years) with the first outbreak in China. The warming trend did not resume until the beginning of the industrial age. So go figure what is lacking in the atmosphere when large amounts of mammals die off and their biotopes are replaced by forests.... and then think what was blown into the atmosphere once coal was burned as if there was no tomorrow, gigantic forest were cut to make charcoal for steel foundries (as used before coke) and more and more terrain was covered by industry.

Now what could that be?

Ah yes, the same trace gas that NASA has been telling us we should release to terraform Mars in order to increase its temperature....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeremiah65

There are no sunspot cycles that last over 400 years.

At the end of the medieval optimum stands the black plague, and more or less (give some 15 years) with the first outbreak in China. The warming trend did not resume until the beginning of the industrial age. So go figure what is lacking in the atmosphere when large amounts of mammals die off and their biotopes are replaced by forests.... and then think what was blown into the atmosphere once coal was burned as if there was no tomorrow, gigantic forest were cut to make charcoal for steel foundries (as used before coke) and more and more terrain was covered by industry.

Now what could that be?

Ah yes, the same trace gas that NASA has been telling us we should release to terraform Mars in order to increase its temperature....

Not exactly correct.

There has been recent studies that show the sun actually does have a very long cycle that encompasses the usual maximum and minimums...The terms that were used were "the Grand Maximum and the Maunder Minimum".

I didn't just make that up....they "say" it is an approximate 400 year cycle but they are not sure as it is a relatively new discovery. This was postulated in discussion as to why this "maximum" hasn't been much more than a popcorn fart...they are theorizing we may be heading into another Maunder Minimum....which they "think" is what caused the Big Chill or otherwise known as "the little ice age"...

Edit to add...

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Maunder_Minimum.html

Edited by Jeremiah65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The normal sunspot cycle is around eleven years, but there is good reason that to think that there were very few if any sunspots during the Maunder minimum. I don't appreciate being contradicted by people who either don't understand or don't bother to ask.

I like the idea of sequestering CO2 if the warming turns out to be more of a serious problem than we feel we can handle, and think we should research the idea now to find inexpensive ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.