|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/16/2010 3:38:47 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 295
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shakezula
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
PHIL JONES HAS A "COME-TO-JESUS" MEETING WITH BBC
Phil Jones, head of CRU has now confessed that that there has been no significant global warming for the LAST 15 YEARS!
there's a thread about this in current events. fyi, the original interview says the opposite, which just goes to show how easily blogs distort info.
How did you arrive at that? Here it is, direct from the interview:
quote:
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/17/2010 7:00:18 PM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 1417
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
I don't know if it has been mentioned in this thread, but you all do realize why Greenland was given that name don't you? Despite the fact that now 81% of its surface area is covered in ice sheets?
And those locations for sensors are... ill-conceived at best. An accurate predictor of the error introduced would be to put a sensor in the same general local, but amidst a grove of trees above soil or grass. Then compare the two measures, take a median as the answer.
Oh yeah, and put some out in the middle of no where since that would give some of the best non-human related inaccuracies.
Yeah, I know. Wishful thinking for scientific accuracy when politics and big money are involved.
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/18/2010 1:50:45 AM
|
|
|
shakezula
Posts: 683
Joined: 3/9/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: neuronstatic
I don't know if it has been mentioned in this thread, but you all do realize why Greenland was given that name don't you? Despite the fact that now 81% of its surface area is covered in ice sheets?
greenland was named by the vikings, if i recall., to scam people to going there.
_____________________________
watch out for the oo moo and the blehblehbleh
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/18/2010 1:24:07 PM
|
|
|
Ohioman1972
Posts: 409
Joined: 8/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shakezula
quote:
ORIGINAL: neuronstatic
I don't know if it has been mentioned in this thread, but you all do realize why Greenland was given that name don't you? Despite the fact that now 81% of its surface area is covered in ice sheets?
greenland was named by the vikings, if i recall., to scam people to going there.
I believe there is a joke in there somewhere, Shake
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/18/2010 4:53:37 PM
|
|
|
WormHeart
Posts: 393
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Denmark - pride of Scandinavia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shakezula
quote:
ORIGINAL: neuronstatic
I don't know if it has been mentioned in this thread, but you all do realize why Greenland was given that name don't you? Despite the fact that now 81% of its surface area is covered in ice sheets?
greenland was named by the vikings, if i recall., to scam people to going there.
There are three different versions of the story behind Greenlands name.
One is that they accidently switched the naming of Iceland and Greenland.
The other is that they tried to make it sound more appealing to draw settlers.
The third that Greenland was warmer back then and hence more green.
I'm not sure which version is correct.
WormHeart
_____________________________
WormHeart got married
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/18/2010 5:17:43 PM
|
|
|
WormHeart
Posts: 393
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Denmark - pride of Scandinavia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
quote:
In the past two hundred years, humanity has significantly increased its rate of emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is a consequence of industrialization, and industrialized nations account for almost all the increase. The increase is enough to account for an observable change in climate, and further change can be projected.
Brrrrr! Anyone else notice how COLD it is outside!?! We had snow in HOUSTON here in Texas!! It NEVER snows in Houston! I was reading there's a fear this cold wave will even freeze the Florida citrus groves. Read it here
And reported here China is worried about a repeat of "its worst winter weather in half a century" of a couple years ago, as snow and ice is sweeping South. They've had to start rationing electricity due to coal shortages.
Likewise, Russia is experiencing its "coldest spell in 25 years" as reported here. So much so that it is being forced to cut natural gas supplies to Europe in order to meet domestic needs.
I think the tip of the "hockey stick" has broken, and is dangling distinctively DOWNWARD. 
You DO realise that Global Warming doesnt mean uniform warmer weather, right?
It means more extreme weather, both hot and cold.
Still, eventhough the US is caught in the snow and northen Europe is also under the spell, this january is the hottest on record on the global scale.
Hottest January On Record
This is from Australia, but the chart is global. I'm trying to find the source of the chart. (Know thy sources, as they say)
WormHeart
_____________________________
WormHeart got married
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/18/2010 5:40:36 PM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 295
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WormHeart
You DO realise that Global Warming doesnt mean uniform warmer weather, right?
It means more extreme weather, both hot and cold.
Still, eventhough the US is caught in the snow and northen Europe is also under the spell, this january is the hottest on record on the global scale.
Hottest January On Record
This is from Australia, but the chart is global. I'm trying to find the source of the chart. (Know thy sources, as they say)
WormHeart
Hey, I'm just going by the head of CRU, who says there's been NO significant warming for the last 15 years. Pretty good source, right? 
He also says there's been a DOWNTREND for the last 7-8 years, although also not yet significant.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/18/2010 8:43:40 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hey, I'm just going by the head of CRU, who says there's been NO significant warming for the last 15 years. Pretty good source, right?
He also says there's been a DOWNTREND for the last 7-8 years, although also not yet significant.
Lol. If I may impart upon you a small bit of advice: Read things in context, and don't just read snippets or "soundbites."
Let's have a look at Phil Jones' response to the question "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?" (from the same BBC interview)
"I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
Hmm.... Well that's odd. Either he's giving two contradictory answers, or you've misinterpreted what he said.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/19/2010 10:44:26 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 295
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Lol. If I may impart upon you a small bit of advice: Read things in context, and don't just read snippets or "soundbites."
Let's have a look at Phil Jones' response to the question "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?" (from the same BBC interview)
"I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
Hmm.... Well that's odd. Either he's giving two contradictory answers, or you've misinterpreted what he said.
Dante
Hey, I don't think anyone ever said that its not a teensy bit warmer now than it was in the 1800's (I think 0.12C is the number Dr. Phil gives us). But the fact is, its not CONTINUING to get any warmer. In fact, we are seeing a cooling trend developing IN SPITE of the total failure of those countries that signed on to Kyoto and/or cap'n tax treaties to actually abide by their limits, or the USA to do anything at all that the UN wants.
This lack of continued warming was not predicted by any of the fabled computer models that supposedly "settled" the science of AGW. In fact, these models cannot even correctly account for the PAST. This was the intent of the bulk of the climategate emails. Jones and other AGW fanatics were trying to "cook" historic data to fit their models, since they believed their computer models were more real than actual history.
Question: In science, what do you call a theory that fails to correctly predict the future?
Answer: A FALSE theory!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/21/2010 2:58:19 AM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
But the fact is, its not CONTINUING to get any warmer. In fact, we are seeing a cooling trend developing
Source?
quote:
This lack of continued warming was not predicted by any of the fabled computer models that supposedly "settled" the science of AGW.
Continued warming was not predicted by global warming? Well that's an odd assertion.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/21/2010 12:59:51 PM
|
|
|
creaton
Posts: 180
Joined: 9/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
But the fact is, its not CONTINUING to get any warmer. In fact, we are seeing a cooling trend developing
Source?
Duh - didn't you hear about the snowstorms in DC?
Limbaugh was using that same, STUPID 'argument' back when he had his short-lived TV show - which was what - 15 years ago? - he showed a video of a snowstorm, and, shakinig his fat head, murmered 'Global warming...', much to the delight of the mouthbreathing simpletons in his audience.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/22/2010 9:23:40 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 295
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
But the fact is, its not CONTINUING to get any warmer. In fact, we are seeing a cooling trend developing
Source?
See post 73, the link to Phil Jones' confession.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/27/2010 12:14:22 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 700
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
Hey, I don't think anyone ever said that its not a teensy bit warmer now than it was in the 1800's (I think 0.12C is the number Dr. Phil gives us). But the fact is, its not CONTINUING to get any warmer. In fact, we are seeing a cooling trend developing IN SPITE of the total failure of those countries that signed on to Kyoto and/or cap'n tax treaties to actually abide by their limits, or the USA to do anything at all that the UN wants.
Demolay, would you get with the program? It's called Climate Change now. It doesn't matter if it gets hotter or colder; what's important is that the governments take more control of industry.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 2/27/2010 2:25:35 PM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 760
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
Dan,
You are being sarcastic, aren't you?
This is one of those cases where the absence of body language and intonation really impairs communication. You may feel the humor in your statement to be so obvious as not to need pointing out, but I can see somebody saying the same thing and being serious.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 3/1/2010 2:06:39 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 700
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Strider33
Dan,
You are being sarcastic, aren't you?
This is one of those cases where the absence of body language and intonation really impairs communication. You may feel the humor in your statement to be so obvious as not to need pointing out, but I can see somebody saying the same thing and being serious.
Sorry, I was relying on Demolay's familiarity with my views to provide him with the implied sarcasm. Yes, I was being sarcastic.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 3/2/2010 3:49:15 PM
|
|
|
creaton
Posts: 180
Joined: 9/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: Strider33
Dan,
You are being sarcastic, aren't you?
This is one of those cases where the absence of body language and intonation really impairs communication. You may feel the humor in your statement to be so obvious as not to need pointing out, but I can see somebody saying the same thing and being serious.
Sorry, I was relying on Demolay's familiarity with my views to provide him with the implied sarcasm. Yes, I was being sarcastic.
It seems an odd thing to me - this sort of 'package deal' with so many religious conservatives being both 'pro-life' and 'anti-environment'.
I don't really have a dog in the 'global warming' fight, but am pretty sure that less pollution (and lets face it - greenhouse gases are a major componant of all forms of man-made pollution) is good for everyone, even the unborn. Why religious conservative 'embrace' pollution, when that pollution can do things like increase rates of spontaneous abortion and birth defects, escapes me.
Then again, you can get lots of red state-types to vote against their own economic interests by waving a bible around, so I guess nothing surprises me anymore...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 3/2/2010 5:00:06 PM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 760
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: creaton
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: Strider33
Dan,
You are being sarcastic, aren't you?
This is one of those cases where the absence of body language and intonation really impairs communication. You may feel the humor in your statement to be so obvious as not to need pointing out, but I can see somebody saying the same thing and being serious.
Sorry, I was relying on Demolay's familiarity with my views to provide him with the implied sarcasm. Yes, I was being sarcastic.
It seems an odd thing to me - this sort of 'package deal' with so many religious conservatives being both 'pro-life' and 'anti-environment'.
I don't really have a dog in the 'global warming' fight, but am pretty sure that less pollution (and lets face it - greenhouse gases are a major componant of all forms of man-made pollution) is good for everyone, even the unborn. Why religious conservative 'embrace' pollution, when that pollution can do things like increase rates of spontaneous abortion and birth defects, escapes me.
Then again, you can get lots of red state-types to vote against their own economic interests by waving a bible around, so I guess nothing surprises me anymore...
Greenhouse gases and pollution are quite different. Pollution poisons people, animals and plants. Greenhouse gases don't. In fact, plants thrive on carbon dioxide. They need it for photosynthesis. About the only thing greenhouse gases have in common with pollution is that they are both harmful. Even that depends on believing what the climate change alarmists are saying.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 3/3/2010 8:08:27 AM
|
|
|
creaton
Posts: 180
Joined: 9/30/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Strider33
quote:
ORIGINAL: creaton
It seems an odd thing to me - this sort of 'package deal' with so many religious conservatives being both 'pro-life' and 'anti-environment'.
I don't really have a dog in the 'global warming' fight, but am pretty sure that less pollution (and lets face it - greenhouse gases are a major componant of all forms of man-made pollution) is good for everyone, even the unborn. Why religious conservative 'embrace' pollution, when that pollution can do things like increase rates of spontaneous abortion and birth defects, escapes me.
Then again, you can get lots of red state-types to vote against their own economic interests by waving a bible around, so I guess nothing surprises me anymore...
Greenhouse gases and pollution are quite different. Pollution poisons people, animals and plants. Greenhouse gases don't. In fact, plants thrive on carbon dioxide. They need it for photosynthesis. About the only thing greenhouse gases have in common with pollution is that they are both harmful. Even that depends on believing what the climate change alarmists are saying.
Um...
OK, so you are saying CO2 is not found in automobile exhaust and the like?
Climate change denialists deny both that greenhouse gases are an issue AND that pollutionis a problem, at least form what I can tell.
But sure - why believe what the 'alarmists' are saying about climate.
Why believe what alarmists say about terrorism. why believe what alarmists say about the economy.
Why believe what alarmists say about the end time.
Just make up your own comfortable story where everything is nice and fuzzy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 3/4/2010 3:55:24 AM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 760
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: creaton
quote:
ORIGINAL: Strider33
quote:
ORIGINAL: creaton
It seems an odd thing to me - this sort of 'package deal' with so many religious conservatives being both 'pro-life' and 'anti-environment'.
I don't really have a dog in the 'global warming' fight, but am pretty sure that less pollution (and lets face it - greenhouse gases are a major componant of all forms of man-made pollution) is good for everyone, even the unborn. Why religious conservative 'embrace' pollution, when that pollution can do things like increase rates of spontaneous abortion and birth defects, escapes me.
Then again, you can get lots of red state-types to vote against their own economic interests by waving a bible around, so I guess nothing surprises me anymore...
Greenhouse gases and pollution are quite different. Pollution poisons people, animals and plants. Greenhouse gases don't. In fact, plants thrive on carbon dioxide. They need it for photosynthesis. About the only thing greenhouse gases have in common with pollution is that they are both harmful. Even that depends on believing what the climate change alarmists are saying.
Um...
OK, so you are saying CO2 is not found in automobile exhaust and the like?
No, I'm saying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but not a pollutant. SO2 is a pollutant, whether man made or natural. CO is an example of something that might be both a pollutant and a greenhouse gas.
quote:
Climate change denialists deny both that greenhouse gases are an issue AND that pollutionis a problem, at least form what I can tell.
I haven't seen this.
quote:
But sure - why believe what the 'alarmists' are saying about climate.
Why believe what alarmists say about terrorism. why believe what alarmists say about the economy.
Why believe what alarmists say about the end time.
Just make up your own comfortable story where everything is nice and fuzzy.
It depends on what the alarmists use for evidence. If the evidence is said to be scientific, and if the data has been fudged, then the case practically collapses.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 3/4/2010 1:22:12 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 700
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: creaton
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: Strider33
Dan,
You are being sarcastic, aren't you?
This is one of those cases where the absence of body language and intonation really impairs communication. You may feel the humor in your statement to be so obvious as not to need pointing out, but I can see somebody saying the same thing and being serious.
Sorry, I was relying on Demolay's familiarity with my views to provide him with the implied sarcasm. Yes, I was being sarcastic.
It seems an odd thing to me - this sort of 'package deal' with so many religious conservatives being both 'pro-life' and 'anti-environment'.
I don't really have a dog in the 'global warming' fight, but am pretty sure that less pollution (and lets face it - greenhouse gases are a major componant of all forms of man-made pollution) is good for everyone, even the unborn. Why religious conservative 'embrace' pollution, when that pollution can do things like increase rates of spontaneous abortion and birth defects, escapes me.
Then again, you can get lots of red state-types to vote against their own economic interests by waving a bible around, so I guess nothing surprises me anymore...
And you can lose a lot of support by being so rude. I agree that pollution should be reduced by supporting creative alternative to dirty energy. The problem is that those who are the loudest voices are often those who are screaming for a big-government solution. I do not want a big government solution. This does not mean that I deny facts, it means that I'm very critical of those who claim that we are approaching a crisis and must therefore agree to big government solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 3/4/2010 2:04:08 PM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 760
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
... I agree that pollution should be reduced by supporting creative alternative to dirty energy. The problem is that those who are the loudest voices are often those who are screaming for a big-government solution. I do not want a big government solution. This does not mean that I deny facts, it means that I'm very critical of those who claim that we are approaching a crisis and must therefore agree to big government solutions.
Like you, I am very skeptical of big government solutions.
However, in this case, my opposition is not bsed on that skepticism, but on skepticism about whether there is in fact a crisis, and whether the measures so far proposed will do more good or more harm.
Those of us who believe in small government for the most part rely on market forces to bring people into doing what is good for other people, under penalty of not being able to find willing customers, willing employers, or willing investors. There is however a phenomenon known as the "tragedy of the commons" wherein prpoerty that is of value to everyone, but is owned by no one, is overused and depleted, even when everybody knows it's the wrong thing to do. The tragedy of the commons was well explored way back in Adam Smith's day, IIRC.
A viable climate falls well within the sort of resource that would be subject to the tragedy of the commons. Each person and each country has a vested interest in producing about as much as possible and consuming as much as they can obtain, regardless of whether the total drain on the planet is more than the system can bear. Competition by itself is not going to restrain people. Neither is altruism.
My question is about whether climate change is really a cirsis and, if so, whether it's a crisis that humanity can manage. There is too much mishandling of data among climate change alarmists. Some of that mishandling of data was at the propaganda level, and doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the science itself. But there's enough evidence of systematic data mishandling at the scinece level to cast doubt on the conclusions of the alarmists.
There are climate change alarmists who tell us that if the number of hurricaines increases, that's evidence of catastrophic climate change. There are other climate change alrmists who assure us that is the number of hurricaines decreases, that's evidence of catastrophic climate change. That adds up to a theory that's not even wrong.
There are pople who want to alarm us about the ocean rising 20 meters if all the ice in the Arctic sea melts. When floating ice melts, it doesn't raise the ocean level. And the total amount of Antractic ice over land is growing, not shrinking. The whole thing smells of bad science.
And the remedies that are proposed always center on the deindustrialization of the US. People have been urging suicidal courses of action on the US ever since July 5, 1776. I'm inured by now.
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 3/4/2010 2:25:04 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 700
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Strider33
There are pople who want to alarm us about the ocean rising 20 meters if all the ice in the Arctic sea melts. When floating ice melts, it doesn't raise the ocean level. And the total amount of Antractic ice over land is growing, not shrinking. The whole thing smells of bad science.
And the remedies that are proposed always center on the deindustrialization of the US. People have been urging suicidal courses of action on the US ever since July 5, 1776. I'm inured by now.
Not to mention the fact that the ice caps will be completely melted out by 2035... oops, I mean 2350.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 3/5/2010 9:12:42 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3527
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: creaton
It seems an odd thing to me - this sort of 'package deal' with so many religious conservatives being both 'pro-life' and 'anti-environment'.
I don't really have a dog in the 'global warming' fight, but am pretty sure that less pollution (and lets face it - greenhouse gases are a major componant of all forms of man-made pollution) is good for everyone, even the unborn. Why religious conservative 'embrace' pollution, when that pollution can do things like increase rates of spontaneous abortion and birth defects, escapes me.
Then again, you can get lots of red state-types to vote against their own economic interests by waving a bible around, so I guess nothing surprises me anymore...
It's because many religious conservatives have bought into the lie that Conservative Republican political policies go hand-in-hand with sound Biblical doctrine.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: global warming on trial? - 3/6/2010 10:19:20 AM
|
|
|
Ohioman1972
Posts: 409
Joined: 8/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: creaton
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: Strider33
Dan,
You are being sarcastic, aren't you?
This is one of those cases where the absence of body language and intonation really impairs communication. You may feel the humor in your statement to be so obvious as not to need pointing out, but I can see somebody saying the same thing and being serious.
Sorry, I was relying on Demolay's familiarity with my views to provide him with the implied sarcasm. Yes, I was being sarcastic.
It seems an odd thing to me - this sort of 'package deal' with so many religious conservatives being both 'pro-life' and 'anti-environment'.
I don't really have a dog in the 'global warming' fight, but am pretty sure that less pollution (and lets face it - greenhouse gases are a major componant of all forms of man-made pollution) is good for everyone, even the unborn. Why religious conservative 'embrace' pollution, when that pollution can do things like increase rates of spontaneous abortion and birth defects, escapes me.
Then again, you can get lots of red state-types to vote against their own economic interests by waving a bible around, so I guess nothing surprises me anymore...
I don't get this one...
Many people believe that man is not the cause of any form of climate change. How does that translate into the religious conservatives as 'embracing' pollution?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
