Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2013, 08:05 PM  
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12364
Oh no Henny Penny! Here is a REASONABLE report concerning climate change!

Article about the report...
http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...al-warming.htm

Quote:
they believe, "A potential global warming issue has been identified that should be treated as a potential problem for which root cause is not definitely known."
For this reason, they argue, the U.S. government is "over-reacting" to the concerns of the media, scientists and activists and that a more "rational process for allocation of research funds without the constant media hype of an AGW crisis is needed."
The actual report...
http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/...ss%20Rpt-1.pdf

And here is another article showing how little we know and how it's BAD SCIENCE to keep claiming with certainty that our models are correct when they continue to be proven wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93F0AJ20130416

Quote:
"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.
Suck it you smug assholes who crow as if you know with certainty how the global climate functions. The models are horrendously flawed and always have been, a ton more research is needed before we even approach a clue.
Posts: 15,287
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 10:18 PM   #16
cdcox cdcox is offline
www.nfl-forecast.com
 
cdcox's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2000
Casino cash: $19664
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
\

NOT ONE ACCURATE PREDICTIVE MODEL IN HUMAN HISTORY. Not one.
Last time we had this discussion I gave the example of Hansen's 1988 predictions (very unsophisticated compared to those made today) which I contend has turned out to be a very reasonable prediction.

You argued that CO2 was above scenario A, while I countered that by looking at all forms of forcing (NOx, CFCs, methane, volcanic activity, etc) that we were really between scenarios B and C. (see post 57 in the thread below)

In post 58, you said I was wrong but never demonstrated why...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=268444

So no matter how many capital letters you use, you have not yet demonstrated that Hansen's predictions in 1988 were erroneous. If you can show that total forcing since 1985 is above scenario A, I'll grant that the Hansen 1988 prediction was wrong, but the ball is in your court.
Posts: 32,734
cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 10:20 PM   #17
Direckshun Direckshun is offline
Black for Palestine
 
Direckshun's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $23989
Henny Penny?
__________________
Posts: 46,884
Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 10:23 PM   #18
mlyonsd mlyonsd is offline
Supporter
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Spink, SD
Casino cash: $10955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Direckshun View Post
Henny Penny?
Hey, you're back! Things weren't the same with you running the Chief drafts.
Posts: 25,473
mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.mlyonsd is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 10:28 PM   #19
Direckshun Direckshun is offline
Black for Palestine
 
Direckshun's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $23989
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlyonsd View Post
Hey, you're back! Things weren't the same with you running the Chief drafts.
You and I both know that I have an incredible responsibility to One Arrowhead Drive.

Heavy lies the crown, mlyonsd. Heavy lies the crown.
__________________
Posts: 46,884
Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 10:32 PM   #20
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12364
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdcox View Post
Last time we had this discussion I gave the example of Hansen's 1988 predictions (very unsophisticated compared to those made today) which I contend has turned out to be a very reasonable prediction.

You argued that CO2 was above scenario A, while I countered that by looking at all forms of forcing (NOx, CFCs, methane, volcanic activity, etc) that we were really between scenarios B and C. (see post 57 in the thread below)

In post 58, you said I was wrong but never demonstrated why...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=268444

So no matter how many capital letters you use, you have not yet demonstrated that Hansen's predictions in 1988 were erroneous. If you can show that total forcing since 1985 is above scenario A, I'll grant that the Hansen 1988 prediction was wrong, but the ball is in your court.
I can't see how you can lie with a straight face about Hansen's 1988 predictions somehow being accurate. They are only accurate if you go back and CHANGE the model. Period. As I stated then and I'll reiterate... your point about other forms of forcing can make his model invalid to the argument but it CERTAINLY doesn't make it ACCURATE. I'm happy to agree that his model wasn't "wrong" it was just incomplete therefore can not be used to predict current conditions based on measurable data.

So, my point still stands.

NOT ONE MODEL HAS BEEN ACCURATE AND PREDICTIVE without requiring significant "fudging" after the fact. btw.. even Hansen admits he was significantly off on the effects of CO2 which is why he has revised his model to reflect the new numbers.

And yes his 1988 predictions were very rudimentary compared to todays models. And there is a CHANCE (highly highly unlikely.. see computational power required and Hamiltonian mechanics for one of many reasons why) that we are sitting on a model today that is more than accurate enough. BUT you can't declare the your hypothesis correct until you DO THE ****ING EXPERIMENT. No matter how much you BELIEVE it's true doesn't make it so.

Talking to climate zealots is like talking to Creationists. No amount of scientific fact or logic is going to sway them.
Posts: 15,287
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 10:32 PM   #21
Pawnmower Pawnmower is offline
MVP
 
Pawnmower's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern California
Casino cash: $29222
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post

My emotion response is a reaction
__________________
-------------------
(Your company name here)
Posts: 17,201
Pawnmower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pawnmower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pawnmower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pawnmower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pawnmower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pawnmower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pawnmower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pawnmower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pawnmower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pawnmower is obviously part of the inner Circle.Pawnmower is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 10:33 PM   #22
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Direckshun View Post
Henny Penny?
THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!
Posts: 15,287
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 10:34 PM   #23
Direckshun Direckshun is offline
Black for Palestine
 
Direckshun's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $23989
That was Chicken Little, was it not?

There's probably a literary reference I'm missing here.
__________________
Posts: 46,884
Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 10:39 PM   #24
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Direckshun View Post
That was Chicken Little, was it not?

There's probably a literary reference I'm missing here.
Holy crap. Seriously? Henny Penny is same as Chicken Licken which even later became Chicken Little.
Posts: 15,287
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 10:42 PM   #25
cdcox cdcox is offline
www.nfl-forecast.com
 
cdcox's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2000
Casino cash: $19664
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
I can't see how you can lie with a straight face about Hansen's 1988 predictions somehow being accurate. They are only accurate if you go back and CHANGE the model. Period. As I stated then and I'll reiterate... your point about other forms of forcing can make his model invalid to the argument but it CERTAINLY doesn't make it ACCURATE. I'm happy to agree that his model wasn't "wrong" it was just incomplete therefore can not be used to predict current conditions based on measurable data.

So, my point still stands.

NOT ONE MODEL HAS BEEN ACCURATE AND PREDICTIVE without requiring significant "fudging" after the fact. btw.. even Hansen admits he was significantly off on the effects of CO2 which is why he has revised his model to reflect the new numbers.

And yes his 1988 predictions were very rudimentary compared to todays models. And there is a CHANCE (highly highly unlikely) that we are sitting on a model today that is more than accurate enough. BUT you can't declare the your hypothesis correct until you DO THE ****ING EXPERIMENT. No matter how much you BELIEVE it's true doesn't make it so.

Talking to climate zealots is like talking to Creationists. No amount of scientific fact or logic is going to sway them.
Exactly how do you have to fudge the model?

The argument is very simple. Hansen made predictions for three scenarios, A, B, and C. If you plot the real temperature on those projections is looks most like the prediction from scenario B. If you look at total forcing since 1985, it looks most like scenario B. What part of this do you dispute and why?


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...8-projections/
Posts: 32,734
cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 11:03 PM   #26
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12364
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdcox View Post
Exactly how do you have to fudge the model?

The argument is very simple. Hansen made predictions for three scenarios, A, B, and C. If you plot the real temperature on those projections is looks most like the prediction from scenario B. If you look at total forcing since 1985, it looks most like scenario B. What part of this do you dispute and why?


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...8-projections/
You can't possibly be serious? HOW do you not see the massive problems with this and how you have to "fudge" the model after the fact to even come close? (and still be quite a bit off by the way)

The efficacies were "adjusted" after the fact. That is a big no no. Sorry. Also the article you quote leaves out volcanic activity. Why? Well it throws their model off even more! And here is where you lose any and ALL credibility on this... they stop their data at 2003 or 2004 which is reasonable since that article is from 2007. What isn't reasonable is the fact that you argue this point and use that as evidence without knowing that the data has diverged drastically since then. According to the Hansen model (even if we pretend there were no adjustments after the fact AND we pretend that Scenario B accurately reflects reality instead of cherry picked parts of reality) he predicted that we would be at LEAST half a degree Celsius warmer than we are. THE ONLY way Hansen's model would be close to accurate currently is if reality was closer to scenario C. It isn't even close, it's far closer to A but hell I'll let you live in make believe land and think it's scenario B... fine... it's still a massive failure. Instead of a full degree off it's only HALF as wrong.

BTW I am ALSO even allowing for the LIE of what his predictions were. The site you quote uses the adjusted 3C per doubling rate NOT the 4.2C rate that Hansen was using.
Posts: 15,287
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 11:28 PM   #27
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12364
btw even 3C is probably wrong, it's looking more and more like it's closer to 2.5C

AND as I mentioned in the past thread. Besides proving that Hansen's predictions were utter horseshit... examining this does SUGGEST to us one valuable piece of information. CO2 is not even close to being as big an issue as other gasses such as Methane. So why are we so ****ing concerned about CO2 over methane? If we are trying to actually SOLVE a problem would't it be reasonable to address what appears to be the MUCH bigger concern? Where are our methane offsets? Do vegetarians get methane credits for not eating beef?

Stupid stupid shit.
Posts: 15,287
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 11:36 PM   #28
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12364
Oh and I'll take this opportunity to boil the argument down a bit to make it more readable.

Believer: Look Hansen's predictions were correct!!!
Skeptic: Huh? No, none of his scenarios' predictions match measured data
B: Well that's because Hansen used 4.2c for doubling and it should be 3C!
S: Ok, then he was wrong, but let's move on and pretend he had that bit of info... his model still fails because it is still closer to scenario A which was way off
B: NO you failed to also adjust the efficacies of the other greenhouse gasses. NOW you see that the total forcing is closer to scenario B
S: Um, you left off volcanic activity...
B: well he couldn't predict that so we'll just ignore it
S: but that significantly changes the total forcing
B: I SAID WE'LL IGNORE IT!
S: ok, moving on...
B: NOW see he was right... temps match up right here in 2003!
S: no even with all your fudging he is still off but somewhat close... TEN years ago.. his model today would be WAY off
B: um... yeah I see that... wait a sec... wait... oh yeah! I have it! The measured temp readings you have are wrong!
S: oh great... let's hear this one...
B: yeah, see because the temperature HAS risen but it is just rising UNDER the surface of the ocean in places you can't measure... really, I swear.. my girlfriend told me... she goes to a different school... in Canada.. you wouldn't know her. Oh and also ... God buried the dinosaur bones so we would find them.. the Earth really is 5000 years old.
Posts: 15,287
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 12:03 AM   #29
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $12364
oh and this in no way was meant to reflect cdcox's argument.. he didn't say anything close to half that nonsense... I was showing the overall argument used... you can see it on many sites like the one he referenced in his post.
Posts: 15,287
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 12:03 AM   #30
cdcox cdcox is offline
www.nfl-forecast.com
 
cdcox's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2000
Casino cash: $19664
Commentary in red.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief View Post
Oh and I'll take this opportunity to boil the argument down a bit to make it more readable.

Believer: Look Hansen's predictions were correct!!!
Skeptic: Huh? No, none of his scenarios' predictions match measured data
B: Well that's because Hansen used 4.2c for doubling and it should be 3C!
Yes you are correct here. The climate sensitivity appears to be closer to 3C than 4.2C. But even with Hansen's too sensitive model, he was only 0.25 C off on predictions of 2010 temperatures.
S: Ok, then he was wrong, but let's move on and pretend he had that bit of info... his model still fails because it is still closer to scenario A which was way off
B: NO you failed to also adjust the efficacies of the other greenhouse gasses. NOW you see that the total forcing is closer to scenario B
If you put everything on a forcing basis, it accounts the effects of emissions and efficacy. If you compare Hansen's emissions and Hansen's efficacies in scenario B they represent roughly the same forcing as occured with the actual emissions and actual efficacies. Comparing forcings is an apples to apples comparison.
S: Um, you left off volcanic activity...
B: well he couldn't predict that so we'll just ignore it
Wrong. Hansen did include an El Chichon sized eruption in 1995 in his simulations. Instead we got Mt. Pinitubo in 1991. Pinitubo was larger than El Chichon. Volcanic activity has a general cooling trend (less forcing). So if you add volcanic activity it will push forcing lower, further away from scenario A.

S: but that significantly changes the total forcing
B: I SAID WE'LL IGNORE IT!
S: ok, moving on...
B: NOW see he was right... temps match up right here in 2003!
S: no even with all your fudging he is still off but somewhat close... TEN years ago.. his model today would be WAY off
No. For 2010, using a climate sensitivity of 4.2, Hansen was 0.25C high. If you adjust the sensitivity to 3.0C per doubling, its on the money.
B: um... yeah I see that... wait a sec... wait... oh yeah! I have it! The measured temp readings you have are wrong!
S: oh great... let's hear this one...
B: yeah, see because the temperature HAS risen but it is just rising UNDER the surface of the ocean in places you can't measure... really, I swear.. my girlfriend told me... she goes to a different school... in Canada.. you wouldn't know her. Oh and also ... God buried the dinosaur bones so we would find them.. the Earth really is 5000 years old.
Straw man. Never argued this and never will.
Posts: 32,734
cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.cdcox has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:26 AM.


This is a test for a client's site.
A new website that shows member-created construction site listings that need fill or have excess fill. Dirt Monkey @ https://DirtMonkey.net
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.