Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum
 
register chat members links refer search home
INReview INReview > Hot Topics > Global Warming & Climate Change > Global Warming not caused by rise in CO2
Search this Thread:
  Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   
Gold Member
Edward Teach
Blackbeard

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 07:36 AM
Location: The Seven Seas or the Outer Banks.
Posts: 6097

Global Warming not caused by rise in CO2 post #1  quote:



quote:
Russian academic says CO2 not to blame for global warming
14:30 | 15/ 01/ 2007




ST. PETERSBURG, January 15 (RIA Novosti) - Rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases emitted through human activities, believed by scientists to trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, are an effect rather than the cause of global warming, a prominent Russian scientist said Monday.

Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, said global warming stems from an increase in the sun's activity. His view contradicts the international scientific consensus that climate change is attributable to the emission of greenhouse gases generated by industrial activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN panel of thousands of international scientists, widely regarded as an authority on climate change issues, established a consensus many years ago that most of the warming experienced over the last half-century has been attributable to human activities.

However, scientists acknowledge that rises in temperatures can potentially cause massive increases of greenhouse gases due to various natural positive feedback mechanisms, for example the methane released by melting permafrost, ocean algae's reduced capacity to absorb carbon at higher water temperatures, and the carbon released by trees when forests dry up.

Abdusamatov, a doctor of mathematics and physics, is one of a small number of scientists around the world who continue to contest the view of the IPCC, the national science academies of the G8 nations, and other prominent scientific bodies.

He said an examination of ice cores from wells over three kilometers (1.5 miles) deep in Greenland and the Antarctic indicates that the Earth experienced periods of global warming even before the industrial age (which began two hundred years ago).

Climate scientists have used information in ice cores, which contain air samples trapped by snow falling hundreds of thousands of years ago, providing an ancient record of the atmosphere's makeup, to establish that throughout the numerous glacial and interglacial periods on record, temperatures have closely tracked global CO2 concentrations.

The fact that background atmospheric CO2 levels, shown for example by the famous Keeling curve, displaying precise measurements going back to 1958, are now known to be well above concentrations experienced in hundreds of millennia, as displayed by the ice cores, is considered by most of the scientific community as incontrovertible proof of mankind's influence on greenhouse gas concentrations.

However, Abdusamatov even disputed the greenhouse effect, claiming it fails to take into account the effective transmission of heat to the outer layers of atmosphere.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since the 19th century. The phenomenon by which gases such as methane and CO2 warm the troposphere by absorbing some of the infra-red heat reflected by the earth's surface has the effect of a global thermostat, sustaining global temperatures within ranges that allow life on the planet to thrive.

But Abdusamatov insisted: "Ascribing ?greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated. Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

Abdusamatov claimed that the upper layers of the world's oceans are - much to climatologists' surprise - becoming cooler, which is a clear indication that the Earth has hit its temperature ceiling already, and that solar radiation levels are falling and will eventually lead to a worldwide cold spell.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now, and it does not have to come into force until at least a hundred years from now - a global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions," Abdusamatov said.

The 1998 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which sets greenhouse gas emission targets for the period up to 2012, entered into force two years ago following ratification by 141 countries, which together account for over 55% of the world's gas pollutions. However, most environmentalists now consider its targets inadequate to enforce the emissions cuts necessary to curb climate change.

Russia ratified the treaty in November 2004, making it legally binding. But the world's top polluter, the United States, is still reluctant to sign on for fear the treaty's emission commitments will slow down the country's economic growth.


Old Post 02-10-2007 12:33 AM
Click here to Send Edward Teach a Private Message View Edward Teach's Journal Visit Edward Teach's homepage! Find more posts by Edward Teach Add Edward Teach to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Edward Teach REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 12:36 PM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

Re: Global Warming not caused by rise in CO2 post #2  quote:

quote:
Edward Teach said this in post #1 :
Abdusamatov, a doctor of mathematics and physics, is one of a small number of scientists around the world who continue to contest the view of the IPCC, the national science academies of the G8 nations, and other prominent scientific bodies.


Are you suggesting that as long as there is a "small number of scientists" who disagree with the majority of scientists, or until there is 100% scientific backing for the theory, we should do nothing?

Governments all over the developing world (ignoring the Bush government of course) are already taking seriously the view of the majority of scientists - our pollution is causing global warming. These governments are looking at ways to solve the problem. Businesses is looking at how it can help.


Old Post 02-10-2007 11:21 AM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Edward Teach
Blackbeard

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 07:36 AM
Location: The Seven Seas or the Outer Banks.
Posts: 6097

post #3  quote:

One problem with science is that when one presents a plausable theory everyone jumps on the bandwagon. But you have to remember it's still just a theory. You have to weigh that theory with people who have studied the climate and weather. Climatologists and Paleoclimatologists study the weather over years to millennia and study the history of the earths climate. And anyone can find scientist that will support whatever theory you want them to support.

There is no doubt that we need to remove polutants in the air. Mainly for creature comfort over anything else. But if you compare what we humans put in the air and what is put into the air naturally we pale in comparison. Volcanos and natural CO2 will put more into the air on any given day than humans do in any give year.

And if you read some of the science behind the earths climate you realize that those who are stating that the fate of the earth is dire have no idea what they are talking about. Maybe that's why you have very few weather people who are buying into the whole Global Warming thing. And in fact some are even saying we are entering into a Global Cooling stage. And if that's the case it blows the whole Global Warming theory big time.


Old Post 02-10-2007 02:29 PM
Click here to Send Edward Teach a Private Message View Edward Teach's Journal Visit Edward Teach's homepage! Find more posts by Edward Teach Add Edward Teach to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Edward Teach REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 12:36 PM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #4  quote:

quote:
Edward Teach said this in post #3 :
One problem with science is that when one presents a plausable theory everyone jumps on the bandwagon.


Who's jumping on the bandwaggon? Are you saying scientists are just agreeing with what's popular, regardless of the evidence? That's not my idea of how scientists operate. And if any do then they are not scientists.

quote:
But you have to remember it's still just a theory.


As oppossed to what? All science is theory based on evidence, study and tests.

quote:
Climatologists and Paleoclimatologists study the weather over years to millennia and study the history of the earths climate.


Aren't these the very people who say they are 90% certain our pollution is causing global warming?

quote:
And anyone can find scientist that will support whatever theory you want them to support.


It is the scientists themselves making the global warming claims.

quote:
And if you read some of the science behind the earths climate you realize that those who are stating that the fate of the earth is dire have no idea what they are talking about.


Do you know who the IPCC are that have just produced the most recent damning report on climate change? Why do these scientists from all over the world not have any "idea what they are talking about"?

quote:
Maybe that's why you have very few weather people who are buying into the whole Global Warming thing.


The IPCC are "weather people".


Old Post 02-10-2007 03:55 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Edward Teach
Blackbeard

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 07:36 AM
Location: The Seven Seas or the Outer Banks.
Posts: 6097

post #5  quote:

quote:
h@ts said this in post #4 :


Who's jumping on the bandwaggon? Are you saying scientists are just agreeing with what's popular, regardless of the evidence? That's not my idea of how scientists operate. And if any do then they are not scientists.

Yes, to the first part no to the second.
quote:


As oppossed to what? All science is theory based on evidence, study and tests.

Right! And what evidence and tests support the claim that humans are causing Global Warming?
quote:


Aren't these the very people who say they are 90% certain our pollution is causing global warming?

No
quote:


It is the scientists themselves making the global warming claims.

There are all kinds of scientist who specialize in different parts of science.
quote:


Do you know who the IPCC are that have just produced the most recent damning report on climate change? Why do these scientists from all over the world not have any "idea what they are talking about"?

Why is their theory the only one you listen too?
quote:


The IPCC are "weather people".
Are they? Do you know who is on the panel? What are their credentials?


Old Post 02-10-2007 04:05 PM
Click here to Send Edward Teach a Private Message View Edward Teach's Journal Visit Edward Teach's homepage! Find more posts by Edward Teach Add Edward Teach to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Edward Teach REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Edward Teach
Blackbeard

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 07:36 AM
Location: The Seven Seas or the Outer Banks.
Posts: 6097

post #6  quote:

You might want to read this

A Presentation initiated to be held on the Seminar "Main Findings of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR)" arranged 3/26 01 by the Finnish Working Group of the IPCC, in Helsinki, Finland, in the presence of Dr. Robert Watson, chairman of the IPCC. (For time shortage allowed to present only Parts 1-3. Later on this paper was circulated to the seminar participants.)

IPCC Critic

If you don't get through all of it at least check out the bottom of the page listing all the references.


Old Post 02-10-2007 04:21 PM
Click here to Send Edward Teach a Private Message View Edward Teach's Journal Visit Edward Teach's homepage! Find more posts by Edward Teach Add Edward Teach to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Edward Teach REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 12:36 PM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #7  quote:

quote:
Edward Teach said this in post #5 :
Why is their theory the only one you listen too?


I'll listen to whatever scientists are saying and I'm sure everyone would be delighted to hear the opposit of what we are hearing - that after looking at the evidence, the scientific consensus was that the pollution we produce is having no harmful effects. It would be one less thing to worry about. But it isn't what we are being told.

quote:
Do you know who is on the panel? What are their credentials?


I suggest you go check before continuing with this line that these people don't know what they are talking about.


Old Post 02-10-2007 04:29 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Edward Teach
Blackbeard

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 07:36 AM
Location: The Seven Seas or the Outer Banks.
Posts: 6097

post #8  quote:

I have.

quote:
IPCC report criticized by one of its lead authors

Politics, not science, drives the United Nations' work on climate change, warns Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the world's leading atmospheric physicists...

The "most egregious" problem with the IPCC's forthcoming report, said Lindzen, "is that it is presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists . . . and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on."

Indeed, most press accounts covering the January release of the TAR's "Summary for Policymakers" characterized the report as the work of 2,000 (3,000 in some instances) of the world's leading climate scientists. IPCC's emphasis, however, isn't on getting qualified scientists, but on getting representatives from over 100 countries, said Lindzen. The truth is only a handful of countries do quality climate research. Most of the so-called experts served merely to pad the numbers.

The IPCC claims its report is peer-reviewed, which simply isn't true, Lindzen said. Under true peer-review, he explained, a panel of reviewers must accept a study before it can be published in a scientific journal. If the reviewers have objections, the author must answer them or change the article to take reviewers' objections into account.

Under the IPCC review process, by contrast, the authors are at liberty to ignore criticisms. After having his review comments ignored by the IPCC in 1990 and 1995, Lindzen asked to have his name removed from the list of reviewers. The group refused.

The IPCC has resorted to using scenario-building in its policymakers' summary to paint a frightening picture not supported by the science, Lindzen charged. Ignoring the science allows the IPCC to build a scenario, for example, that assumes man will burn 300 years' worth of coal in 100 years. They plug that into the most sensitive climate model available and arrive at a truly frightening global warming scenario.

The IPCC's infamous hockey stick graph, for example, shows global temperatures have been stable or falling over the last 1,000 years, and that only in the industrial age has there been an unnatural warming of the planet. But if you look at the margin of error in that graph, "You can no longer maintain that statement," said Lindzen.

Lindzen also noted the margin of error used in the IPCC report is much smaller, a 60 percent confidence level, than traditionally used by scientists, who generally report results at the 95 or even 99 percent confidence level. The IPCC is thus publicizing results much less likely to be correct than scientific research is generally expected to be.

To illustrate his point, Lindzen showed estimates of some of the most precise numbers in physics with their error bars. He showed different measurements of the speed of light, for instance, from 1929 to the 1980s. The error bars for the estimated speed of light in 1932 and 1940 do not even include the value we think is the correct speed of light today. "Error bars should not be taken lightly," warned Lindzen. "There is genuine uncertainty in them."

Article


Old Post 02-10-2007 04:37 PM
Click here to Send Edward Teach a Private Message View Edward Teach's Journal Visit Edward Teach's homepage! Find more posts by Edward Teach Add Edward Teach to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Edward Teach REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

h@ts
INReview Maven

offline
Registered: Oct 2003
Local time: 12:36 PM
Location: england
Posts: 3938

post #9  quote:

So Lindzen - a well known skeptic of global warming - does not agree with the report? Should I post all the scientists that do agree with the report? The fact that some don't agree with the findings means what? We should ignore the overwhelming majority scientific view, and therefore take no action, not to mention believe there is some enormous scientific conspiracy going on here?

The argument is academic. Most governments took the theory seriously a long time ago and are not prepared to take the chance. Do you believe they are wrong?

quote:
The IPCC reports are widely regarded as the authoritative statements of scientific knowledge about climate change, and as such they carry enormous weight in both the scientific and policy communities. The immense credibility of the IPCC's reports arises from the credible process that produces it. The reports are based on the peer-reviewed literature and are written by hundreds of expert climate scientists from over 100 countries. The reports then go through multiple layers of review, including expert peer review by thousands of climate scientists who were not authors of the report.

The IPCC's Third Assessment Report, published in 2001, then went through review by a blue-ribbon panel convened by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which endorsed its findings. The conclusions of the IPCC reports have also been endorsed by the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others.

The resulting IPCC reports are accepted worldwide as the best summaries of what the scientific community knows about climate change and how confidently we know it.

The Highlights

My overall first impression was pleasant surprise at the strong wording in the document. Assessments, like the science that underlies them, tend to be conservative, so strong statements are often couched in so many caveats that they come out with the consistency of soggy toast. The statements in the AR4 SPM are crisp and clear and tough, reflecting the fact that our knowledge of the climate system is now so good that few caveats are necessary.

Are humans causing climate change?

Over time, the IPCC's statements about the contribution of humans to our present-day warming have become much stronger.

1990: "The size of this warming is broadly consistent with prediction of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability"

1995: "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the climate"

2001: "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

And now ... drum roll, please ... 2007: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

This 2007 statement increases our certainty that humans are the dominant influence on the climate from "likely" (66%) to "very likely" (90%). The statement continues the trend of the IPCC to make ever-stronger statements --- a result of ever-stronger underlying science.


http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/...sler/index.html


Old Post 02-10-2007 09:10 PM
Click here to Send h@ts a Private Message Find more posts by h@ts Add h@ts to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore h@ts REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Diamond Member
Inner City Blues
What's Going On

offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 07:36 AM
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 2004

post #10  quote:

I could write my own post, but I'll borrow from the best, what is said in this quote is very true indeed:
quote:
There is good reason why this particular research has not caused much of a stir in the climate community.

The research this article is based on (Svensmark et al) has been widely criticized. Firstly the laboratory experiments that they performed are completely unrealistic of the real atmosphere. They used levels of SO2 and O3 orders of magnitude higher than those found in the atmosphere. They also used a wavelength of light (254nm UV) that does not penetrate into the atmosphere. Finally the particles they produced in the lab are considerably to0 small to be forming clouds. So to claim the mechanism they produced in the lab is likely to be occurring in the atmosphere is circumspect at best.

An analysis of existing measurements taken in the real atmosphere will also quickly point out that cosmic ray cloud nucleation can not be a significant forcing of climate change. The current climate models capture the observed climate variability without including cosmic ray forcing in their physics. If cosmic ray forcing was a significant driver of climate how could this be the case?

Also a quick look a cosmic ray intensity and temperature trends also clearly indicates that cosmic rays are not driving the climate:



I cannot be said that cosmic rays have no affect on climate, there clearly should be further study of the possibility of cosmic ray cloud nucleation. However, we constrain the uncertainty of cosmic ray forcing based on the arguments above, and it is clearly considerably smaller than anthropogenic forcing. To claim that the science is not settled because of constrained second order effect shows a poor understanding of climate science.


Old Post 02-15-2007 04:08 AM
Click here to Send Inner City Blues a Private Message Find more posts by Inner City Blues Add Inner City Blues to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Inner City Blues REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Dreamzwalker
Agent

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 06:36 AM
Location: Out there Somewhere
Posts: 2428

post #11  quote:

that's funny for him to say because my teacher from germany just went over CO2 for plants and the burdon of excess CO2, both on plants and on the environment (global warming) just this friday. and the new book published for this school year says its a high part of blame.
stupid russians


Old Post 03-04-2007 01:05 AM
Click here to Send Dreamzwalker a Private Message View Dreamzwalker's Journal Find more posts by Dreamzwalker Add Dreamzwalker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Dreamzwalker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

tanjh
Rookie

offline
Registered: Apr 2007
Local time: 12:36 PM
Location:
Posts: 7

post #12  quote:

That sounds interesting...but not like it is unknown by everyone..

Old Post 04-16-2007 08:28 PM
Click here to Send tanjh a Private Message Visit tanjh's homepage! Find more posts by tanjh Add tanjh to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore tanjh REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

WillJ
Enthusiast

offline
Registered: Sep 2007
Local time: 07:36 AM
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 95

Re: Re: Global Warming not caused by rise in CO2 post #13  quote:

quote:
h@ts said this in post #2 :


Are you suggesting that as long as there is a "small number of scientists" who disagree with the majority of scientists, or until there is 100% scientific backing for the theory, we should do nothing?

Governments all over the developing world (ignoring the Bush government of course) are already taking seriously the view of the majority of scientists - our pollution is causing global warming. These governments are looking at ways to solve the problem. Businesses is looking at how it can help.


There's been ample evidence that many UN Scientists (the ones people cite 90% of the time) are fired for finding or even suggesting evidence against global warming. Then their data and research, owned by the UN, is never used in any propositions and can't be counted as scientific evidence. I'm not saying global warming isn't man-made, I'm saying that I don't think anyone who isn't a scientist can have a truly informed opinion on the issue.


Old Post 09-28-2007 05:32 PM
Click here to Send WillJ a Private Message Find more posts by WillJ Add WillJ to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore WillJ REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
HECK!
Bluto

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 04:36 AM
Location: Delta House
Posts: 17648

post #14  quote:

Yes, but even the scientists are fueled and/or funded by partisan politics. It's sad really.

Even if the Al Gore's of the world are wrong, what's the problem in still using their ideas to help the world. It's obvious pollution is a problem. If a byproduct of that pollution is not global warming, so what? We still have to get our act together.

-HECK!


Old Post 09-28-2007 10:22 PM
Click here to Send HECK! a Private Message View HECK!'s Journal Find more posts by HECK! Add HECK! to your buddy list Send an AIM message to HECK! Reply w/Quote

WillJ
Enthusiast

offline
Registered: Sep 2007
Local time: 07:36 AM
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 95

post #15  quote:

I totally agree that something has to be done, but it's obvious that nothing will be done if it requires us to start damaging our economy for the sake of reducing energy costs/issues.

Old Post 09-29-2007 05:51 AM
Click here to Send WillJ a Private Message Find more posts by WillJ Add WillJ to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore WillJ REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

MikeTheGenius
Qualified Rookie

offline
Registered: Sep 2007
Local time: 12:36 PM
Location: UK
Posts: 10

post #16  quote:

We all know that the major cause of global warming is pollution and the disruption of ozone layer. CO2 is surely one of the content that is causing Global Warming. It?s really sad that nobody even bother to think seriously about this problem.

Old Post 09-30-2007 10:28 AM
Click here to Send MikeTheGenius a Private Message Find more posts by MikeTheGenius Add MikeTheGenius to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore MikeTheGenius REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote
Time: 12:36 PM Post New Thread   
  Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
INReview INReview > Hot Topics > Global Warming & Climate Change > Global Warming not caused by rise in CO2
Search this Thread:
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
Forum Policies Explained
 
Rate This Thread:

< >

Copyright ?2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.07062197 seconds (89.07% PHP - 10.93% MySQL) with 37 queries.

ADS

© 2018, INReview.com.   Popular Forums  All Forums   Web Hosting by Psyphire.
INReview.com: Back to Home