Since the Science Is Settled and major American companies are planning their future on the expectation of a carbon tax, lets remind ourselves of the unprecedented temperature increase that is happening. Info on the A1B scenario here.
Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website http://www.drroyspencer.com...lobal-temperatures/. The latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: So you are once again posting junk science?
Here are the facts
[opinion section at the Wall Street Journal]
Arn
Who cares what the "opinion section" at the Wall Street Journal says about science?
Especially when ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Devon, Conoco Phillips, and TWO DOZEN other major American companies "acknowledge the process of ongoing climate change - including extreme and unpredictable weather events - as a key relevant business factor for which they wish to be prepared." Source.
You can't argue against the companies you're trying to support.
Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website http://www.drroyspencer.com...lobal-temperatures/. The latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979.
The link you provided shows a +0.19 celsius increase as of November 2013, from 1981-2010 average temperatures. Ignoring year-to-year variability, there's clearly an upward trend here.
Ignoring year-to-year variability, there's clearly an upward trend here.
Even to an untrained eye, the long-term trend in that graph seems readily apparent ... but the time frame is too short for it to be reliable (climatologically) by itself. For example, it could be displaying the upslope half of an embedded ~70-year cycle. Scientific integrity requires that we consider all reasonable possibilities. Viewing the same data (or suitable proxy data) over a much longer time frame would be helpful. Always remember, weather is not climate.
N.B. For the deniers out there, acknowledgement of scientific uncertainty does not, by itself, invalidate a theory, experiment, data set, or model. Again, it is a matter of scientific integrity.
(FWIW, Dr. Roy Spencer, the source of the graph cited, believes that global warming is occurring but does not believe that human activities ... including CO2 emissions ... are the primary cause.)
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-12-2013).]
The link you provided shows a +0.19 celsius increase as of November 2013, from 1981-2010 average temperatures. Ignoring year-to-year variability, there's clearly an upward trend here.
This is pretty funny. While the global temperature has steadily declined since 2012 and is currently at a 2 year low, it is still 0.19 celcius above the designated "0" line. This does not mean it is currently rising. It is currently falling. Look at the graph. Has the planet been warming gradually since the last ice age? yes. However, we are now at the same global temperature level as we had in 2001. While fluctuating in the intervening years, we are at a net "0" gain since 2001 and it is currently falling.
In fact you can see the real spike in 1998 was an El Nino event not CO2 generated warming.
In the meanwhile CO2 is increasing steadily due to the increased population of the world. Most of Asia runs on coal for heating and cooking. This is huge in terms of CO2. So why has the Global temperature not climbed? It is, instead, fluctuating, and currently fluctuating down. All of this fluctuation is less than 1/2 degree in total
There is no case here for anthropogenic global warming at all. There is a strong case for natural variability though.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 12-13-2013).]
Arn seems particularly adept at posting "evidence" that contradicts the conclusions he infers from it.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
While the global temperature has steadily declined since 2012 and is currently at a 2 year low, it is still 0.19 celcius above the designated "0" line. This does not mean it is currently rising. It is currently falling. Look at the graph.
Q.E.D. (Hint: A single datum can neither validate nor invalidate the rest of the data set.)
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
There is no case here for anthropogenic global warming at all.
So what? The plot presented doesn't pretend to make such a "case." It most certainly does indicate a clear long-term warming trend over the time period presented, but I do agree, however, that it is mute with respect to anthropogenic warming. In fact it makes no suggestion whatsoever concerning the cause of the warming. It is simply a time plot of observed global atmospheric temperature.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-14-2013).]
The spike in the below plot is the Marcott study, which has been discredited. I've shown this before, and no, the other data sets do NOT show the same spike. The other paper he mentions, MBH 99 (the hockey stick), has also not only been discredited but also has outright FRAUD in the data and methodology. This has been shown to flyinfieros as well, but he keeps repeating it.
Flyinfieros either knows this, and dishonestly keeps repeating it, or he doesn't know and isn't smart enough to realize it. He is knowingly repeating and outright fraud, or he is ignorant of how and why it is a fraud. He's either a party to this fraud or ignorant of knowing how and why it is a fraud. Keep this in mind when reading his posts.
Proof of the flawed methods of the hockey sticks here:
Since the Science Is Settled and major American companies are planning their future on the expectation of a carbon tax, lets remind ourselves of the unprecedented temperature increase that is happening. Info on the A1B scenario here.
Another instance of flyinfieros glaring ignorance. He tries to imply the science is settled because companies are planning for a carbon tax? Talk about UTTER NONSENSE. Companies have to plan and prepare for whatever crap government throws at them. It's called "dealing with reality", in this case, that moronic leftist policy and belief in cooked up stories of inevitable disaster may turn into public policy that will affect companies and their bottom line. It no more means they believe in global warming than they believed Obamacare would be good for their businesses. They simply have to deal with the weight of such policy. But flyinfieros would have you believe this lends credibility to the global warming scenario. Just more of his puffery and arrogance.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
The Science Is Settled.
"According to findings from CDP’s annual disclosure process in 2013, many major publicly traded companies operating or based in y the United States have integrated an “internal carbon price” as a core element in their ongoing business strategies. Such carbon pricing has become standard operating practice in business planning, in that the companies acknowledge the process of ongoing climate change - including extreme and unpredictable weather events - as a key relevant business factor for which they wish to be prepared."
"In figure 1 on page 3, where no price is shown, companies have stated that the specific price used is confidential business information. However, in responding to pertinent questions in the annual CDP disclosure questionnaire all cited an “internal carbon price” as a planning tool."
Dragging Al Gore into this discussion again..? One of the other regular posters here (won't name him, but he's from Texas) has an off-the-shelf response for these deflection attempts:
quote
Look there, not here.
As far as the snowstorm that just hit Cairo (and Israel), it's an interesting weather event, but in and of itself, it doesn't disprove global warming, anymore than it proves that another ice age is just around the corner. It was heat energy that turned water into the atmospheric water vapor that then froze in the clouds and came down on Cairo as snow. Heat energy, somewhere else on the planet.
Climate scientists look for reliable trends, not one-off weather events. You could start with ocean temperatures. . . .
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-16-2013).]
The spike in the below plot is the Marcott study, which has been discredited. I've shown this before, and no, the other data sets do NOT show the same spike. The other paper he mentions, MBH 99 (the hockey stick), has also not only been discredited but also has outright FRAUD in the data and methodology. This has been shown to flyinfieros as well, but he keeps repeating it.
Flyinfieros either knows this, and dishonestly keeps repeating it, or he doesn't know and isn't smart enough to realize it. He is knowingly repeating and outright fraud, or he is ignorant of how and why it is a fraud. He's either a party to this fraud or ignorant of knowing how and why it is a fraud. Keep this in mind when reading his posts.
Every time you throw another insult you sound even more foolish.
quote
Proof of the flawed methods of the hockey sticks here:
Toba, Indonesia's super volcano, almost wiped out mankind
73,000 years ago the eruption of an Indonesian super volcano was within inches of obliterating the whole of mankind. Only a few survived. After the Tsunami, Indonesias volcanoes have once again become active and the people are afraid.
Volcanic eruptions are even today almost completely unpredictable
This explosion cannot be compared with anything that has been experienced on Earth since the time when humans could walk upright. Compared to the eruption on the super volcano Toba, even Krakatoa, with its tens of thousands of deaths in 1883, was a tiny belch. And it already had an explosive force of 150 mega tonnes of TNT. In comparison: the Hiroshima nuclear bomb broke open "only" 0,015 mega tonnes, and was destructively speaking 10,000 times weaker than Krakatoa.
As scientists found out, Toba almost wiped out mankind 73,000 years ago. Back then Neanderthal man inhabited our Earth alongside Homo sapiens in Europe, Homo erectus and the recently discovered Homo floresiensis in Asia. It was cold in Europe, the last ice age was in full swing and reindeer, wild horses and giant stag were hunted in our breadths. Alongside the herbivorous nourishment, mammouth and woolly rhinos were occasionally on the menu for humans when Toba, with a diameter of 90 kilometres on the island known today as Sumatra, in the truest sense of the word, "blew up".
Graph: The ash outfall of the Toba volcano was as devastating as the 2 large Yellowstone Park eruptions and the comparatively tiny one on Mount Saint Helen
Alongside gigantic Tsunami waves, there was the unimaginable amount of 2800 cubic kilometres of ejected ash, which, evenly spread throughout our planets atmosphere, should have reduced the total number of humans to just 5000 to 10,000 survivors, as the Australian vulcanologist Prof. Ray Cas explains in an interview: "The suns rays only weakly reached the ground all around the globe, plants received too little light, the average temperature dropped to 5 degrees, so that summer turned to winter and winter became deadly in Verbindung."
Today we know that humans and their near relatives survived this global Armageddon of nature in small groups, mainly in Africa. It is incredible how scientists found all of that out with the help of thousands of DNA studies of todays humans. Mag. Bence Viola from the Anthropological Institute of Vienna University: "We examined the DNA in human mitochondria, the powerhouse of cells, and thereby observed that the genetic composition in samples from humans from all over the world had to have been much more different if Homo sapiens were able to have developed in all parts of the Earth without problems."
Actually todays humans originate from a few thousand survivors and we can attribute the cause to the eruption of the super volcano Toba around 73,000 years ago. So it is a sort of genetic bottleneck, through which not only Homo sapiens had to have been forced, but also all of his relatives that were still living at that time but who died out later on due to other reasons.
Therefore a volcano in the region of Indonesia was responsible for the near destruction of mankind. From the 60 to 70 volcanoes that are to be found in the area today, a remarkable number have become active again in the weeks and months after the seaquake in December. Yet Toba is dozing today deep and safe under a huge sea bearing the same name in Northern Sumatra. Many people fear that if the suddenly active volcano of Talang that lies 300 kilometres south erupts, it could awaken the deadly giant.
Vulcanologist Prof. Ray Cas: "That could actually happen, but only if Toba were ready to erupt and at the moment there is not the slightest indication of that." The expert does think that it is probable that one day another huge eruption will take place: "But that can only happen in 10,000 or even 100,000 years. The Earth is despite all efforts not predictable."
It remains furthermore open to know what would happen to us in the face of such a devastating natural disaster, if a volcanic eruption similar to Toba were imminent. The way things stand today we cannot do anything against it.
The relevence is this. When a major volcano event occurs, the ash spewed into the atmosphere causes global cooling. In fact it can cause acid rain over much of the globe. Given the fact that we are on a downward swing for the past 2 years, and we are currently back to the 2001 level, a major volcano could drive us into a major cool down too.
You just have to look at Krakatoa in 1883. Global temperatures fell by about 1.2 degrees c. and did not recover untill 1888.
The relevence is this. When a major volcano event occurs, the ash spewed into the atmosphere causes global cooling. In fact it can cause acid rain over much of the globe. Given the fact that we are on a downward swing for the past 2 years, and we are currently back to the 2001 level, a major volcano could drive us into a major cool down too.
You just have to look at Krakatoa in 1883. Global temperatures fell by about 1.2 degrees c. and did not recover untill 1888.
We have to remember that the Northwest Passage has been open in bygone era's
The British ship Pandora sailed it in 1876 and it was open earlier in 1845 when Franklin attempted to cross it, but ran out of summer,. The British in fact mounted several expeditions to find Franklin, but the passage closed back in
Land and sea surface temperature anomalies for November 2013. Gray shades indicate areas with insufficient data for an analysis. (Source: NOAA/NCDC)
Last month was the warmest November since modern temperature record keeping began in 1880, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced today in its latest State of the Climate report, which summarizes climate-related news from around the world.
With a combined land and ocean surface temperature of 56.6 degrees Fahrenheit, November 2013 also was the 345th consecutive month – and the 37th November in a row – with a global temperature higher than the 20th century average, the NOAA report added.
Higher-than-average monthly temperatures were reported on nearly every continent around the world, including much of Europe and Asia, coastal Africa, Central America and central South America, as well as in the North Atlantic Ocean, southwest Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean.
Russia experienced its warmest November since national weather records began in 1891, as some parts of the country like Siberia and the Arctic islands in the Kara Sea recorded temperatures more than 14 Fahrenheit degrees higher than the monthly average.
At the same time, cooler-than-average temperatures were reported in parts of North America – especially in the southeastern U.S. – as well as in northern Australia and southwest Greenland. No record cold monthly temperatures were reported.
On land, the global temperature in November was the second-highest on record for the month (after November 2010), at 2.57 Fahrenheit degrees above the 20th century average. For the oceans, November's sea surface temperature was 0.94 Fahrenheit degrees above the 20th century average, tying 2009 as the third-highest for November.
Snow cover across the Northern Hemisphere reached its largest extent for November since 2002, and was about 710,000 square miles larger than the 1981-2010 average of just over 6.8 million square miles.
Please notice they have not included the Arctic or Antarctic areas (greyed out) of the earth in the graph and calculations. If they did, they would see a cold resurgence in the Arctic in November, and a continued record cold in Antarctica relative to their current summer.
With a quarter of the globe not included in the data, this cannot be taken seriously.
We've already discussed arctic and antarctic ice volumes, which I would imagine correlates well to temperature. Margins of error is high but there's still an undeniable negative trend.
Originally posted by fierobear: The spike in the below plot is the Marcott study, which has been discredited.
You can't even read a simple graph. It's not even a complicated graph.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: I've shown this before, and no, the other data sets do NOT show the same spike.
The graph clearly shows a HadCRU dataset spike. Are you that blind or are you just that comfortable telling outright lies?
I have previously informed you of your errors here. You then changed your argument to something also wrong which I informed you of here. Of course after being called out as erroneous twice in a row you ignored it and moved on.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The other paper he mentions, MBH 99 (the hockey stick), has also not only been discredited but also has outright FRAUD in the data and methodology.
Michael Mann is suing CEI and NRO on the basis they know his work is sound because they prompted the investigations yet they continue harass him. Michael Mann has been completely vindicated.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: This has been shown to flyinfieros as well, but he keeps repeating it.
You show us a lot of nonsense.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Flyinfieros either knows this, and dishonestly keeps repeating it, or he doesn't know and isn't smart enough to realize it. He is knowingly repeating and outright fraud, or he is ignorant of how and why it is a fraud. He's either a party to this fraud or ignorant of knowing how and why it is a fraud. Keep this in mind when reading his posts.
I just gave specific and solid examples as to why you're guilty of everything you accuse me of here.
I hope people do keep this in mind when reading my posts.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Proof of the flawed methods of the hockey sticks here:
McIntyre seriously lacks scientific integrity. His only purpose is to make everything suspicious in order to cast doubt. No real scientific work is done there. This was clearly evident in the Marcott 'coverage'- proxy dropout made no real difference - a conclusion he should have explored on his own but felt it better to hint at manipulation on the authors part.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Another instance of flyinfieros glaring ignorance.
Originally posted by fierobear: He tries to imply the science is settled because companies are planning for a carbon tax? Talk about UTTER NONSENSE.
"Me"? I'm not implying anything. This is a poor attempt at shifting the focus to me in order distract from the glorious CDP review.
I'm simply reporting the facts word for word from the review. Maybe you missed this little gem: "Such carbon pricing has become standard operating practice in business planning, in that the companies acknowledge the process of ongoing climate change - including extreme and unpredictable weather events - as a key relevant business factor for which they wish to be prepared." Source.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: It's called "dealing with reality"
Would you just briefly explore the logical fallacies of your reasoning?
Your logic: "Oil companies expect to be taxed by 2030 for carbon pollution because global warming isn't real, carbon isn't pollution, and the anthropogenic theory will not pan out."
We have ExxonMobil voluntarily supporting Al Gore's climate policy as a solution to global warming and you're poorly trying to downplay the significance. Talk about utter nonsense.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Please notice they have not included the Arctic or Antarctic areas (greyed out) of the earth in the graph and calculations.
Under the image posted: Gray shades indicate areas with insufficient data for an analysis.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: If they did, they would see a cold resurgence in the Arctic in November, and a continued record cold in Antarctica relative to their current summer.
Unsubstantiated conjecture.
The long term warning trend in the Arctic persisted in 2013. The 7 worst years for sea ice in the Arctic are all in the last 7 years. Source.
The Antarctic is setting record high temperatures. Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: With a quarter of the globe not included in the data, this cannot be taken seriously.
It should be taken seriously. You cannot be taken seriously. I've clearly shown your conclusions are worthless and simply dreamt up.
Once again I am reading wordy from the GW advocates
First off a warm summer in the Antarctic is a relative thing. It is so far below 0 celsius their relative warmth means virtually nothing
Moreover the propaganda that the Antarctice ice field is melting is fatuous at best. I posted earlier from National Snow and Ice Data Center
While it is early winter in the Arctic, it is early summer in the Antarctic. Continuing patterns seen in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent remains unusually high, near or above previous daily maximum values for each day in November. Sea ice is anomalously extensive across the Peninsula, the Amundsen Sea, and the Wilkes Land sectors. However, it has retreated in the northern Ross Sea region—where it had been far to the north of the mean ice edge—to more typical extent locations. Sea ice extent averaged 17.16 million square kilometers (6.63 million square miles) for November. The long-term 1981 to 2010 average extent for this month is 16.30 million square kilometers (6.29 million square miles).
You can throw out all the bafflegab you want to but the fact remains.
The world's global temperature average has only risen 0.8 degrees C, since the little ice age. This is a far cry from the outlandish prognostications of the IPCC and East Anglia prognosticators.
Moreover the recovery of the Arctic ice is ongoing at a rapid rate and the levels are now within the natural variants unlike 2012 when it shrank more than normal. And remember the IPCC was saying 5 years ago that the summer ice would disappear. It did not come even close. It has come up 6 places from its lowest point. That is millions of square miles of frigid temperatures.
The world's global temperature average has only risen 0.8 degrees C, since the little ice age. This is a far cry from the outlandish prognostications of the IPCC and East Anglia prognosticators. Moreover the recovery of the Arctic ice is ongoing at a rapid rate and the levels are now within the natural variants unlike 2012 when it shrank more than normal. And remember the IPCC was saying 5 years ago that the summer ice would disappear. It did not come even close. It has come up 6 places from its lowest point. That is millions of square miles of frigid temperatures.
So, Arn, time and time again you post that "The IPCC says this.." and "The IPCC said that.." Really? The IPCC has released editions of its extensive, periodic Assessment Reports in 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007 and 2013; I think that they have only released the first part of the 2013 report, the part called "The Physical Science Basis" (September 27, 2013) and not the remainder of it yet. And the IPCC has released a number of other smaller reports.
I think it's safe to say that not one of us here has ever read even one of these IPCC Assessment Reports from cover to cover, much less all five such reports.
The IPCC does not carry out direct research on the climate. The IPCC reviews the findings of climate scientists from all around the world and uses the various reports to arrive at an overall IPCC assessment. Some scientists diss the IPCC for going too far in one direction, and other scientists diss the IPCC for going too far in the other direction.
Without sources (links), no one knows whether you are talking about something that was in one of the IPCC's periodic assessment reports, or something based on a specific report from one or a handful of scientists in one of the professional journals that doesn't represent an IPCC assessment. No one can tell whether you are quoting from a report that was accorded general scientific approval, or an outlier: a report that is far out of line with what the general run of climate scientists are ready to affirm.
Here's the first part of a recent report from the Financial Times dated September 18, 2013:
The Arctic’s summer sea ice is set to nearly vanish in less than 40 years, according to the final draft of a sweeping UN climate change report [IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 2013 "The Physical Science Basis"] that sharply revises past estimates of how fast the icy north is melting.
“A nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in September before mid-century is likely,” says the draft seen by the Financial Times of the first large-scale study in six years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The retreating ice is encouraging for Arctic nations such as Russia, which is trying to boost shipping traffic along its icy Northern Sea Route.
But it is worrying for scientists because of what was described in a recent study as an “economic time bomb” that could explode if the melting Arctic permafrost releases vast plumes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and drives significant climate change.
In its last report in 2007 the IPCC said the ice, which melts a little each summer then refreezes as winter nears, was expected to disappear “almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century”. Both that projection and the revised one revealed yesterday depend on the rate of greenhouse gas emissions.
The new Arctic assessment is one of the more notable aspects of a report that more than 800 scientists from around the world have spent the last four years compiling on behalf of the nearly 200 governments that belong to the 25-year-old IPCC. . . .
The Financial Times article concludes with this:
The question of when the Arctic’s summer sea ice will vanish has also been contentious.
Last year [2012] the summer sea ice shrank to its lowest level on record.
This summer, the ice has failed to decline at such a spectacular rate, which many sea ice experts had expected.
Some scientists, such as Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge university, predict it will vanish as soon as 2015.
Others say it is more likely to take decades rather than years.
Once again I am reading wordy from the GW advocates
First off a warm summer in the Antarctic is a relative thing. It is so far below 0 celsius their relative warmth means virtually nothing
Just because it's below an arbitrarily "cold" number like 0 degrees doesn't change anything. Temperatures are rising. Isn't that the entire point of this debate?
quote
Moreover the propaganda that the Antarctice ice field is melting is fatuous at best. I posted earlier from National Snow and Ice Data Center
While it is early winter in the Arctic, it is early summer in the Antarctic. Continuing patterns seen in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent remains unusually high, near or above previous daily maximum values for each day in November.
1. Sea ice extent is not volume 2. Sea ice doesn't indicate colder temperatures because it can form from melting glacial ice, and is therefore a bad indicator of climate 3. We've been over this at least a half dozen times and you keep repeating it
quote
You can throw out all the bafflegab you want to but the fact remains.
... That is millions of square miles of frigid temperatures.
Statements like this are a perfect example of "bafflegab". Millions of square miles of "frigid temperatures" is irrelevant to global climate, especially when these areas do show warming trends.
Remember this handy table? This was taken from your buddy Watts (when he incorrectly interpreted the results on one of his blog pages). It clearly shows that the "frigid temperatures" are slowly but surely becoming less frigid.
Or what Fierobear posted with all the links of people criticizing the IPCC for its scaremongering and exaggerations
quote
Flaws in the IPCC process
1. There are scientists - quite a few, in fact - who are part of the so called "consensus" who do NOT agree with the final conclusion that "man is causing warming, period." 2. These scientists will tell you that the IPCC does not do any research or measuring of climate. The assimilate papers from climate scientists and have reviewers publish a "summary for policymakers". In many cases, the people who wrote those papers are reviewing their own work. So much for "peer review". The fox is guarding the henhouse. 3. The IPCC cherrypicks info and data that supports their conclusion, and rejects data that refutes their conclusion. 4. The process is about politics, not science.
Here are some links regarding the flawed IPCC process:
IPCC's assessment of CO2 affect is wrong. Video titled Analysing the IPCC`s climate change models Description: "Bill Kininmonth, the head of Australia`s National Climate Centre from 86 - 98 looks at the climate change issue and the IPCC`s projections to see if they are logical or not"
There was a wealth of information posted 5 years ago that debunked all the Global Warming crud and is blissfully ignored, disregarded, or discounted by the Global Warming enthusiasts who are disappointed that calamity has not come on us. They can't stand the thought that Manhattan is still above water, and that millions of people have not been relocated due to rising ocean levels. They still hang on to the fear, criticize the truth, and post reams of disinformation.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Just as long as there are fools on the forum who accept the lies told to them by David Suzuki, Al Gore, the IPCC and East Anglia.
Right now you look like an old man picking up trash on the side of the road in order to recycle it. Unfortunately, you're picking up dog crap, not aluminum cans.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: And let's not forget what Toddster posted
from the GW advocates
