Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems that concrete is a more cost effective way to build roads, too. Asphalt is always cracking and in need of being tarred.

Y'know, I always wondered about that. Excuse my ignorance, but why do we use asphalt instead of concrete to build roads?
 
It seems that concrete is a more cost effective way to build roads, too. Asphalt is always cracking and in need of being tarred.

Y'know, I always wondered about that. Excuse my ignorance, but why do we use asphalt instead of concrete to build roads?
 
Good question. How do you explain such a cold winter when so many consecutive summers have been hotter than the last?

Side note:
Antarctic Ice Melting Faster than Expected


Antarctica's ice melting faster

* Font Size: Decrease Increase
* Print Page: Print

Leigh Dayton, Science writer | January 15, 2008
Article from: The Australian

THE most comprehensive study to date of Antarctica's ice confirms growing concern that the ice cap is melting faster than predicted.

The implications are that the global sea level will rise faster than expected, while a huge influx of freshwater into the salty oceans could alter ocean currents.

Antarctica holds 90 per cent of Earth's ice.

According to the new findings, snowfall is topping up ice in the continent's interior and East Antarctic has held its own. But West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula lost nearly 200 billion tonnes of ice in 2006 alone.

That is 75 per cent more than losses in 1996 and the equivalent of a global sea level rise of more than half a millimetre, claim international scientists led by NASA geoscientist Eric Rignot, also with the University of California, Irvine (UCI).

"Losses are concentrated along narrow channels occupied by outlet glaciers and are caused by ongoing and past glacier acceleration," the team wrote in the online edition of Nature Geoscience.

They based their conclusions on satellite data obtained in 1996, 2000 and 2006.

According to Dr Rignot, the results showed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had underestimated the impact of polar melting in its predictions of possible sea level rises next century.

"Each time I look at some new data, I am astonished," he said.

Until now, it has been unclear whether snowfall in the interior kept pace with coastal melting, in terms of the overall mass of Antarctic ice.

But for Hobart glaciologist Ian Allison - with the Australian Antarctic Division and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre - the new findings settle the matter.

"This work suggests that the ice flow is accelerating," Dr Allison said.

"It's worrying because ... the changes are happening due to processes we don't understand."

Dr Allison said the findings confirmed previous work, much by Dr Rignot and another UCI scientist Isabella Velicogna.

It also fits with observations that the break-up in 1995 and 2002 of two sections of the Larsen ice shelf, in the West Antarctic ice sheet, was sped up by the melting of glaciers that were behind it.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23053212-11949,00.html
 
Last edited:
The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam


al8.jpg

By John Coleman

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints.

Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led tthe public to be skeptical that any runaway global warning. There is now awareness that there may be reason to question whether CO2 is a pollutant and a significant greenhouse gas.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government? And how will we ever stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.

What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.

But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It's a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle's Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when they are asked about we skeptics, they insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.
And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

John Coleman
1-28-2009
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
 
I thought JFK was the Greatest Scam in History? Oh well. One conspiracy theory is as good as another I suppose.



:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
While U.S. in Big Chill, Arctic Runs Fever
By Andrea Thompson, Senior Writer

posted: 05 February 2009 09:08 am ET

While parts of North America have been in the icy grips of an unusually cold and snowy winter recently, the Arctic has been downright balmy compared to past winters.

These warmer-than-normal temperatures mean that the sea ice in the Arctic is looking pretty anemic, despite the winter season.

Arctic ice goes through a normal cycle of summer thaw and winter re-freeze. In recent decades, however, sea ice has become overall less extensive and thinner, leading to forecasts that in future decades the polar region will be ice-free during summer. The trend looks to be continuing this winter, scientists now say.

Warmer Arctic

Climate swings in any single season are part of Nature, of course. That's why records — warm or cold, wet or dry — get broken. For much of the United States, this winter has been an exceptionally chilly one.

The average temperature for the United States in December, 32.5 F, was almost 1 degree Fahrenheit below the average for the 20th century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Much of the West and Midwest had a particularly frigid month, with temperatures plunging several degrees below average.

This winter in the Arctic has been a completely different story.

"It's warm everywhere in the Arctic. It's anomalously warm," said Julienne Stroeve, of the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo.

Both December and January have been abnormally warm months, which impacts the cyclical re-freezing of sea ice over the years, because these are "two crucial ice-growing months," Stroeve told LiveScience.

Thinner ice, more melt

Arctic sea ice hasn't been reaching its former thicknesses and extents in recent years, especially after the dramatic meltdown observed in the summer of 2007, which opened up the fabled Northwest Passage. (This past summer saw the second lowest summer ice area on record.)

That record melting — which left 30 percent less ice in the Arctic than there was at the previous record low — caused the loss of substantial amounts of older ice, which is thicker and generally survives the summer. Older, thicker ice is typically 6.5 to 10 feet (2 to 3 meters) thick, while younger ice is closer to 3 feet (1 meter) in thickness.

Melting exposes more areas of open ocean, which absorbs incoming sunlight that the ice would normally reflect, so there is the potential for a snowball effect, or what scientists call self-reinforcing or feedback. Come winter, the ice that refreezes is thinner, first-year ice, which is more susceptible to melt in the summer, potentially exposing even more open ocean.

"That [thinner ice] typically can all melt out in the summer," Stroeve said.

This year, the future

That feedback seems to be kicking in, as now "the Arctic is just more dominated by that thinner ice," Stroeve said, adding that unless February and March are much colder than normal, this winter's ice could end up covering less area than normal and be thinner than even in recent years.

So far, this winter has been warmer than last, Stroeve said, and some odd weather patterns cropped up in both December and January that brought ice growth to a standstill. Pauses in the regrowth of ice aren't a new phenomenon — they have happened before, even in much colder winters — but they only exacerbate the current situation in the Arctic by adding yet another mechanism that stagnates ice growth.

In January, these weather patterns created different conditions in different parts of the Arctic. While ice grew southwest of Greenland, it retreated in areas east of Greenland and in parts of the Barents Sea, the NSIDC reported.

While ice is still re-freezing, ice coverage area at the end of January was still 293,000 square miles (760,000 square kilometers) less than the 1979-2000 average, according to the NSIDC. This didn't break the record low for January ice area (set in 2006), but it put January 2009 in the top six. Including this year, January ice area is declining by about 3 percent per decade, the NSIDC reported.

Looking further into the future, unless there are several very cold winters and mild summers, Arctic sea ice is unlikely to bounce back in the coming decades.

"The idea of recovery right now seems pretty slim," Stroeve said. "You just don't get very cold temperatures like you used to."

Eventually, the sea ice is expected to melt out entirely in the summer, leaving only a cover of winter seasonal ice. The NSIDC predicts that this will happen around 2030, though Stroeve says it could happen earlier, as indeed some other scientists predict. That it will happen seems fairly certain: "There's no doubt in my mind about that," Stroeve said.
 
The earth goes through cycles. Doesnt matter if we're here or not, it will happen anyway IMO.
I do think we are harming the enviroment, but not to the extent that it's causing a global climate change.

to me that sounds like as much of a cop out as saying, " i believe in micro evolution, but not macro evolution" .
 
Former Astronaut Speaks Out on Global Warming

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/n...t_on_global_warming/srvc=home&position=recent

Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.

"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.

Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.

"They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.

Dan Williams, publisher with the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which is hosting the climate change conference, said he invited Schmitt after reading about his resignation from The Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space exploration.

Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."

Williams said Heartland is skeptical about the crisis that people are proclaiming in global warming.

"Not that the planet hasn’t warmed. We know it has or we’d all still be in the Ice Age," he said. "But it has not reached a crisis proportion and, even among us skeptics, there’s disagreement about how much man has been responsible for that warming."

Schmitt said historical documents indicate average temperatures have risen by 1 degree per century since around 1400 A.D., and the rise in carbon dioxide is because of the temperature rise.

Schmitt also said geological evidence indicates changes in sea level have been going on for thousands of years. He said smaller changes are related to changes in the elevation of land masses — for example, the Great Lakes are rising because the earth’s crust is rebounding from being depressed by glaciers.

Schmitt, who grew up in Silver City and now lives in Albuquerque, has a science degree from the California Institute of Technology. He also studied geology at the University of Oslo in Norway and took a doctorate in geology from Harvard University in 1964.

In 1972, he was one of the last men to walk on the moon as part of the Apollo 17 mission.

Schmitt said he’s heartened that the upcoming conference is made up of scientists who haven’t been manipulated by politics.

Of the global warming debate, he said: "It’s one of the few times you’ve seen a sizable portion of scientists who ought to be objective take a political position and it’s coloring their objectivity."
 
Schmitt also said geological evidence indicates changes in sea level have been going on for thousands of years.
Hey, Schmitt: the sky is blue. :huh:

Seriously, here's something I don't understand, and I'm hoping a few of you can help me out: why is it that people arguing against anthropogenic climate change think that, "The earth's climate goes through cycles!" is some earth-shattering argument?

Really? Thanks for letting me know, guys. My seventh grade science teacher will be thrilled to find out that I still know this. Really, though, somebody should let all the other scientists know. They probably just forgot.

Every single time somebody comes in here and says, "I don't believe that we're causing global warming because the earth's climate goes through cycles," I die a little inside. I feel their pain, too, though: it must be really hard to know so much more than the people who have studied these phenomena for years.

(This isn't necessarily a comment on Schmitt, who I'm sure was not using this argument as any type of meaningful counterpoint. He's probably too smart for that.)
 
i agree the earth is warming, but it's not because of greenhouse gases, it's solar output and that's one thing we can't change. how can i know it's solar output..because polar ice caps on mars are also melting at the same rate ours are. i think going green is a good idea simply because it creates careers (not jobs king obama, we need careers) and we all know that gas discharge is dangerous to our health but that's it. not some crisis we're trying to avoid or anything like that, just because it's smart to do. but yeah, some of these guys are coming out about this like it's a religion or that saying there isn't global warming is like being a holocaust denier (al gore's words not mine) and that's just plain ridiculous
 
i agree the earth is warming, but it's not because of greenhouse gases, it's solar output and that's one thing we can't change. how can i know it's solar output..because polar ice caps on mars are also melting at the same rate ours are.
Actually, if the sun were the only common factor the melting rates should be different. Solar energy dissipates the farther away it travels from the sun.

What you're presented is an extremely oversimplified view of what's going on. There are all kinds of factors that can affect the melting of ice on Mars, including atmospheric pressure variation (which can have a strong effect on melting temperatures under Mars' environmental conditions). That's not to mention the fact that carbon dioxide composes more than 90% of Mars' atmosphere, and that level is probably subject to fluctuation from natural sources.

The actual likelihood is that the warming is a result of a combination of factors, both on Mars and here on Earth. The problem with your argument is that it looks at melting rate, but it doesn't factor in any phenomena other than solar activity (which, again, is not at all likely to be the only factor).
 
Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor
Email | Print | A A A

By Alex Morales

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.

“Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,” the center said. “Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.’’

The extent of Arctic sea ice is seen as a key measure of how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth. The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said.

The center said real-time data on sea ice is always less reliable than archived numbers because full checks haven’t yet been carried out. Historical data is checked across other sources, it said.

The NSIDC uses Department of Defense satellites to obtain its Arctic sea ice data rather than more accurate National Aeronautics and Space Administration equipment. That’s because the defense satellites have a longer period of historical data, enabling scientists to draw conclusions about long-term ice melt, the center said.

“There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time-periods,” NSIDC said. “Our main scientific focus is on the long-term changes in Arctic sea ice.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Morales in London at [email protected].

Last Updated: February 20, 2009 08:15 EST

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

I'm sure Carcharodon is going to have a reason to justify this.
 
The earth goes through cycles. Doesnt matter if we're here or not, it will happen anyway IMO.
I do think we are harming the enviroment, but not to the extent that it's causing a global climate change.

Indeed, I don't know about you guys...

but the last few winters up here in Toronto have been much worse than those of a decade ago. Seems the summers are getting hotter, and the winters colder.

so I don't know what to think
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

I'm sure Carcharodon is going to have a reason to justify this.
Not necessarily. If there are technical errors, there are technical errors. I'm not going to try to fabricate some sort of justification when there isn't one. I like to believe I'm more reasonable than that.

Besides, why would I do that when the article says:

The extent of Arctic sea ice is seen as a key measure of how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth. The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said.
 
The Earth does go through cycles and think of it as an equation that balances itself out over time. What we as humans do one on side must be balanced on the other either by ourselves or for us by mother nature. We are the only animals that do not live in symbioses with our environment. Now, the longer and larger we change one side of the equation without balancing the other, then the harsher the results will be to equal out that equation. The Earth went through warming with the volcanoes putting out massive amounts of CO2 and then rapid cooling soon after...the Earth is balancing itself out and this has gone through cycles for millions of years. So, we can continue to do harm and not repair it and expect another Ice Age. Or, we can do something about it and try to prolong the next Ice Age because IMO I would rather be responsible and do my part (not carbon taxing Al Gore...that is stupid) than be irresponsible and live in a freaking harsh, cold environment.

The story of the ants and the grasshopper is a prime example of waiting:o
 
Last edited:
No, Global Warming is coming to eat us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,324
Messages
22,085,755
Members
45,886
Latest member
Shyatzu
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"