Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree3Thanks
  • 1 Post By TNVolunteer73
  • 1 Post By excalibur
  • 1 Post By TNVolunteer73
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 9th, 2014, 04:09 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 586
Republicans React to Climate Change Report With Denial and Hatred

Here's a very good analysis of some recent rightwingnut political reactions to some sound, well supported, mainstream science that upsets their ideological superstitions, pro-corporate financial imperatives, pseudo-religious superstitions, and, of course, offends their financial puppetmasters.

Republicans React to Climate Change Report With Denial and Hatred
PoliticusUSA
By: Rmuse
May, 7th, 2014
Empiricism emphasizes evidence in the formation of ideas as discovered in experiments over the absurd notion of innate ideas or religious traditions. Empiricism is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, religious superstition, or revelations from god. Empiricism is the polar opposite of tradition, superstition, or something a person wants to believe is true, or is told is true by interests attempting to mitigate empirical data for profit, power, and control. Republicans, the dirty energy industry, and evangelical Christians detest empiricism like it was Satan or bubonic plague because it eviscerates their strongly held “beliefs” whether they are borne of religion, economic fallacy, or greed. It is why Republicans, evangelical extremists, and dirty energy hates science and spends an inordinate amount of time and money portraying science and scientific research as inherently evil.

One area religious sycophants, the dirty energy industry, and Republicans are in complete agreement and denial over is global climate change, and why America as a global leader in science and technology should continue discouraging clean and renewable energy sources and oppose actions to reduce emissions responsible for climate change. When the White House released a regularly-scheduled scientific report awash in empirical data that climate change is a real and present man-made danger, it was little surprise that the Republican and Koch brothers’ media outlet Fox News disparaged the report as a distraction from Fox and Republicans’ debunked Benghazi distraction. It is not the first, or the last, time Fox dutifully dismissed climate change as part of its contractual commitment to perpetuate whatever GOP and Koch lies will scam their audience. One thing is clear though; they may have difficulty convincing some Americans who experienced the very real consequences of climate change that the scientific report detailed and warned will get much, much worse is a hoax.

What the White House report revealed that other scientific research only predicted was the effects all Americans experienced from extreme weather events whether it is extreme droughts, extreme flooding, extreme rains, and intense heat devastating major areas of America. The report also detailed rising sea levels, melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, and increased ocean acidity, but those Earth shattering effects are outside the cognitive abilities of the people most likely to claim global climate change is a hoax. What is not a hoax are the economic consequences Americans have already felt from extreme weather events like more powerful tornados and hurricanes, extreme heat, and devastating droughts that are predicted to drive food and drinking water costs out of reach of many Americans.

One of the purposes of The National Climate Assessment compiled by the US Global Change Research Program is revealing the economic as well as environmental threats to America now and in the future; White House special advisor John Podesta hoped the latest assessment would convince Republicans to take the climate change threat seriously. Podesta’s hope is altruistic, but he confuses Republicans with politicians that care about the economic, environmental, and health concerns of the people because Republicans will not change. Republicans are conservatives that are innately resistant to change; particularly when their evangelical voting bloc and dirty energy funding machine demands they continue thwarting efforts to reduce global climate change’s effects on Americans.

Obviously, the dirty energy industry could not care less about the effects of global climate change and in fact, go to extreme lengths to oppose measures to reduce carbon and methane emissions responsible for the warming oceans. At the behest of the Koch brothers and ALEC, House Republicans passed a bill that strictly forbade the Environmental Protection Agency from inspecting or regulating dirty energy polluters in the states. The Kochs have spent tens-of-millions of dollars, and ALEC has written hundreds of pieces of model legislation, to eliminate clean and renewable energy standards in the states and provided funding for ballot initiatives in California to eviscerate the state’s environmental protections and clean air standards. It is not that the Kochs, or any dirty energy interest, cannot afford to meet clean air standards, they just want unimpeded profits; destroying the climate and environment is a consequence they are happy to live with. For the religious right, reducing the effects of climate change has nothing to do with money and everything to do with god.

The religious right fully understands that man-made climate change is a serious threat to the economy, environment, and well-being of Americans; especially those in the bible-belt that have felt climate change’s full effects the scientific study reported were already happening. However, one faction is convinced that either god controls the climate and climate scientists are apostates to claim extreme weather is man-made, or that god will destroy the Earth on his own terms during end times just over the horizon. In fact in a study last May entitled “End-Times Theology, the Shadow of the Future, and Public Resistance to Addressing Global Climate Change,” researchers found that support for governmental action on climate change is woefully lacking because “believers in Christian end-times theology are unlikely to support policies designed to curb global warming than are other Americans.” The study’s authors provided empirical evidence that evangelical fanatics resist policies trading short-term costs for hypothetical long-term benefits because god is destroying the Earth shortly so why bother.

Overall, Americans are less inclined to care about global climate change than residents of the top 13 richest developed nations in the world according to a Pew Research Study finding the majority of Americans (60%) are skeptical that climate change is a dire issue or a threat to the nation. This is in spite of the effects of human-induced climate change being felt in every corner of America with severe droughts and water scarcity, torrential rains in wet regions, severe heat and longer summers becoming commonplace, increasingly worse wildfires, and entire forests dying from drought and heat loving insects. Only 40% of Americans think climate change is an issue worth addressing and it certainly is a result of the dirty energy industry, Republican, and religious right’s perpetual harping that climate change is an atheistic America-hating hoax perpetrated by godless scientists and socialists panting to destroy the dirty energy industry and by extension the United States of America.

According to the climate change report, empirical data proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that “Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” and there are no Americans who have not experienced, firsthand, the effects the research reported is already affecting the country economically and environmentally. It hardly matters whether it is evangelical freaks waiting for god to smite Earth, dirty energy sycophants demanding an end to environmental protections, or inherently stupid Americans unable to reconcile what they experience with empirical data proving climate change is the culprit, this country will do nothing to reduce climate change.

Despite the religious right or profit-driven dirty energy industry climate change deniers culpability in obstructing attempts to reduce the effects of climate change, it is Americans’ arrogance that because America is exceptional, it has no accountability or responsibility to reduce the damage this country is responsible for. If nothing else, the simple fact that the devastating report was issued from the White House with a Black man in residence will automatically incite the entire conservative movement to dismiss it out of hand and redouble their efforts to thwart any attempt to save this country from the environmental devastation that man has caused and god cannot rectify.


©2008 - 2014, PoliticusUSA.com. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Last edited by klaatu; August 9th, 2014 at 04:19 PM.
klaatu is offline  
Old August 9th, 2014, 04:49 PM   #2
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 33,842
Wow I just debunked you using your own data in the other thread.

which your own graphs showed no warming from 1999-2010, some reason your graph ended in 2010.. 1/2 decade old data in the first graph.

The Graph that went to 2013 showed that 2009,10,11,13 all below the trend line,

You have yet to explain why your own charts disproves your claimes.

Maybe your brain is just KLAAUTED with propaganda from MMGW Hoaxmongers.
Thanks from caconservative
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old August 9th, 2014, 05:08 PM   #3
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
From Nature --

Quote:


The biggest mystery in climate science today may have begun, unbeknownst to anybody at the time, with a subtle weakening of the tropical trade winds blowing across the Pacific Ocean in late 1997. These winds normally push sun-baked water towards Indonesia. When they slackened, the warm water sloshed back towards South America, resulting in a spectacular example of a phenomenon known as El Niño. Average global temperatures hit a record high in 1998 — and then the warming stalled.

For several years, scientists wrote off the stall as noise in the climate system: the natural variations in the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere that drive warm or cool spells around the globe. But the pause has persisted, sparking a minor crisis of confidence in the field. Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt. Climate scientists, meanwhile, know that heat must still be building up somewhere in the climate system, but they have struggled to explain where it is going, if not into the atmosphere. Some have begun to wonder whether there is something amiss in their models.

Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year, scientists are at last making headway in the case of the missing heat. Some have pointed to the Sun, volcanoes and even pollution from China as potential culprits, but recent studies suggest that the oceans are key to explaining the anomaly. The latest suspect is the El Niño of 1997–98, which pumped prodigious quantities of heat out of the oceans and into the atmosphere — perhaps enough to tip the equatorial Pacific into a prolonged cold state that has suppressed global temperatures ever since.

“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. According to this theory, the tropical Pacific should snap out of its prolonged cold spell in the coming years.“Eventually,” Trenberth says, “it will switch back in the other direction.”

On a chart of global atmospheric temperatures, the hiatus stands in stark contrast to the rapid warming of the two decades that preceded it. Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK.

The simplest explanation for both the hiatus and the discrepancy in the models is natural variability. Much like the swings between warm and cold in day-to-day weather, chaotic climate fluctuations can knock global temperatures up or down from year to year and decade to decade. Records of past climate show some long-lasting global heatwaves and cold snaps, and climate models suggest that either of these can occur as the world warms under the influence of greenhouse gases.

But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared. Others say that this conclusion goes against the long-term temperature trends, as well as palaeoclimate data that are used to extend the temperature record far into the past. And many researchers caution against evaluating models on the basis of a relatively short-term blip in the climate. “If you are interested in global climate change, your main focus ought to be on timescales of 50 to 100 years,” says Susan Solomon, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge.

But even those scientists who remain confident in the underlying models acknowledge that there is increasing pressure to work out just what is happening today. “A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey. “Now it’s something to explain.”

Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment


excalibur is offline  
Old August 9th, 2014, 06:20 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Wow I just debunked you using your own data in the other thread. which your own graphs showed no warming from 1999-2010, some reason your graph ended in 2010.. 1/2 decade old data in the first graph. The Graph that went to 2013 showed that 2009,10,11,13 all below the trend line, You have yet to explain why your own charts disproves your claimes. Maybe your brain is just KLAAUTED with propaganda from MMGW Hoaxmongers.
Your usual meaningless delusional insanity.
klaatu is offline  
Old August 9th, 2014, 06:23 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Wow I just debunked you using your own data in the other thread.

which your own graphs showed no warming from 1999-2010, some reason your graph ended in 2010.. 1/2 decade old data in the first graph.

The Graph that went to 2013 showed that 2009,10,11,13 all below the trend line,

You have yet to explain why your own charts disproves your claimes.

Maybe your brain is just KLAAUTED with propaganda from MMGW Hoaxmongers.
Dude, you linked to a site produced by a guy who sent in $15 to get his degree in "Science", why do you think that the sites that support your position are put up by people pretending to be scientists?
goober is offline  
Old August 9th, 2014, 06:36 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
When denier cultists quote some actual scientific paper, it is always significant (and amusing) to notice what they left out compared to the parts they cherry-picked to include.

From the paper that lowcaliber quoted....

Just before the hiatus took hold, that region had turned unusually warm during the El Niño of 1997–98, which fuelled extreme weather across the planet, from floods in Chile and California to droughts and wildfires in Mexico and Indonesia. But it ended just as quickly as it had begun, and by late 1998 cold waters — a mark of El Niño’s sister effect, La Niña — had returned to the eastern equatorial Pacific with a vengeance. More importantly, the entire eastern Pacific flipped into a cool state that has continued more or less to this day.

This variation in ocean temperature, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), may be a crucial piece of the hiatus puzzle. The cycle reverses every 15–30 years, and in its positive phase, the oscillation favours El Niño, which tends to warm the atmosphere (see ‘The fickle ocean’). After a couple of decades of releasing heat from the eastern and central Pacific, the region cools and enters the negative phase of the PDO. This state tends towards La Niña, which brings cool waters up from the depths along the Equator and tends to cool the planet. Researchers identified the PDO pattern in 1997, but have only recently begun to understand how it fits in with broader ocean-circulation patterns and how it may help to explain the hiatus.

One important finding came in 2011, when a team of researchers at NCAR led by Gerald Meehl reported that inserting a PDO pattern into global climate models causes decade-scale breaks in global warming. Ocean-temperature data from the recent hiatus reveal why: in a subsequent study, the NCAR researchers showed that more heat moved into the deep ocean after 1998, which helped to prevent the atmosphere from warming. In a third paper, the group used computer models to document the flip side of the process: when the PDO switches to its positive phase, it heats up the surface ocean and atmosphere, helping to drive decades of rapid warming.

A key breakthrough came last year from Shang-Ping Xie and Yu Kosaka at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. The duo took a different tack, by programming a model with actual sea surface temperatures from recent decades in the eastern equatorial Pacific, and then seeing what happened to the rest of the globe. Their model not only recreated the hiatus in global temperatures, but also reproduced some of the seasonal and regional climate trends that have marked the hiatus, including warming in many areas and cooler northern winters.

It was actually a revelation for me when I saw that paper,” says John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria. But it did not, he adds, explain everything. “What it skirted was the question of what is driving the tropical cooling.

That was investigated by Trenberth and John Fasullo, also at NCAR, who brought in winds and ocean data to explain how the pattern emerges4. Their study documents how tropical trade winds associated with La Niña conditions help to drive warm water westward and, ultimately, deep into the ocean, while promoting the upwelling of cool waters along the eastern equatorial region. In extreme cases, such as the La Niña of 1998, this may be able to push the ocean into a cool phase of the PDO. An analysis of historical data buttressed these conclusions, showing that the cool phase of the PDO coincided with a few decades of cooler temperatures after the Second World War (see ‘The Pacific’s global reach’), and that the warm phase lined up with the sharp spike seen in global temperatures between 1976 and 1998 (ref. 4).

I believe the evidence is pretty clear,” says Mark Cane, a climatologist at Columbia University in New York. “It’s not about aerosols or stratospheric water vapour; it’s about having had a decade of cooler temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific.

Heated debate
Cane was the first to predict the current cooling in the Pacific, although the implications weren’t clear at the time. In 2004, he and his colleagues found that a simple regional climate model predicted a warm shift in the Pacific that began around 1976, when global temperatures began to rise sharply9. Almost as an afterthought, they concluded their paper with a simple forecast: “For what it is worth the model predicts that the 1998 El Niño ended the post-1976 tropical Pacific warm period.

It is an eerily accurate result, but the work remains hotly contested, in part because it is based on a partial climate model that focuses on the equatorial Pacific alone. Cane further maintains that the trend over the past century has been towards warmer temperatures in the western Pacific relative to those in the east. That opens the door, he says, to the possibility that warming from greenhouse gases is driving La Niña-like conditions and could continue to do so in the future, helping to suppress global warming. “If all of that is true, it’s a negative feedback, and if we don’t capture it in our models they will overstate the warming,” he says.

There are two potential holes in his assessment. First, the historical ocean-temperature data are notoriously imprecise, leading many researchers to dispute Cane’s assertion that the equatorial Pacific shifted towards a more La Niña-like state during the past century10. Second, many researchers have found the opposite pattern in simulations with full climate models, which factor in the suite of atmospheric and oceanic interactions beyond the equatorial Pacific. These tend to reveal a trend towards more El Niño-like conditions as a result of global warming. The difference seems to lie, in part, in how warming influences evaporation in areas of the Pacific, according to Trenberth. He says the models suggest that global warming has a greater impact on temperatures in the relatively cool east, because the increase in evaporation adds water vapour to the atmosphere there and enhances atmospheric warming; this effect is weaker in the warmer western Pacific, where the air is already saturated with moisture.

Scientists may get to test their theories soon enough. At present, strong tropical trade winds are pushing ever more warm water westward towards Indonesia, fuelling storms such as November’s Typhoon Haiyan, and nudging up sea levels in the western Pacific; they are now roughly 20 centimetres higher than those in the eastern Pacific. Sooner or later, the trend will inevitably reverse. “You can’t keep piling up warm water in the western Pacific,” Trenberth says. “At some point, the water will get so high that it just sloshes back.” And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.

Last edited by klaatu; August 9th, 2014 at 06:38 PM.
klaatu is offline  
Old August 9th, 2014, 06:42 PM   #7
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 33,842
KLAATUEDbrain.

your link says it all.. 17 years of no warming what does your VERY ON LINK say (in the bible these would be the words of Jesus) because they are red in your post


Quote:
Their model not only recreated the hiatus in global temperatures, but also reproduced some of the seasonal and regional climate trends that have marked the hiatus, including warming in many areas and cooler northern winters.

Hiatus: a period when something (as a program or activity) is suspended or interrupted


so for the last 17 years, the warming has stopped... hmmmm

I think that is what Me (affectionatly known to you as TiNybrains have been telling you since you entered this forum)

THANKS FOR ADMITTING I AM CORRECT.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old August 9th, 2014, 07:01 PM   #8
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
The article I posted from Nature agrees with me, and TN, and others, that there indeed has been a pause since 1998. How many foolish, and fraudulent posts did klaatu make denying this? Full of his usual invective I might add.

To top it all off, after repeatedly denying the ~17 years of no warming, klaatu posts an article that finishes:

Quote:
..... if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and temperatures will spike once again.
What a hoot!

RSS data shows no warming the last ~17 years. Apology accepted.


Thanks from webguy4

Last edited by excalibur; August 9th, 2014 at 07:07 PM.
excalibur is offline  
Old August 9th, 2014, 07:09 PM   #9
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 33,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
The article I posted from Nature agrees with me, and TN, and others, that there indeed has been a pause since 1998. How many foolish, and fraudulent posts did klaatu make denying this? Full of his usual invective I might add.

To top it all off, after repeatedly denying the ~17 years of no warming, klaatu posts an article that finishes:



What a hoot!

RSS data shows no warming the last ~17 years.


what is funny Klaatu's LAST POST ADMITS there has been an End or at least a NEAR 20 YEAR PAUSE in warming.

He even highlights the statement that affirms the pause/end IN RED and IN OVER SIZED font.
Thanks from webguy4
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old August 9th, 2014, 07:35 PM   #10
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
The more they pretend to know, the less they actually do know. Settled science?!

Quote:


The planet’s largest and most powerful driver of climate changes from one year to the next, the El Niño Southern Oscillation in the tropical Pacific Ocean, was widely thought to have been weaker in ancient times because of a different configuration of the Earth’s orbit. But scientists analyzing 25-foot piles of ancient shells have found that the El Niños 10,000 years ago were as strong and frequent as the ones we experience today.

The results, from the University of Washington and University of Montpellier, question how well computer models can reproduce historical El Niño cycles, or predict how they could change under future climates. The paper is now online and will appear in an upcoming issue of Science.

We thought we understood what influences the El Niño mode of climate variation, and we’ve been able to show that we actually don’t understand it very well,” said Julian Sachs, a UW professor of oceanography.


The ancient shellfish feasts also upend a widely held interpretation of past climate.

“Our data contradicts the hypothesis that El Niño activity was very reduced 10,000 years ago, and then slowly increased since then,” said first author Matthieu Carré, who did the research as a UW postdoctoral researcher and now holds a faculty position at the University of Montpellier in France.

In 2007, while at the UW-based Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, Carré accompanied archaeologists to seven sites in coastal Peru. Together they sampled 25-foot-tall piles of shells from Mesodesma donacium clams eaten and then discarded over centuries into piles that archaeologists call middens.

While in graduate school, Carré had developed a technique to analyze shell layers to get ocean temperatures, using carbon dating of charcoal from fires to get the year, and the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the growth layers to get the water temperatures as the shell was forming.

The shells provide 1- to 3-year-long records of monthly temperature of the Pacific Ocean along the coast of Peru. Combining layers of shells from each site gives water temperatures for intervals spanning 100 to 1,000 years during the past 10,000 years.

The middens are ancient dumping sites that typically contain a mix of mollusk shells, fish and bird bones, ceramics, cloth, charcoal, maize and other plants.

The new record shows that 10,000 years ago the El Niño cycles were strong, contradicting the current leading interpretations. Roughly 7,000 years ago the shells show a shift to the central Pacific of the most severe El Niño impacts, followed by a lull in the strength and occurrence of El Niño from about 6,000 to 4,000 years ago.

One possible explanation for the surprising finding of a strong El Niño 10,000 years ago was that some other factor was compensating for the dampening effect expected from cyclical changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun during that period.

............................

Climate models and a variety of datasets had concluded that El Niños were essentially nonexistent, did not occur, before 6,000 to 8,000 years ago,” Sachs said. “Our results very clearly show that this is not the case, and suggest that current understanding of the El Niño system is incomplete.”

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/...l-nino-cycles/


Last edited by excalibur; August 9th, 2014 at 07:46 PM.
excalibur is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
change, climate, denial, hatred, react, report, republicans



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
White House Report: The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change The White House The White House 0 July 29th, 2014 07:01 AM
White House Release Report on the Health Impacts of Climate Change on Americans The White House The White House 0 June 6th, 2014 12:00 PM
Climate Change Denial Plot skrekk Environment 1 February 15th, 2012 12:01 PM
Smear or story? Readers react to McCain report CNN Current Events 1 February 21st, 2008 01:42 PM
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report tyreay Environment 1 February 6th, 2007 01:41 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.