Page 47 of 55 FirstFirst ... 2237383940414243444546474849505152535455 LastLast
Results 921 to 940 of 1098

Thread: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

  1. #921
    Stario's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Not the CCCP
    Posts
    2,042

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Back to "all data that contradicts my beliefs is manipulated" and random YouTube videos as sources now?
    The [random YT videos] & random manipulated 'global warming' graphs, even Wikipedia (yes! i said Wikipedia), should all be taken with a grain of salt, but they are a good start to point the random commoner or layman to do his/her own research if that said random commoner/layman wanted to pursue such en devour. Many of those "Random YT videos" provide reference lists.

    It is interesting -each time B.W. et al. defeat your "global-alarmist scaremongering' argument(s)", the global-alarmist of the TWC forums try moving the goal posts, instead of trying to debate the actual post of said posters such as B.W.

    You know the debate is lost when a poster is too lazy to check the references of those so called deemed "random YouTube videos" & then attempt to debate & invalidate the point/post a poster such as B.W. has made by claiming "random YouTube videos".
    Last edited by Stario; February 20, 2020 at 02:49 PM.

  2. #922
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    At least that early, but probably much older. It is a good example of how dogma and a lot of money can control the narrative. The debate on the age of the Sphinx still rages, as does this thread, regardless of how much data manipulation has taken place to support the AGW theory.
    But why do you decide to choose a side instead of the other? What made you choose this side of the argument?

    Do you understand why the idea of a much older Sphinx is problematic from the point of view of others?


    Quote Originally Posted by Stario View Post
    It is interesting -each time B.W. et al. defeat your "global-alarmist scaremongering' argument(s)", the global-alarmist of the TWC forums try moving the goal posts, instead of trying to debate the actual post of said posters such as B.W.
    I think if there is a contest to determine which one most often ignores the arguments from others, you should both be competing for the first place.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  3. #923
    Stario's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Not the CCCP
    Posts
    2,042

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    I think if there is a contest to determine which one most often ignores the arguments from others, you should both be competing for the first place.
    I am sorry you feel ignored. You must understand my time is limited.
    I simply cannot nor have the time answer every post; particularly if the post is yet another cluttered spam re post already disproved or one that just moved the goal posts & doesn't address the actual argument. Which you yourself seem to do alot when you post.

  4. #924
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by irontaino View Post
    Back to "all data that contradicts my beliefs is manipulated" and random YouTube videos as sources now?
    It has been conclusively pointed out that the data supporting the ANG argument is wholly based on manipulated data. You, on the other hand, have not once specifically debunked any of the information supplied in the articles I have posted, nor have you listed any incorrect information in said videos you are criticizing.

    Speaking off videos, this one completely debunks the "97% consensus" claim made by climate alarmists. Just like all the other "supporting data" used by climate alarmists it is based on manipulated data:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    But why do you decide to choose a side instead of the other? What made you choose this side of the argument?

    Do you understand why the idea of a much older Sphinx is problematic from the point of view of others?
    For most of my life I took the standard Egyptology explanation as accurate. However, when it was pointed out that the weathering in the Sphinx enclosure was rain erosion and not wind erosion I changed my view. The difference between the two is like night and day; geology 101.

    The argument of a Sphinx built in 2500 BC is much like the argument for man made global warming. In the case of the Sphinx, the evidence for the 2500 BC date is based more on clairvoyance rather than science. The historical data is extremely fragmentary and there is absolutely no written evidence to support it. There are many views of how the earth's climate system works in conjunction with variable factors and each has its own fan club. The distinction of the ANG argument, in particular, is that is it based entirely on manipulated data and questionable computer models.

    It has been claimed by some on this thread (and others) that my posts are too brief. The fact is, and has been proven, that many come on this thread to engage in the adolescent pastime of heckling without ever checking the information I post. Therefore, there is no compelling reason I should do more.

    I, on the other hand, often go through the painstaking procedure of reading through the information to check its source and reliability. I've noticed that you continually post a wall of links, presumably with the notion that the sheer number of links somehow gives your argument more credibility. Never mind that fact that they are all based on manipulated data. You may think you're winning the argument, but you aren't.



    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    I think if there is a contest to determine which one most often ignores the arguments from others, you should both be competing for the first place.
    Time and time again, the arguments, links, etc. you have presented have been shown to be based on manipulated and fraudulent data. That pretty well says it all.

  5. #925
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    The difference between the two is like night and day; geology 101.

    The argument of a Sphinx built in 2500 BC is much like the argument for man made global warming. In the case of the Sphinx, the evidence for the 2500 BC date is based more on clairvoyance rather than science.
    Honestly did you have checked a tiny bit the arguments for the dating around 2500 BC? You are suggesting it is science vs. clairvoyance, implying there is no science behind the 2500 BC date.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  6. #926
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Honestly did you have checked a tiny bit the arguments for the dating around 2500 BC? You are suggesting it is science vs. clairvoyance, implying there is no science behind the 2500 BC date.
    The only science concerning the Sphinx dating is the geologic evidence of rainwater erosion. All the other arguments are strictly interpretive and based on highly fragmentary evidence.

    There is a similarity, at least metaphorically, in how the Egyptologists arrived at their conclusion and how the global warming crowd arrived at their conclusion. The archaeologists took incomplete pieces of fragmentary papyri and filled in the blank spaces with what they thought seemed fitting and supported their 2500 BC date that was originally based on the Sphinx Steele. The climate alarmists did the same thing when they fabricated data to match what they concluded to be happening.

  7. #927
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    The only science concerning the Sphinx dating is the geologic evidence of rainwater erosion. All the other arguments are strictly interpretive and based on highly fragmentary evidence.
    Actually the only convincing argument is that there is water erosion on the lower part of the Sphinx but that's all. The other arguments are built from what you call clairvoyance and estimation.

    You cannot "date" from erosion evidence. They have only estimated rate of erosion to date the sphinx and most of the time the defender of this hypothesis have disagreeing dating.

    I have seen people saying 5000, 7000, 13000 and even 800'000 BC from this evidence. And there are good reasons for this, the period of the green Sahara (African humid period) is not that much rainy in North Egypt. I don't see how these kind of erosion would have appeared in such short period of time exclusively from rainfall (intermittent events).

    There are better explanation for these erosion evidences:
    http://www.palarch.nl/wp-content/van...y_1_1_2006.pdf
    http://www.palarch.nl/wp-content/van...y_3_1_2006.pdf

    There is a similarity, at least metaphorically, in how the Egyptologists arrived at their conclusion and how the global warming crowd arrived at their conclusion. The archaeologists took incomplete pieces of fragmentary papyri and filled in the blank spaces with what they thought seemed fitting and supported their 2500 BC date that was originally based on the Sphinx Steele. The climate alarmists did the same thing when they fabricated data to match what they concluded to be happening.
    The consensus about the role of CO2 in the climate comes from physics:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilbert Norman Plass in 1956
    The carbon dioxide theory was first proposed in 1861 by Tyndall. The first extensive calculations were necessarily done by very approximate methods. There are thousands of spectral lines due to carbon dioxide which are responsible for the absorption and each of these lines occurs in a complicated pattern with variations in intensity and the width of the spectral lines. Further the pattern is not even the same at all heights in the atmosphere, since the width and intensity of the spectral lines varies with the temperature and pressure. Only recently has a reasonably accurate solution to the problem of the influence of carbon dioxide on surface temperature been possible, because of accurate infrared measurements, theoretical developments, and the availability of a high-speed electronic computer.

    The fact that water vapor absorbs to some extent in the same spectral interval as carbon dioxide is the basis for the usual objection to the carbon dioxide theory. According to this argument the water vapor absorption is so large that there would be virtually no change in the outgoing radiation if the carbon dioxide concentration should change. However, this conclusion was based on early, very approximate treatments of the very complex problem of the calculation of the infrared flux in the atmosphere. Recent and more accurate calculations that take into account the detailed structure of the spectra of these two gases show that they are relatively independent of one another in their influence on the infrared absorption. There are two main reasons for this result: (1) there is no correlation between the frequencies of the spectral lines for carbon dioxide and water vapor and so the lines do not often overlap because of nearly coincident positions for the spectral lines; (2) the fractional concentration of water vapor falls off very rapidly with height whereas carbon dioxide is nearly uniformly distributed. Because of this last fact, even if the water vapor absorption were larger than that of carbon dioxide in a certain spectral interval at the surface of the Earth, at only a short distance above the ground the carbon dioxide absorption would be considerably larger than that of the water vapor. Careful estimates show that the temperature changes given above for carbon dioxide would not be reduced by more than 20 per cent because of water vapor absorption.

    One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: the atmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals.

    Thus there does not seem to be a fundamental objection to the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. Further the temperature changes given by the theory for reasonable variations in the carbon dioxide amount are more than enough to cause noticeable changes in the climate. It is not usually appreciated that very small changes in the average temperature can have an appreciable influence on the climate. For example, various authorities estimate that, if the average temperature should decrease from 1.5 to 8 degrees, the glaciers would again form over an appreciable fraction of the Earth’s surface. Similarly a rise in the average temperature of perhaps only 4 degrees would bring a tropical climate to most of the Earth’s surface.
    https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...nd-the-climate
    In this case, scientists have determined that greenhouse gases are the primary factor causing the temperature change we are currently experiencing. Other factors have caused climate changes in the pre-industrial past, but those factors don’t fit the profile of what we’re seeing now. Scientists have established this using a variety of signals, sometimes called “fingerprints.”

    *Rising CO2: CO2 levels are higher than the planet has experienced for 1'000'000 years. We can tell that this CO2 is coming from fossil fuels and not natural sources, because it has a different molecular weight. See here and here.
    *Fast rate of warming: The current warming is very rapid compared to past changes, too rapid to be due to slow, predictable forces like shifts in the Earth’s orbit. See here.
    *Solar trends: Over the past 35 years, solar radiation has been on an overall downward trend, while temperatures have risen. See here.
    *Downward radiation: When CO2 absorbs and releases heat energy back to Earth, it does so at a particular wavelength. If CO2 is warming the planet, we would expect downward radiation at this wavelength to be increasing, and research shows that it is. See here, here and here.
    *Stratospheric cooling: The lowest layer of the atmosphere is called the troposphere, and the next layer up is the stratosphere. While the troposphere is warming, the stratosphere is cooling. If warming was caused by the Sun, we would expect both layers to warm. Research shows that only greenhouse gas warming causes the layers to diverge the way that we’ve observed. See here and here.
    *Warmer nights and winters: Observations show that nighttime temperatures are warming faster than daytime temperatures, and winters are warming faster than summers. If natural factors such as the Sun were causing warming, we would expect different seasons and times to warm evenly, but they are not. In fact, greenhouse gas pioneer John Tyndall predicted this effect as long ago as the mid-1800s. See here and here.
    *Computer models: Studies using computer models show that when models incorporate only natural factors, simulated temperatures remain stable or decrease. When human influence is included, temperatures rise, as we’ve seen actual temperatures rise. Many other studies have taken their own approach to tallying the human and natural forces acting on our climate and reached similar conclusions. See here and here.
    *Statistics: The statistical association between temperature and greenhouse gases is attested by several studies analyzing how time-series of greenhouse gases are able to predict the following time-series of temperature. See here and here.
    Last edited by Genava; March 06, 2020 at 05:19 PM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  8. #928
    Slydessertfox's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The US of A
    Posts
    2,918

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post

    Speaking off videos, this one completely debunks the "97% consensus" claim made by climate alarmists. Just like all the other "supporting data" used by climate alarmists it is based on manipulated data:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw
    Who should I believe, the entire scientific community or uh...a video by a certain Dr. John Robson, whose PhD is in...American History. Why exactly should I believe this man knows anything about climate science?

    Unless you want to claim that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere do not correlate with increased global average temperatures, which, to be clear, means you are arguing with the very basic premises of physics and chemistry, then it is impossible to argue that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere does not cause temperature rises.

  9. #929
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,294

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slydessertfox View Post
    Who should I believe, the entire scientific community or uh...a video by a certain Dr. John Robson, whose PhD is in...American History. Why exactly should I believe this man knows anything about climate science?

    Unless you want to claim that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere do not correlate with increased global average temperatures, which, to be clear, means you are arguing with the very basic premises of physics and chemistry, then it is impossible to argue that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere does not cause temperature rises.

    Good man there, you understood. I think you deserve to rest easy now.

  10. #930
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Actually the only convincing argument is that there is water erosion on the lower part of the Sphinx but that's all. The other arguments are built from what you call clairvoyance and estimation.

    You cannot "date" from erosion evidence. They have only estimated rate of erosion to date the sphinx and most of the time the defender of this hypothesis have disagreeing dating.

    I have seen people saying 5000, 7000, 13000 and even 800'000 BC from this evidence. And there are good reasons for this, the period of the green Sahara (African humid period) is not that much rainy in North Egypt. I don't see how these kind of erosion would have appeared in such short period of time exclusively from rainfall (intermittent events).

    There are better explanation for these erosion evidences:
    http://www.palarch.nl/wp-content/van...y_1_1_2006.pdf
    http://www.palarch.nl/wp-content/van...y_3_1_2006.pdf
    Hahaha! I read those articles when they came out. They were interesting, but just as problematic as the 800,000 year old date. Even Reader predates the Sphinx construction to a time earlier than Khufu; this in spite of the fact that he has a common source of funding (sound familiar) as Lerner whose original objection was that there was no evidence anywhere of monumental constructions prior to 2500 BC.

    There are some points of contention there, as in everything ancient Egyptian. First, at the time the Sphinx was built it was well above the water table. Then there are the enclosure chisel marks and the mud brick ruins at Saqarra, supposedly dating to the same time period. Neither Schoch's theory nor Reader's theory includes the very relevant fact that a major flood would have occurred around 3000 BC as a result of the Burkle crater impact.

    Just like the AGW argument, the data is inconclusive.


    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    The consensus about the role of CO2 in the climate comes from physics:



    In this case, scientists have determined that greenhouse gases are the primary factor causing the temperature change we are currently experiencing. Other factors have caused climate changes in the pre-industrial past, but those factors don’t fit the profile of what we’re seeing now. Scientists have established this using a variety of signals, sometimes called “fingerprints.”

    *Rising CO2: CO2 levels are higher than the planet has experienced for 1'000'000 years. We can tell that this CO2 is coming from fossil fuels and not natural sources, because it has a different molecular weight. See here and here.
    *Fast rate of warming: The current warming is very rapid compared to past changes, too rapid to be due to slow, predictable forces like shifts in the Earth’s orbit. See here.
    *Solar trends: Over the past 35 years, solar radiation has been on an overall downward trend, while temperatures have risen. See here.
    *Downward radiation: When CO2 absorbs and releases heat energy back to Earth, it does so at a particular wavelength. If CO2 is warming the planet, we would expect downward radiation at this wavelength to be increasing, and research shows that it is. See here, here and here.
    *Stratospheric cooling: The lowest layer of the atmosphere is called the troposphere, and the next layer up is the stratosphere. While the troposphere is warming, the stratosphere is cooling. If warming was caused by the Sun, we would expect both layers to warm. Research shows that only greenhouse gas warming causes the layers to diverge the way that we’ve observed. See here and here.
    *Warmer nights and winters: Observations show that nighttime temperatures are warming faster than daytime temperatures, and winters are warming faster than summers. If natural factors such as the Sun were causing warming, we would expect different seasons and times to warm evenly, but they are not. In fact, greenhouse gas pioneer John Tyndall predicted this effect as long ago as the mid-1800s. See here and here.
    *Computer models: Studies using computer models show that when models incorporate only natural factors, simulated temperatures remain stable or decrease. When human influence is included, temperatures rise, as we’ve seen actual temperatures rise. Many other studies have taken their own approach to tallying the human and natural forces acting on our climate and reached similar conclusions. See here and here.
    *Statistics: The statistical association between temperature and greenhouse gases is attested by several studies analyzing how time-series of greenhouse gases are able to predict the following time-series of temperature. See here and here.
    Yeah, right. Those are the same computer models that claim all sea level rise is from the effects of AGW. This is not true:

    http://www.thegwpf.com/sea-level-ris...w-study-finds/

    Quote Originally Posted by Slydessertfox View Post
    Who should I believe, the entire scientific community or uh...a video by a certain Dr. John Robson, whose PhD is in...American History. Why exactly should I believe this man knows anything about climate science?

    Unless you want to claim that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere do not correlate with increased global average temperatures, which, to be clear, means you are arguing with the very basic premises of physics and chemistry, then it is impossible to argue that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere does not cause temperature rises.


    That's a bizarre perspective to make a case from. A historian would be exactly the sort of person to sort out the origin of the so called "consensus theory". It doesn't require any knowledge of climate science whatsoever.

    Now, specifically, what are the things about the history of the consensus, as claimed in the video, are you contending to be inaccurate?

  11. #931
    Slydessertfox's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The US of A
    Posts
    2,918

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post


    That's a bizarre perspective to make a case from. A historian would be exactly the sort of person to sort out the origin of the so called "consensus theory". It doesn't require any knowledge of climate science whatsoever.

    Now, specifically, what are the things about the history of the consensus, as claimed in the video, are you contending to be inaccurate?
    It relies on troves of misinformation and outright lies. But the dude calls himself a Dr. and posted it on YouTube so apologies for not believing it, it must be real. Random YouTubers would never lie. If you actually care about why the "97% of publishing climate scientists agree" thing is actually true, and not some conspiracy by Big Science to trick ordinary people into supporting clean energy (wow, what a nefarious plot that would be), here's The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

    The numbers. By coincidence, also in July, a 2013 paper that I co-authored with my colleagues at Skeptical Science on the expert consensus about human-caused climate change in peer-reviewed literature was downloaded for the millionth time. In that study, our team examined the abstracts of nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science studies published between 1991 and 2011, and categorized each one based on its position on the causes of global warming. In a second phase of our analysis we e-mailed the authors of each study and asked them to categorize their own papers using the same criteria, receiving 1,200 responses. Our team’s review of the abstracts yielded a 97.1 percent consensus that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming; the author self-ratings yielded a 97.2 percent consensus.
    Our analysis built upon a previous study published by Naomi Oreskes in the peer-reviewed journal Science in 2004. In her paper, which also just surpassed 1 million downloads, Oreskes examined the abstracts of 928 peer-reviewed climate papers published between 1993 and 2003. In her review, none of the abstracts disputed human-caused global warming. Not a single one out of 928. In 2016, our two groups teamed with the authors of five other climate consensus studies to publish a paper documenting the ‘consensus on consensus,’ in which we demonstrated that between 90 and 100 percent of climate scientists and their peer-reviewed research agree that humans are the main cause of recent global warming.
    Wow, look at that, real analysis of peer reviewed climate change studies! And turns out, the 97% is disputed-disputed in the sense that some collections of these studies have found a 100% agreement.

  12. #932
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slydessertfox View Post
    It relies on troves of misinformation and outright lies. But the dude calls himself a Dr. and posted it on YouTube so apologies for not believing it, it must be real. Random YouTubers would never lie. If you actually care about why the "97% of publishing climate scientists agree" thing is actually true, and not some conspiracy by Big Science to trick ordinary people into supporting clean energy (wow, what a nefarious plot that would be), here's The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:



    Wow, look at that, real analysis of peer reviewed climate change studies! And turns out, the 97% is disputed-disputed in the sense that some collections of these studies have found a 100% agreement.
    That's just another instance of how the AGW crowd manipulates data. The question that they got a 97% consensus on asked if the person being polled believed that human activity had an effect on climate. This is not questionable. Practically everyone believes human activity has an effect on the climate. That doesn't mean that "everyone" thinks that climate is controlled by human activities.

  13. #933
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    The question that they got a 97% consensus on asked if the person being polled believed that human activity had an effect on climate.
    I don't think you are talking about the same study than Slydessertfox. You are probably repeating stuff from AGW deniers blogs about something else simply as a reflex.

    Yeah, right. Those are the same computer models that claim all sea level rise is from the effects of AGW. This is not true:
    Translation: You have no argument against my evidences so you made a deflective argument.

    Moreover, your deflective arguing is wrong:




    Even Reader predates the Sphinx construction to a time earlier than Khufu; this in spite of the fact that he has a common source of funding (sound familiar) as Lerner whose original objection was that there was no evidence anywhere of monumental constructions prior to 2500 BC.
    The globalist agenda again?

    Neither Schoch's theory nor Reader's theory includes the very relevant fact that a major flood would have occurred around 3000 BC as a result of the Burkle crater impact.
    The theory of a global deluge because of a meteor event in the Southern Indian Ocean?

    You are quick to slander researchers who don't share your opinion or at least taking them for ignorant and corrupted persons, you are quick to dismiss the work of a scientific field labeling it as unscientific and only "clairvoyance" based, but here you are bringing this hypothesis about an impact that have never been dated in-situ, by sampling the crater itself. The Burckle Crater dating in the Holocene is based on observation of wedge-shaped sediment deposit (chevron land-forms) in Madagascar, which is controversial because there is no evidence that meteor events are producing these kind of land-forms.

    "Very relevant fact", my foot.
    Last edited by Genava; March 08, 2020 at 10:15 AM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  14. #934
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    I don't think you are talking about the same study than Slydessertfox. You are probably repeating stuff from AGW deniers blogs about something else simply as a reflex.



    Translation: You have no argument against my evidences so you made a deflective argument.

    Moreover, your deflective arguing is wrong:






    The globalist agenda again?



    The theory of a global deluge because of a meteor event in the Southern Indian Ocean?

    You are quick to slander researchers who don't share your opinion or at least taking them for ignorant and corrupted persons, you are quick to dismiss the work of a scientific field labeling it as unscientific and only "clairvoyance" based, but here you are bringing this hypothesis about an impact that have never been dated in-situ, by sampling the crater itself. The Burckle Crater dating in the Holocene is based on observation of wedge-shaped sediment deposit (chevron land-forms) in Madagascar, which is controversial because there is no evidence that meteor events are producing these kind of land-forms.

    "Very relevant fact", my foot.
    1. The study was done by York, not me.

    2. Why do you assume I think there's a globalist agenda in dating the Sphinx. What was the trigger word that made you think such nonsense?

    3. I never mentioned a global deluge as a result of the Burkle crater impact. Nile flooding would have resulted as a consequence of rainfall due to the massive amount of moisture pushed into the atmosphere. The east African highlands would have prevented tsunamis from reaching the Nile. How do you come up with these crazy assumptions? What is the thought process?

    4. The chevrons are a result of wave action. They were dated using c14. If you want to argue the c14 dates could be wrong I have no problem with that. I'm just going with what the c14 dates currently are saying. There is definitely the possibility that they could be wrong. I'm leaving that door open.

  15. #935
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B.W.
    Why do you assume I think there's a globalist agenda in dating the Sphinx. What was the trigger word that made you think such nonsense?
    Probably 47 pages with you constantly bringing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by B.W.
    I never mentioned a global deluge as a result of the Burkle crater impact. Nile flooding would have resulted as a consequence of rainfall due to the massive amount of moisture pushed into the atmosphere.
    Which is the global deluge theory from Abbott and al., they calculated the possibility of worldwide rainfall exclusively from the Burckle crater impact and they admitted it is far insufficient (it doesn't even impact Egypt in case you are wondering). But since they are believing that the worldwide folklore about floods and deluges must be real accounts based on a single event, they suspect several meteor events from a Shoemaker-Levy comet whose the Burckle crater is only due to a fragment. This is how they are explaining the possibility of extensive rainfall worldwide.
    https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2017...urckle-impact/
    https://academiccommons.columbia.edu....7916/D89P31F3

    You mentioned the link between the crater and the flood of Egypt, so I see only this as the source of your reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by B.W.
    The chevrons are a result of wave action. They were dated using c14. If you want to argue the c14 dates could be wrong I have no problem with that.
    Do you have a source about this radiocarbon dating giving a date of the event around 3000 BC? As far as I know, they only measured 14C for the former marine carbonates which gave them the maximum age of the event (which ended around 13000 years old maximum). If you know other measurements, I am interested by the references.

    Anyway, I was contesting the link between the chevron and the meteor event. According to recent field survey in Western Australia, the chevrons are probably related to aeolian processes:

    According to Abbott et al.(2006, 2007c) and Gusiakov et al.(2010), such high-magnitude tsunamis cannot be caused by earthquakes, but by submarine eruptions, submarine slides or oceanic impacts, where as the impact theory is favoured (Abbottet al.,2006, 2007a; Masseet al., 2006). Currently, the (mega-)tsunami hypothesis is challenged by several authors who argue that hydrodynamic aspects of tsunami propagation and inundation cannot produce such large-scaled sand bodies, consequently arguing in favour of an aeolian chevron origin (Blakeslee, 2006; Bourgeois &Weiss, 2009; Gramling, 2009; Garcia Garciaet al., 2012; Goff & Chague-Goff, 2014). However, the debate on the origin of chevrons is mainly founded on the analysis of aerial images and modelling. The discussion is lacking detailed field observation, for example the chevrons at Point Quobba have not been surveyed in the field, and determination of ages, grain size or composition were so far pure speculation. [...long discussion of their observations...] In summary, the sediment composition, obtained age range, wind velocities in regard to the present grain size, and the alignment of the chevrons relative to the prevailing wind direction, speak in favour of an aeolian origin of the chevrons and contradict a hypothetical (mega-)tsunami origin.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...hxWknMaj51nD2U
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  16. #936
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Probably 47 pages with you constantly bringing it.
    That would be 47 pages of me pointing out that your conclusions are based on fabricated data.

    It is nice to see, however, that you are finally talking about something (impacts) that could have an immediate and profound effect on Earth's climate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Which is the global deluge theory from Abbott and al., they calculated the possibility of worldwide rainfall exclusively from the Burckle crater impact and they admitted it is far insufficient (it doesn't even impact Egypt in case you are wondering). But since they are believing that the worldwide folklore about floods and deluges must be real accounts based on a single event, they suspect several meteor events from a Shoemaker-Levy comet whose the Burckle crater is only due to a fragment. This is how they are explaining the possibility of extensive rainfall worldwide.
    https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2017...urckle-impact/
    https://academiccommons.columbia.edu....7916/D89P31F3

    You mentioned the link between the crater and the flood of Egypt, so I see only this as the source of your reasoning.
    1. First, I never mentioned a world wide flood or world wide rainfall as a result of the Burkle impact event.

    2. The flooding in Egypt would have been a result of extraordinary rainfall in the east African highlands which is the source of the Nile. I know this might come as a revelation to you, but water runs downhill.

    3. At least this time you posted a source which is quite interesting. However, with that said, their argument that sea borne tsunamis do not hold sediments doesn't match up with the facts.

    The crater is 12,000 feet below the surface and it is 18 miles in diameter. To say that it would not generate ocean floor sediment in a tsunamis is a bit off the charts and frankly not believable.

    4. Although the paper you referenced says there is no possible way to triangulate the impact from the chevrons, this is exactly how the Holocene impact Group found the crater. The chevrons point in the direction of the source and they are found around the Indian Ocean. By finding the intersecting points a common source might be found and that is exactly how the crater was located.

    5. It is not surprising that AGW "scientists" are trying to discredit the Holocene Impact Group. They are competing for funds as well as the fact that finding large numbers of Holocene aged craters discredits the notion that the AGW crowd has indoctrinated into today's youth that the last few thousand years are the "normal" climate for the Earth; this is, in fact, the exception.



    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Do you have a source about this radiocarbon dating giving a date of the event around 3000 BC? As far as I know, they only measured 14C for the former marine carbonates which gave them the maximum age of the event (which ended around 13000 years old maximum). If you know other measurements, I am interested by the references.

    Anyway, I was contesting the link between the chevron and the meteor event. According to recent field survey in Western Australia, the chevrons are probably related to aeolian processes:

    According to Abbott et al.(2006, 2007c) and Gusiakov et al.(2010), such high-magnitude tsunamis cannot be caused by earthquakes, but by submarine eruptions, submarine slides or oceanic impacts, where as the impact theory is favoured (Abbottet al.,2006, 2007a; Masseet al., 2006). Currently, the (mega-)tsunami hypothesis is challenged by several authors who argue that hydrodynamic aspects of tsunami propagation and inundation cannot produce such large-scaled sand bodies, consequently arguing in favour of an aeolian chevron origin (Blakeslee, 2006; Bourgeois &Weiss, 2009; Gramling, 2009; Garcia Garciaet al., 2012; Goff & Chague-Goff, 2014). However, the debate on the origin of chevrons is mainly founded on the analysis of aerial images and modelling. The discussion is lacking detailed field observation, for example the chevrons at Point Quobba have not been surveyed in the field, and determination of ages, grain size or composition were so far pure speculation. [...long discussion of their observations...] In summary, the sediment composition, obtained age range, wind velocities in regard to the present grain size, and the alignment of the chevrons relative to the prevailing wind direction, speak in favour of an aeolian origin of the chevrons and contradict a hypothetical (mega-)tsunami origin.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...hxWknMaj51nD2U
    I addressed most of this above and you gave a source for the date in your links. I plan to return to your first link and go over some of the things listed there such as the plasma impact theory for the end of the last ice age. I've seen this before but haven't really looked into it.

    As for the consensus video I posted. It is supported with source materials.

  17. #937
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    That would be 47 pages of me pointing out that your conclusions are based on fabricated data.
    It is not surprising that AGW "scientists" are trying to discredit the Holocene Impact Group. They are competing for funds as well as the fact that finding large numbers of Holocene aged craters discredits the notion that the AGW crowd has indoctrinated into today's youth that the last few thousand years are the "normal" climate for the Earth; this is, in fact, the exception.
    I was sarcastic about you thinking it is the globalist agenda but now it seems you have caught up with my sarcasm

    What is the relationship with AGW scientists?

    1. First, I never mentioned a world wide flood or world wide rainfall as a result of the Burkle impact event.
    Fair enough, I assumed you were talking of this hypothesis because Abbott et al. are the sources of the different hypothesis of rainfall related flooding from the meteor events, including the Burckle one.

    2. The flooding in Egypt would have been a result of extraordinary rainfall in the east African highlands which is the source of the Nile. I know this might come as a revelation to you, but water runs downhill.
    Most of the Nile watershed is not on the east African highlands so it should have been a very intense and very long downpour at these locations to produce an unusual high flooding in the lower Nile. It is a matter of precipitation height over the area.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    The argument made by Abbott et al. is very simple and I found it even simplistic, with several problematic assumptions.
    First of all, they assume that ALL of the energy from the impact is used to vaporize the water. This is overly exaggerating the effect.
    Secondly, they estimated the energy from the impact using the "Earth impact effects program" online without specifying the values used. They got a value in joule 300 times higher than people performing a simulation of the impact. So it is something to keep in mind they could have used a too high value.
    Thirdly, they have calculated from this kinetical energy the volume of water vaporized and what precipitation height it would have been in result if this volume was evenly spread over an area. That's all. There is no consideration for atmospheric circulation, neither any precipitation gradient starting from the impact. In reality the energy is dissipated from the impact following square or cubic growth functions (basic geometry from an increasing volume and an increasing area of a hemisphere with the impact as the center). So a steep gradient would have been produced.
    Fourthly, they assume that the heat is only used to rise the temperature of the water and to vaporize it. They didn't take in consideration that you can rise the temperature of the vapor and to superheat it up to the critical point. Which would have resulted in less volume of vaporized water in total.
    Fifthly, it ignores the fact that heating air is producing atmospheric convection and in regard to the location of the impact far below the equator it would have worked against a spread to the Northern Hemisphere (basic meteorology and geophysics).
    Sixtly, the southern part of the Nile watershed is 4400 km away and the eastern part of the watershed is 5100 km away from the Burckle impact.
    Sevently, Abbott et al. are saying: "The minimum circle radius is 4750 km and the maximum circle radius is 7250 km. The surface area covered by the region in between the two circles is 9.42 x 10^13 m2. This is about 18% of the surface area of the Earth. If the rainout from the Burckle event was evenly distributed in between those two circles, the average rainout was about 50 cm. This is a lot of rain but it is not enough to constitute a catastrophe that would be remembered for hundreds of generations". So obviously they are not even considering any rainout before the first 4750 km. By adding this part, it goes down to 28 cm.

    So even with their exaggerating model, it didn't produce a never seen rainfall.

    Moreover, an incredible but short rainfall in the Upper Nile is not the best way to produce a strong flood in the Lower Nile 3000 km away. If the discharge is too strong at the beginning, much of the water is lost through floodplains and topographical depressions. The duration of a rainfall is also very important.

    3. At least this time you posted a source which is quite interesting. However, with that said, their argument that sea borne tsunamis do not hold sediments doesn't match up with the facts.

    The crater is 12,000 feet below the surface and it is 18 miles in diameter. To say that it would not generate ocean floor sediment in a tsunamis is a bit off the charts and frankly not believable.
    You are misunderstanding the critics.

    "Bourgeois and Weiss decided to take a closer look at whether it would be possible for a mega-tsunami to have deposited the chevrons. Focusing on two cases — the Madagascar chevrons and a series of chevrons found in Australia — they modeled how mega-tsunamis would behave as they approach the coast and how they might transport sediment. In their models, the waves generated by a theoretical asteroid impact in the ocean spread out in a circular pattern until they reached shallower waters, where they refracted against the seafloor. The waves, bearing the sediment load that would ultimately form the chevrons, then became parallel to the shoreline — an orientation inconsistent with the chevrons’ actual orientation, the researchers reported in Geology.

    The models of sediment transport also suggested another strike against the mega-tsunami hypothesis: The chevrons are made up of ripples and dunes, Bourgeois says — evidence of a certain kind of sediment transport called “bed load,” in which the grains bounce along the sediment bed until they finally come to rest. Less powerful water flows or winds would carry sediments as bed load, but a giant, powerful wave would be able to fully suspend sediment grains of many sizes, carrying them far across the shoreline until they are finally deposited — forming a sheet of sand, rather than dunes."
    https://www.earthmagazine.org/articl...unami-deposits
    Last edited by Genava; March 10, 2020 at 11:55 AM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  18. #938
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    I was sarcastic about you thinking it is the globalist agenda but now it seems you have caught up with my sarcasm

    What is the relationship with AGW scientists?



    Fair enough, I assumed you were talking of this hypothesis because Abbott et al. are the sources of the different hypothesis of rainfall related flooding from the meteor events, including the Burckle one.



    Most of the Nile watershed is not on the east African highlands so it should have been a very intense and very long downpour at these locations to produce an unusual high flooding in the lower Nile. It is a matter of precipitation height over the area.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    The argument made by Abbott et al. is very simple and I found it even simplistic, with several problematic assumptions.
    First of all, they assume that ALL of the energy from the impact is used to vaporize the water. This is overly exaggerating the effect.
    Secondly, they estimated the energy from the impact using the "Earth impact effects program" online without specifying the values used. They got a value in joule 300 times higher than people performing a simulation of the impact. So it is something to keep in mind they could have used a too high value.
    Thirdly, they have calculated from this kinetical energy the volume of water vaporized and what precipitation height it would have been in result if this volume was evenly spread over an area. That's all. There is no consideration for atmospheric circulation, neither any precipitation gradient starting from the impact. In reality the energy is dissipated from the impact following square or cubic growth functions (basic geometry from an increasing volume and an increasing area of a hemisphere with the impact as the center). So a steep gradient would have been produced.
    Fourthly, they assume that the heat is only used to rise the temperature of the water and to vaporize it. They didn't take in consideration that you can rise the temperature of the vapor and to superheat it up to the critical point. Which would have resulted in less volume of vaporized water in total.
    Fifthly, it ignores the fact that heating air is producing atmospheric convection and in regard to the location of the impact far below the equator it would have worked against a spread to the Northern Hemisphere (basic meteorology and geophysics).
    Sixtly, the southern part of the Nile watershed is 4400 km away and the eastern part of the watershed is 5100 km away from the Burckle impact.
    Sevently, Abbott et al. are saying: "The minimum circle radius is 4750 km and the maximum circle radius is 7250 km. The surface area covered by the region in between the two circles is 9.42 x 10^13 m2. This is about 18% of the surface area of the Earth. If the rainout from the Burckle event was evenly distributed in between those two circles, the average rainout was about 50 cm. This is a lot of rain but it is not enough to constitute a catastrophe that would be remembered for hundreds of generations". So obviously they are not even considering any rainout before the first 4750 km. By adding this part, it goes down to 28 cm.

    So even with their exaggerating model, it didn't produce a never seen rainfall.

    Moreover, an incredible but short rainfall in the Upper Nile is not the best way to produce a strong flood in the Lower Nile 3000 km away. If the discharge is too strong at the beginning, much of the water is lost through floodplains and topographical depressions. The duration of a rainfall is also very important.



    You are misunderstanding the critics.

    "Bourgeois and Weiss decided to take a closer look at whether it would be possible for a mega-tsunami to have deposited the chevrons. Focusing on two cases — the Madagascar chevrons and a series of chevrons found in Australia — they modeled how mega-tsunamis would behave as they approach the coast and how they might transport sediment. In their models, the waves generated by a theoretical asteroid impact in the ocean spread out in a circular pattern until they reached shallower waters, where they refracted against the seafloor. The waves, bearing the sediment load that would ultimately form the chevrons, then became parallel to the shoreline — an orientation inconsistent with the chevrons’ actual orientation, the researchers reported in Geology.

    The models of sediment transport also suggested another strike against the mega-tsunami hypothesis: The chevrons are made up of ripples and dunes, Bourgeois says — evidence of a certain kind of sediment transport called “bed load,” in which the grains bounce along the sediment bed until they finally come to rest. Less powerful water flows or winds would carry sediments as bed load, but a giant, powerful wave would be able to fully suspend sediment grains of many sizes, carrying them far across the shoreline until they are finally deposited — forming a sheet of sand, rather than dunes."
    https://www.earthmagazine.org/articl...unami-deposits
    I guess it is just not possible for you to post an article that isn't affiliated with the global warming agenda. Do you even bother checking who the authors are? It seems that there is no end to the lengths that those people will go to defend against anything that might threaten their narrative and the Holocene Impact group does just that.

    The first order of business is a short geography lesson. The two major sources for the Nile river in Egypt are the White Nile and the Blue Nile with the Blue Nile being the major source for the lower river. Since antiquity, the monsoon season in Ethiopia has been the major factor in the Nile's seasonal flooding and the lack thereof for droughts and poor harvests. There are even Biblical stories written about it.

    This is important to note. Ethiopia has built a dam on its border on the Blue Nile. This will inevitably be a source of friction between Egypt and Ethiopia when the next dry period occurs. It could lead to a war. If you want I'll explain how that could take place.

    With all that said, the Blue Nile is the principle drainage for the Ethiopian watershed. That's a fact and these waters make their way down to Egypt. Going further, Ethiopia is in the tropical zone where winds tend to flow east to west (shouldn't a meteorologist know this?). To say that there would not be significant rainfall as a result of something like the Burckle impact is something only an AGW proponent would believe.

    I would go further into detail but I'm am very tired at the moment. It was a busy day. I will conclude today's message with something that will stick in the throat of all you AGW people; there is nothing man made that could travel through over 12,000 feet of water in a handful of seconds and then create an 18 mile wide crater on the bottom of the ocean. Anyone who thinks that this would not cause a tsunami of incredible height and unusually heavy rainfall should not call themselves scientists.

  19. #939
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    I would go further into detail but I'm am very tired at the moment. It was a busy day. I will conclude today's message with something that will stick in the throat of all you AGW people; there is nothing man made that could travel through over 12,000 feet of water in a handful of seconds and then create an 18 mile wide crater on the bottom of the ocean. Anyone who thinks that this would not cause a tsunami of incredible height and unusually heavy rainfall should not call themselves scientists.
    Nobody is contesting the existence of impact events, nor the tsunamis resulting from those. Scientists are simply working on the topic and are contesting the possibility that the Burckle event is a Holocene impact. And nobody is contesting the impact on rainfall from a meteor, I was contesting the quantitative estimation and the extent of the rainfall resulting. I made my point on their assumptions, I explained what is bothering me. Stop assuming my intent, I simply find the topic interesting.

    You really should chill out and stop thinking the scientific community is the puppet of an agenda.

    Since antiquity, the monsoon season in Ethiopia has been the major factor in the Nile's seasonal flooding and the lack thereof for droughts and poor harvests.
    Which is a long rainfall season with dozen of centimeters falling monthly during three to four months. The annual rainfall can reach 200 cm during high flooding year. You are missing my point I think.

    With all that said, the Blue Nile is the principle drainage for the Ethiopian watershed. That's a fact and these waters make their way down to Egypt. Going further, Ethiopia is in the tropical zone where winds tend to flow east to west (shouldn't a meteorologist know this?).
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_-_en.svg.png
    http://pages.geo.wvu.edu/~wilson/geo...dia/O07_09.gif
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intert...TCZ_Africa.png

    Again you missed my point.
    Last edited by Genava; March 11, 2020 at 04:33 AM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  20. #940
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Nobody is contesting the existence of impact events, nor the tsunamis resulting from those. Scientists are simply working on the topic and are contesting the possibility that the Burckle event is a Holocene impact. And nobody is contesting the impact on rainfall from a meteor, I was contesting the quantitative estimation and the extent of the rainfall resulting. I made my point on their assumptions, I explained what is bothering me. Stop assuming my intent, I simply find the topic interesting.

    You really should chill out and stop thinking the scientific community is the puppet of an agenda.



    Which is a long rainfall season with dozen of centimeters falling monthly during three to four months. The annual rainfall can reach 200 cm during high flooding year. You are missing my point I think.



    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_-_en.svg.png
    http://pages.geo.wvu.edu/~wilson/geo...dia/O07_09.gif
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intert...TCZ_Africa.png

    Again you missed my point.
    Hmmm, the people contesting the c14 dating seem to all be AGW proponents. Anyway, the c14 dates were from organic material taken from the chevrons. As I already said, although the science behind c14 dating is sound, there are so many things that can lead to an incorrect resolution.

    That's the reason I like to see if there is any other historical or circumstantial evidence that might support it and in this case there is:

    There is the fact that the Sumerian civilization suffered a sudden catastrophic collapse around the time frame.

    There is also evidence that a disruption occurred around that time frame between southern Egypt's and the Sumerian relationship. There is evidence that there was a strong cultural relationship between Upper Egypt (southern) and the Sumerians such as the use of serpopards on the Narmar Palette. After the time frame of the Narmar Palette there was a several hundred year pause in the Egyptian timeline after which close cultural connections began to be established between Upper and Lower Egypt instead of between Upper Egypt and Sumeria.

    There is also the fact that this is the time frame that migratory groups from what is now the Turkish highlands moved into and supplanted the previous peoples of the Tigris Euphrates rivers.

    There are also the flood myths from all around the Indian Ocean and they can be linguistically put into this time frame. And don't forget the Indian stories of incredible atmospheric goings on that also come from this time period.

    Although to my knowledge, the chevrons themselves haven't been core drilled, the surrounding area has and those cores show evidence that supports an impact.

    The papers you linked to, as I said, were done by AGW proponents and they did claim that their computer models showed that extremely large waves would not carry sediment. Of course, as has been established in this thread, these are the people who routinely use and favor computer models that have less than a 3% outcome probability. BTW, they didn't mention where all that sediment from the 2,000 deep and 18 mile wide hole went. I guess they think it just vanished.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •