Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
hairykrishna said:
Diderot - any comment on the temperature trend graph using the 'have existed since 1850' subset of stations, posted by kerplunk?
Doubtful - he had none when I posted it on the science thread on the last go round. Diderot said:
Science you say HK? Be honest this doesn’t resemble anything scientific that you are involved in does it? And subsets of what exactly? What bonafide science is there in most of the global land mass having no data points to either determine actual data or margins of error? Yet, you two imagine it’s scientifically permissible to suggest that 2023 is precisely xx.xx degrees warmer than any time since 1850. You two are Little and Large, Laurel and Hardy, Morecambe and Wise etc. You are at least entertaining, I’ll give you that.
It wouldn't be scientifically correct to claim an accuracy to 2 decimal places for *any* year in relation to *any* other year (or baseline) because of the uncertainty barsThat's quite obvious by err, looking at the uncertainty bars, but I swear you think that's what is genuinely being claimed rather than the uncertainty simply being sometimes unstated. A naive person might assume that I guess, and they may then pompously lecture others about 'not understanding the epistemological issues' but they're barking up the wrong tree
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
hairykrishna said:
Diderot - any comment on the temperature trend graph using the 'have existed since 1850' subset of stations, posted by kerplunk?
Doubtful - he had none when I posted it on the science thread on the last go round. Diderot said:
Science you say HK? Be honest this doesn’t resemble anything scientific that you are involved in does it? And subsets of what exactly? What bonafide science is there in most of the global land mass having no data points to either determine actual data or margins of error? Yet, you two imagine it’s scientifically permissible to suggest that 2023 is precisely xx.xx degrees warmer than any time since 1850. You two are Little and Large, Laurel and Hardy, Morecambe and Wise etc. You are at least entertaining, I’ll give you that.
It wouldn't be scientifically correct to claim an accuracy to 2 decimal places for *any* year in relation to *any* other year (or baseline) because of the uncertainty barsThat's quite obvious by err, looking at the uncertainty bars, but I swear you think that's what is genuinely being claimed rather than the uncertainty simply being sometimes unstated. A naive person might assume that I guess, and they may then pompously lecture others about 'not understanding the epistemological issues' but they're barking up the wrong tree
KP you now suggest it wouldn’t be: ‘scientifically correct to claim an accuracy to 2 decimal places for *any* year in relation to *any* other year (or baseline) because of the uncertainty bars’.
But KP this is exactly what is being claimed. We see it everywhere. So, finally, you admit that such claims and assertions are not scientifically correct. At least you got there in the end.
Diderot said:
You couldn’t ever understand the epistemological issues KP, and seemingly you can’t now. Keep on dreaming of data that simply doesn’t exist. Keep posting your smoothed to 250km or 1000km graphics; both serve to demonstrate there is no data available.
Science you say HK? Be honest this doesn’t resemble anything scientific that you are involved in does it? And subsets of what exactly? What bonafide science is there in most of the global land mass having no data points to either determine actual data or margins of error? Yet, you two imagine it’s scientifically permissible to suggest that 2023 is precisely xx.xx degrees warmer than any time since 1850. You two are Little and Large, Laurel and Hardy, Morecambe and Wise etc. You are at least entertaining, I’ll give you that.
Subset of the full station record. Science you say HK? Be honest this doesn’t resemble anything scientific that you are involved in does it? And subsets of what exactly? What bonafide science is there in most of the global land mass having no data points to either determine actual data or margins of error? Yet, you two imagine it’s scientifically permissible to suggest that 2023 is precisely xx.xx degrees warmer than any time since 1850. You two are Little and Large, Laurel and Hardy, Morecambe and Wise etc. You are at least entertaining, I’ll give you that.
It's ok to admit you don't really understand the implications of the graph posted you know.
kerplunk said:
It wouldn't be scientifically correct to claim an accuracy to 2 decimal places for *any* year in relation to *any* other year (or baseline) because of the uncertainty bars
That's quite obvious by err, looking at the uncertainty bars, but I swear you think that's what is genuinely being claimed rather than the uncertainty simply being sometimes unstated. A naive person might assume that I guess, and they may then pompously lecture others about 'not understanding the epistemological issues' but they're barking up the wrong tree
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/may-hottest-month-global-warming-2024-c3s-b2556907.htmlThat's quite obvious by err, looking at the uncertainty bars, but I swear you think that's what is genuinely being claimed rather than the uncertainty simply being sometimes unstated. A naive person might assume that I guess, and they may then pompously lecture others about 'not understanding the epistemological issues' but they're barking up the wrong tree
article said:
The average temperature last month was 1.52C above the pre-industrial average, according to the Copernicus Climate Change Service, known as C3S.
same article said:
Global average temperature for the last 12 months, between June 2023 and May 2024, is the highest on record, 0.75C above the 1991–2020 average and 1.63C above the 1850–1900 pre-industrial average.
The (unstated) error bars are so big they get two different figures in the same article 
Here's a good one too https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-med...
Apparently the coldest year was 1892 at 7.02 degrees, amazing the technology they had back then!
.:ian:. said:
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/...
Here's a good one too https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-med...
From link:-Here's a good one too https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-med...
Met Office Climate ATTRIBUTION Scientist, Dr Nikos Christidis, said: “To assess the impact of human induced climate change on the record-breaking year of 2022, we used CLIMATE MODELS to compare the LIKELIHOOD of a UK mean temperature of 10°C in both the current climate and with historical human climate influences removed. The results showed that recording 10°C in a natural climate would occur around once every 500 years, whereas in our current climate, it COULD be as frequently as once every three to four years.
“We also used CLIMATE MODELS to PROJECT how often this sort of temperature COULD be recorded in the future. It was possible to calculate that by the end of the century, under a medium emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5), a UK average temperature of 10°C COULD occur ALMOST every year.”
So it's an unequivocal maybe then ?
Diderot said:
In this thread you actually use a 1200km smoothing graphic.
As we can see in that thread the purpose of posting the graph was to show that large areas in africa etc with no data aren't guessed at - area not covered by the 1200km smoothing is left blank. In this thread the purpose of posting the graph was to show the number of stations which as we can see is obscured when using 1200km smoothing.
Note the anomaly value stated to 2 decimal places with no uncertainty included. You have to look elsewhere to find the uncertainty stated. I know that so it doesn't bother me
Diderot said:
KP you now suggest it wouldn’t be: ‘scientifically correct to claim an accuracy to 2 decimal places for *any* year in relation to *any* other year (or baseline) because of the uncertainty bars’.
But KP this is exactly what is being claimed. We see it everywhere. So, finally, you admit that such claims and assertions are not scientifically correct. At least you got there in the end.
"KP you now suggest' - not now not everBut KP this is exactly what is being claimed. We see it everywhere. So, finally, you admit that such claims and assertions are not scientifically correct. At least you got there in the end.
What I'm also suggesting is only a scientifically naive person would assume that is what's being claimed. I don't assume that when I see it, but you do - ah well too bad. Go ahead and lecture me about my lack of understanding again
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 18th June 11:22
Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 18th June 12:20
.:ian:. said:
Apparently the coldest year was 1892 at 7.02 degrees, amazing the technology they had back then!
The technology today isn't that amazing either. Here's Dr Roy's monthly satellite obs stated to 2 decimal places without any uncertainty inclusions. A naive person might think satellite obs are that goodhttps://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/06/uah-global-te...
.
hairykrishna said:
Diderot said:
You couldn’t ever understand the epistemological issues KP, and seemingly you can’t now. Keep on dreaming of data that simply doesn’t exist. Keep posting your smoothed to 250km or 1000km graphics; both serve to demonstrate there is no data available.
Science you say HK? Be honest this doesn’t resemble anything scientific that you are involved in does it? And subsets of what exactly? What bonafide science is there in most of the global land mass having no data points to either determine actual data or margins of error? Yet, you two imagine it’s scientifically permissible to suggest that 2023 is precisely xx.xx degrees warmer than any time since 1850. You two are Little and Large, Laurel and Hardy, Morecambe and Wise etc. You are at least entertaining, I’ll give you that.
Subset of the full station record. Science you say HK? Be honest this doesn’t resemble anything scientific that you are involved in does it? And subsets of what exactly? What bonafide science is there in most of the global land mass having no data points to either determine actual data or margins of error? Yet, you two imagine it’s scientifically permissible to suggest that 2023 is precisely xx.xx degrees warmer than any time since 1850. You two are Little and Large, Laurel and Hardy, Morecambe and Wise etc. You are at least entertaining, I’ll give you that.
It's ok to admit you don't really understand the implications of the graph posted you know.
KP, it looks as though there might be, briefly, next Monday and Tuesday, a short-lived warm front coming in. Will it tip the balance in favour of the warmest June on record since 1850 to two decimal places? If so, I look forward to you citing Copernicus who will assert that it is, to two decimal places which is customary, without any reference to error bars, no footnotes, no asterisks, no disclaimers. Would you call them out on it here? (hate that Americanised expression BTW).
Diderot said:
I do but the subset must be fecking tiny (comprised of omitted outliers etc) ? Or were you thinking about something else? Genuinely very happy and interested to be informed - you’re a scientist after all. I do feel sure though, that your branch of scientific enquiry wouldn’t conduct itself (no pun intended, electrical or musical) in the manner that so-called climate science gets away with (absence of data, reliance on poor quality and inconsistent data where it does actually exist, and political manipulation).
KP, it looks as though there might be, briefly, next Monday and Tuesday, a short-lived warm front coming in. Will it tip the balance in favour of the warmest June on record since 1850 to two decimal places? If so, I look forward to you citing Copernicus who will assert that it is, to two decimal places which is customary, without any reference to error bars, no footnotes, no asterisks, no disclaimers. Would you call them out on it here? (hate that Americanised expression BTW).
"Would you call them out on it here?"KP, it looks as though there might be, briefly, next Monday and Tuesday, a short-lived warm front coming in. Will it tip the balance in favour of the warmest June on record since 1850 to two decimal places? If so, I look forward to you citing Copernicus who will assert that it is, to two decimal places which is customary, without any reference to error bars, no footnotes, no asterisks, no disclaimers. Would you call them out on it here? (hate that Americanised expression BTW).
No cos then I'd have to do the same for Dr Roy's monthly updates and everywhere else I see it, which would soon get tedious (has already). It's a bit man shakes fist at cloud
Warmer weather coming the UK's way for a change is neither here or there obviously, but I'm glad too see it. The copernicus result is quite likely to be a record breaker whatever, breaking the record set last June which was the start of the run of record breaking global av temps. You remember - when you and tb were furiously denouncing and denying the early reanalysis data that heralded it
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
I do but the subset must be fecking tiny (comprised of omitted outliers etc) ? Or were you thinking about something else? Genuinely very happy and interested to be informed - you’re a scientist after all. I do feel sure though, that your branch of scientific enquiry wouldn’t conduct itself (no pun intended, electrical or musical) in the manner that so-called climate science gets away with (absence of data, reliance on poor quality and inconsistent data where it does actually exist, and political manipulation).
KP, it looks as though there might be, briefly, next Monday and Tuesday, a short-lived warm front coming in. Will it tip the balance in favour of the warmest June on record since 1850 to two decimal places? If so, I look forward to you citing Copernicus who will assert that it is, to two decimal places which is customary, without any reference to error bars, no footnotes, no asterisks, no disclaimers. Would you call them out on it here? (hate that Americanised expression BTW).
"Would you call them out on it here?"KP, it looks as though there might be, briefly, next Monday and Tuesday, a short-lived warm front coming in. Will it tip the balance in favour of the warmest June on record since 1850 to two decimal places? If so, I look forward to you citing Copernicus who will assert that it is, to two decimal places which is customary, without any reference to error bars, no footnotes, no asterisks, no disclaimers. Would you call them out on it here? (hate that Americanised expression BTW).
No cos then I'd have to do the same for Dr Roy's monthly updates and everywhere else I see it, which would soon get tedious (has already). It's a bit man shakes fist at cloud
Warmer weather coming the UK's way for a change is neither here or there obviously, but I'm glad too see it. The copernicus result is quite likely to be a record breaker whatever, breaking the record set last June which was the start of the run of record breaking global av temps. You remember - when you and tb were furiously denouncing and denying the early reanalysis data that heralded it
Maybe contact Copernicus (obvs not the long dead scientific powerhouse) but the shadow they disingenuously associate themselves with, and take them to task on their monthly misrepresentations without reference to any error bars? Or do you merely rejoice in the fact that the average punter won’t ask any questions and merely believe what is reported by the BBC or in The Guardian?
As someone posted yesterday above, even within one article (The Indy, quelle surprise), they proffer two different figures (to two decimal places) for warming since 1850.
I salute your unshakable belief, but can’t help thinking that you need to pose more questions.
Edited by Diderot on Tuesday 18th June 22:23
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
I do but the subset must be fecking tiny (comprised of omitted outliers etc) ? Or were you thinking about something else? Genuinely very happy and interested to be informed - you’re a scientist after all. I do feel sure though, that your branch of scientific enquiry wouldn’t conduct itself (no pun intended, electrical or musical) in the manner that so-called climate science gets away with (absence of data, reliance on poor quality and inconsistent data where it does actually exist, and political manipulation).
KP, it looks as though there might be, briefly, next Monday and Tuesday, a short-lived warm front coming in. Will it tip the balance in favour of the warmest June on record since 1850 to two decimal places? If so, I look forward to you citing Copernicus who will assert that it is, to two decimal places which is customary, without any reference to error bars, no footnotes, no asterisks, no disclaimers. Would you call them out on it here? (hate that Americanised expression BTW).
"Would you call them out on it here?"KP, it looks as though there might be, briefly, next Monday and Tuesday, a short-lived warm front coming in. Will it tip the balance in favour of the warmest June on record since 1850 to two decimal places? If so, I look forward to you citing Copernicus who will assert that it is, to two decimal places which is customary, without any reference to error bars, no footnotes, no asterisks, no disclaimers. Would you call them out on it here? (hate that Americanised expression BTW).
No cos then I'd have to do the same for Dr Roy's monthly updates and everywhere else I see it, which would soon get tedious (has already). It's a bit man shakes fist at cloud
Warmer weather coming the UK's way for a change is neither here or there obviously, but I'm glad too see it. The copernicus result is quite likely to be a record breaker whatever, breaking the record set last June which was the start of the run of record breaking global av temps. You remember - when you and tb were furiously denouncing and denying the early reanalysis data that heralded it
Maybe contact Copernicus (obvs not the long dead scientific powerhouse) but the shadow they disingenuously associate themselves with, and take them to task on their monthly misrepresentations without reference to any error bars? Or do you merely rejoice in the fact that the average punter won’t ask any questions and merely believe what is reported by the BBC or in The Guardian?
As someone posted yesterday above, even within one article (The Indy, quelle surprise), they proffer two different figures (to two decimal places) for warming since 1850.
I salute your unshakable belief, but can’t help thinking that you need to pose more questions.
It is good to ask questions, which I have done frequently on varying subjects on this thread, but quite often it is met with silence.
Diderot said:
How do you really feel about the inevitable, and unavoidable, ‘hottest evah since 1850 lie’, to two decimal places though, this June or July or whichever month they will declare it? You have championed it here for May most recently, but you have now gone on record suggesting that such an assertion to two decimal places is not scientifically accurate.
I think I've only posted satellite data for May? Yes I said it wouldn't be scientifically correct to *claim* 2 decimal place accuracy, but it's more mundane than that - it's reporting the result without the uncertainty stated. I can't get very excited about that.For what it's worth it's hard to like choosing a reference period that has the highest uncertainty in the record (but I can understand why they do it)
Diderot said:
Maybe contact Copernicus (obvs not the long dead scientific powerhouse) but the shadow they disingenuously associate themselves with, and take them to task on their monthly misrepresentations without reference to any error bars? Or do you merely rejoice in the fact that the average punter won’t ask any questions and merely believe what is reported by the BBC or in The Guardian?
I think I've stated where I stand nowDiderot said:
As someone posted yesterday above, even within one article (The Indy, quelle surprise), they proffer two different figures (to two decimal places) for warming since 1850.
Yes for two different things - so? Looks like you've been 'auto-suggested' by Ian's odd comment, which looks like a misfire to meDiderot said:
I salute your unshakable belief, but can’t help thinking that you need to pose more questions.
ok professor Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 19th June 01:10
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 19th June 01:11
mike9009 said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Diderot said:
I do but the subset must be fecking tiny (comprised of omitted outliers etc) ? Or were you thinking about something else? Genuinely very happy and interested to be informed - you’re a scientist after all. I do feel sure though, that your branch of scientific enquiry wouldn’t conduct itself (no pun intended, electrical or musical) in the manner that so-called climate science gets away with (absence of data, reliance on poor quality and inconsistent data where it does actually exist, and political manipulation).
KP, it looks as though there might be, briefly, next Monday and Tuesday, a short-lived warm front coming in. Will it tip the balance in favour of the warmest June on record since 1850 to two decimal places? If so, I look forward to you citing Copernicus who will assert that it is, to two decimal places which is customary, without any reference to error bars, no footnotes, no asterisks, no disclaimers. Would you call them out on it here? (hate that Americanised expression BTW).
"Would you call them out on it here?"KP, it looks as though there might be, briefly, next Monday and Tuesday, a short-lived warm front coming in. Will it tip the balance in favour of the warmest June on record since 1850 to two decimal places? If so, I look forward to you citing Copernicus who will assert that it is, to two decimal places which is customary, without any reference to error bars, no footnotes, no asterisks, no disclaimers. Would you call them out on it here? (hate that Americanised expression BTW).
No cos then I'd have to do the same for Dr Roy's monthly updates and everywhere else I see it, which would soon get tedious (has already). It's a bit man shakes fist at cloud
Warmer weather coming the UK's way for a change is neither here or there obviously, but I'm glad too see it. The copernicus result is quite likely to be a record breaker whatever, breaking the record set last June which was the start of the run of record breaking global av temps. You remember - when you and tb were furiously denouncing and denying the early reanalysis data that heralded it
Maybe contact Copernicus (obvs not the long dead scientific powerhouse) but the shadow they disingenuously associate themselves with, and take them to task on their monthly misrepresentations without reference to any error bars? Or do you merely rejoice in the fact that the average punter won’t ask any questions and merely believe what is reported by the BBC or in The Guardian?
As someone posted yesterday above, even within one article (The Indy, quelle surprise), they proffer two different figures (to two decimal places) for warming since 1850.
I salute your unshakable belief, but can’t help thinking that you need to pose more questions.
It is good to ask questions, which I have done frequently on varying subjects on this thread, but quite often it is met with silence.
mike9009 said:
Lots of energy in the summer when we don't need it. Perfect.Diderot said:
I do but the subset must be fecking tiny (comprised of omitted outliers etc) ? Or were you thinking about something else? Genuinely very happy and interested to be informed - you’re a scientist after all. I do feel sure though, that your branch of scientific enquiry wouldn’t conduct itself (no pun intended, electrical or musical) in the manner that so-called climate science gets away with (absence of data, reliance on poor quality and inconsistent data where it does actually exist, and political manipulation).
All branches of science work with the data they have and understanding progresses as more data becomes available.I was talking about the subset of stations which have existed since 1850. There's a warming trend, using just that data set, which is quite similar to the 'full coverage' set. This suggests to me that the areas covered by those stations has significantly warmed since 1850. So is your argument that the areas of the globe we don't have coverage for in 1850 have not warmed in the early part of the record even though they do in the later part? Because I think that's unlikely.
I'm happy to be corrected, because it's your point of view I'm trying to work out, but you seem hung up on the 'average global temperature'. Yes there are big coverage gaps in the early part of the record and the 'average temperature' is less meaningful. The conventional viewpoint, which seems supported by data, is that there are enough stations to draw conclusions about warming trends even with these coverage gaps. If you disagree with this viewpoint I think you need more of an argument than pointing at the map of the stations and saying there are holes in the coverage.
robinessex said:
mike9009 said:
Lots of energy in the summer when we don't need it. Perfect.Nice and windy in autumn and winter though. A great balance to switch off fossil fuels. (Or in France Nuclear plants or supply surplus to other EU members perhaps?)
Edited by mike9009 on Wednesday 19th June 13:16
hairykrishna said:
Diderot said:
I do but the subset must be fecking tiny (comprised of omitted outliers etc) ? Or were you thinking about something else? Genuinely very happy and interested to be informed - you’re a scientist after all. I do feel sure though, that your branch of scientific enquiry wouldn’t conduct itself (no pun intended, electrical or musical) in the manner that so-called climate science gets away with (absence of data, reliance on poor quality and inconsistent data where it does actually exist, and political manipulation).
hairykrishna said:
All branches of science work with the data they have and understanding progresses as more data becomes available.
Yes, but in this case, other than an increased reliance on proxies, more data will never be available. hairykrishna said:
I was talking about the subset of stations which have existed since 1850. There's a warming trend, using just that data set, which is quite similar to the 'full coverage' set. This suggests to me that the areas covered by those stations has significantly warmed since 1850. So is your argument that the areas of the globe we don't have coverage for in 1850 have not warmed in the early part of the record even though they do in the later part? Because I think that's unlikely.
My argument is that given the vast majority of the global land mass had no station coverage at all until well into the 20th century, and that where there was coverage, it was of such variable quality and reliability, that the assumptions you are making above are inherently problematic. We just cannot know - we can interpolate, extrapolate, estimate and subject the dearth of data to all sorts of statistical gymnastics - but ultimately we cannot know. So when claims are made (especially without qualification) about 2023 being the hottest year since records began, and the claimed global average temperature is presented to two decimal places, it is pure sophistry - unscientific to use KP's term. The political weaponisation of this 'hottest ever' headline-grabber relies on the apparent degree of certainty with which it is proclaimed; using two decimal places merely reinforces the perception of certainty in the populace. There's no circa, no +/- x degrees; it's always presented as a statement of fact. Politically, this is, of course, an absolutely crucial manoeuvre.
hairykrishna said:
I'm happy to be corrected, because it's your point of view I'm trying to work out, but you seem hung up on the 'average global temperature'. Yes there are big coverage gaps in the early part of the record and the 'average temperature' is less meaningful. The conventional viewpoint, which seems supported by data, is that there are enough stations to draw conclusions about warming trends even with these coverage gaps. If you disagree with this viewpoint I think you need more of an argument than pointing at the map of the stations and saying there are holes in the coverage.
The irony is that I'm not 'hung up on the average global temperature'; the political machine is. You suggest that 'yes there are big coverage gaps in the early part of the record and the 'average temperature' is less meaningful', but that its not quite true is it? It is entirely necessary to present the early part of the record as if were pristine, accurate, and truly global, so that any claims about 2023 being the hottest ever accrues greater significance, impact and political capital. It's a sleight of hand with only one purpose. Its the hottest since instrumental records began. It's that simple. You pick whenever you think the coverage is good enough but the people who actually understand this stuff settle on the mid to late 1800's. Generally 1850 for trending or 1880 for average global temp. You can argue that the sampling in the 1800's isn't good enough but if you look at the data later in the record that doesn't appear to be true.
If you want to argue that records only get good enough mid 20th century, that's fine. It's the hottest since then.
If you want to argue that records only get good enough mid 20th century, that's fine. It's the hottest since then.
Diderot said:
There's no circa, no +/- x degrees; it's always presented as a statement of fact. Politically, this is, of course, an absolutely crucial manoeuvre.
Looks like the WMO didn't get the memo:"The WMO report confirmed that 2023 was the warmest year on record, with the global average near-surface temperature at 1.45 °Celsius (with a margin of uncertainty of ± 0.12 °C) above the pre-industrial baseline."
Or Berkeley Earth:
"The global annual average for 2023 in our dataset was estimated as 1.54 ± 0.06 °C (2.77 ± 0.11 °F) above the average during the period 1850 to 1900, which is traditionally used a reference for the preindustrial period."
Or the Met Office:
"The HadCRUT5 dataset is compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia (UEA), with support from the National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS). It shows that when compared with the pre-industrial reference period, 2023 was 1.46 ± 0.1 °C above the 1850-1900 average."
Note how the numbers aren't in precise agreement between providers. Your belief that the perception of precision to 2-decimal places is politically crucial is on very flimsy ground
I salute your unshakable belief, prof (not really) but can’t help thinking that you need to pose more questions
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 19th June 15:07
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff