Board Logo
« How Trump will affect climate change »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Dec 13th, 2017, 12:48pm


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  ...  13 Notify Send Topic Print
 veryhotthread  Author  Topic: How Trump will affect climate change  (Read 9172 times)
Swamprat
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4289
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #30 on: Dec 8th, 2016, 1:07pm »

Trump’s pick for environment agency chief sued government over climate rules

Oklahoma attorney-general Scott Pruitt has sought to reverse federal limits on greenhouse-gas emissions and air pollution.

Jeff Tollefson
07 December 2016

President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Oklahoma attorney-general Scott Pruitt to lead the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Pruitt, who must be confirmed by the US Senate, is an ardent opponent of federal regulations to curb climate change and has questioned the science underlying global warming. He is one of dozens of state officials who have mounted a legal challenge to President Barack Obama’s limits on greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants — regulations that Trump has promised to repeal.

That case is pending review by the US Supreme Court. If the court agrees to hear the case, the outcome could hinge on whom Trump nominates to fill a vacancy on the nine-member panel of judges. Some experts say that the EPA itself could also seek to repeal the regulations after Trump takes office.

In May, Pruitt made his views on climate science clear in a guest editorial in the National Review that he wrote with Alabama attorney-general Luther Strange. “Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind,” the pair wrote. “That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.”

Strong reactions
Environmentalists blasted Trump for choosing Pruitt, whom they say has put the interests of the fossil-fuel industry before those of the environment and the people of Oklahoma. As well as challenging Obama’s climate regulations, Pruitt has sued the EPA to halt a series of regulations intended to keep air and water clean. In doing so, he has often worked in concert with the same oil, gas and coal companies that he would regulate as EPA chief.

“It’s hard to imagine a more alarming person to run the nation’s Environmental Protection Agency,” says Jeremy Symons, associate vice-president for climate and political affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund, an activist group in New York City. “It’s an unprecedented gamble with an agency that has protected the air we breathe and the water we drink across Republican and Democratic administrations for more than 40 years.”

But Pruitt will have plenty of support from industry officials — many of whom have long asserted that the EPA has overreached its regulatory authority, particularly on climate change.

Scott Segal, a lawyer at the firm Bracewell in Washington DC, which has represented many industry interests, calls Pruitt “a measured and articulate student of environmental law and policy”. Segal adds that Pruitt understands and respects states' roles in environmental policy, and that his decisions to challenge federal regulations should not disqualify him for the EPA job.

“There is no conflict in faithfully representing your state on litigation dealing with rules of general applicability and then serving your nation as a federal administrative official,” Segal says.

To win Senate approval for the EPA post, Pruitt would require only a simple majority of 51 senators in a body where Republicans will hold at least 51 seats. (A 52nd seat is up for grabs in a 10 December run-off election in Louisiana.) This means that Republicans should have enough votes to approve Pruitt if they stick together.

http://www.nature.com/news/trump-s-pick-for-environment-agency-chief-sued-government-over-climate-rules-1.21127?WT.ec_id=NEWSDAILY-20161208

User IP Logged

"Let's see what's over there."
MrGort
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 343
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #31 on: Dec 8th, 2016, 2:11pm »

I used to work for the federal government as an environmental scientist. I’ve held several supervisory positions in the Army, and Air Force including a top-secret clearance.

I’ve also worked as an environmental scientist in a civilian agency dealing with offshore oil and gas resources. I was a supervisor and in a position to affect millions of dollars worth of exploratory and development resources in the Gulf of Mexico, California and the Atlantic.

There is a vast oil reserve off of North Carolina but because of the Endangered Species Act it will never be developed.

I’ve been to Washington on several occasions to testify not only about the Endangered Species Act issues but also the Coastal Zone Management Act, and section 404 the Clean Water Act.

In short, I’ve had a lot of experience dealing with these issues. At one point I was responsible for permits for nuclear power plants. So, when I speak about environmental concerns it’s not as though I’m talking (out of my butt) without some knowledge.

As I’ve said before climate change may be a genuine natural phenomena. But to ascribe some causative relationship to human activity is scientific folly at best and possibly and more probably a purely academic/political agenda. Some people should actually become involved in the issue rather than parrot political bull ship.
User IP Logged

Swamprat
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4289
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #32 on: Dec 8th, 2016, 4:59pm »

Very impressive, Gort! It sounds as though you MAY have an affinity for Big Oil! wink

It's all good. Time will sort it out. Physics is physics.


kiss
User IP Logged

"Let's see what's over there."
MrGort
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 343
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #33 on: Dec 8th, 2016, 5:29pm »

on Dec 8th, 2016, 4:59pm, Swamprat wrote:
Very impressive, Gort! It sounds as though you MAY have an affinity for Big Oil! wink

It's all good. Time will sort it out. Physics is physics.


kiss


I do not have an affinity for big oil, coal, nuclear, natural gas, wind, hydro or tidal (Passamaquoddy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passamaquoddy_Bay) solutions for energy. American energy independence should be a recognized goal. In any solution there are concerns for safety and environmental trade-offs. For example hydropower one of the cleanest forms of energy production has been cited as detrimental to original fisheries. However this problem to some extent has been mitigated. Wind turbines kill birds and aesthetically are unpleasant to view. For every type of energy resource some trade-offs are unavoidable. However risks and trade-offs should all be either mitigated or within acceptable levels. There are probably some 6 or 7000 oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Some in very deep water. There have been a few mistakes. But for the most part all of these oil wells have automatic shutoff’s. A hurricane could totally decimate a tower and even without control from the tower the oil well is shut off. There are redundant systems. And while I won’t go into detail the last one had more to do with human error.

So while I am not an advocate for any one particular source of energy I do however feel obligated to speak up when I see political decisions and policies based on false premises or kiss my butt science. Ultimately these political decisions affect all of us and contrary to popular belief can even be detrimental to the environment and the economy in ways unanticipated while touted as environmentally progressive.

Some photos of wellhead blowouts.

User Image
User Image
User Image

User IP Logged

Swamprat
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4289
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #34 on: Dec 8th, 2016, 7:55pm »

OK, let me get this straight. You are saying all these pollution amounts are lies?

Or are you saying the pollution may be there, but the claim that this pollution would contribute to global warming is a lie?



Cars, Trucks, and Air Pollution

Transportation is the largest single source of air pollution in the United States.

Dirty Cars, Dirty Air

In 2013, transportation contributed more than half of the carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, and almost a quarter of the hydrocarbons emitted into our air.

________________________________________
The ingredients of air pollution
Cars and trucks produce air pollution throughout their life, including pollution emitted during vehicle operation, refueling, manufacturing, and disposal. Additional emissions are associated with the refining and distribution of vehicle fuel.

Air pollution from cars and trucks is split into primary and secondary pollution. Primary pollution is emitted directly into the atmosphere; secondary pollution results from chemical reactions between pollutants in the atmosphere. The following are the major pollutants from motor vehicles:

Particulate matter (PM). These particles of soot and metals give smog its murky color. Fine particles — less than one-tenth the diameter of a human hair — pose the most serious threat to human health, as they can penetrate deep into lungs. PM is a direct (primary) pollution and a secondary pollution from hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and sulfer dioxides. Diesel exhaust is a major contributor to PM pollution.
Hydrocarbons (HC). These pollutants react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to form ground level ozone, a primary ingredient in smog. Though beneficial in the upper atmosphere, at the ground level this gas irritates the respiratory system, causing coughing, choking, and reduced lung capacity.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx). These pollutants cause lung irritation and weaken the body's defenses against respiratory infections such as pneumonia and influenza. In addition, they assist in the formation of ground level ozone and particulate matter.
Carbon monoxide (CO). This odorless, colorless, and poisonous gas is formed by the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and is emitted primarily from cars and trucks. When inhaled, CO blocks oxygen from the brain, heart, and other vital organs. Fetuses, newborn children, and people with chronic illnesses are especially susceptible to the effects of CO.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2). Power plants and motor vehicles create this pollutant by burning sulfur-containing fuels, especially diesel. Sulfur dioxide can react in the atmosphere to form fine particles and poses the largest health risk to young children and asthmatics.
Hazardous air pollutants (toxics). These chemical compounds have been linked to birth defects, cancer, and other serious illnesses. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the air toxics emitted from cars and trucks — which include Benzene, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene — account for half of all cancers caused by air pollution.
Greenhouse gases. Motor vehicles also emit pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, that contribute to global climate change. In fact, cars and trucks account for over one-fifth of the United States' total global warming pollution; transportation, which includes freight, trains, and airplanes, accounts for around thirty percent of all heat-trapping gas emissions.

Last revised date: December 5, 2014

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/vehicles-air-pollution-and-human-health/cars-trucks-air-pollution#.WEoGOn3Spyg



Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

User Image

Total Emissions in 2014 = 6,870 Million Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent

Greenhouse gases trap heat and make the planet warmer. Human activities are responsible for almost all of the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years.1 The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is from burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation.

EPA tracks total U.S. emissions by publishing the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. This annual report estimates the total national greenhouse gas emissions and removals associated with human activities across the United States.

The primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are:

Electricity production (30 percent of 2014 greenhouse gas emissions) – Electricity production generates the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 67 percent of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas.2
Transportation (26 percent of 2014 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation primarily come from burning fossil fuel for our cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. Over 90 percent of the fuel used for transportation is petroleum based, which includes gasoline and diesel.3
Industry (21 percent of 2014 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily come from burning fossil fuels for energy, as well as greenhouse gas emissions from certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials.
Commercial and Residential (12 percent of 2014 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and homes arise primarily from fossil fuels burned for heat, the use of certain products that contain greenhouse gases, and the handling of waste.
Agriculture (9 percent of 2014 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture come from livestock such as cows, agricultural soils, and rice production.
Land Use and Forestry (offset of 11 percent of 2014 greenhouse gas emissions) – Land areas can act as a sink (absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere) or a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the United States, since 1990, managed forests and other lands have absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit.

Emissions and Trends
Since 1990, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased by about 7 percent. From year to year, emissions can rise and fall due to changes in the economy, the price of fuel, and other factors. In 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased compared to 2013 levels. This increase was due to a number of factors, including: cold winter conditions resulting in an increase in fuel demand, especially in residential and commercial sectors; an increase in transportation emissions resulting from an increase in vehicle miles traveled; and an increase in industrial production across multiple sectors that also resulted in increases in industrial sector emissions.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

User IP Logged

"Let's see what's over there."
MrGort
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 343
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #35 on: Dec 9th, 2016, 07:56am »

on Dec 8th, 2016, 7:55pm, Swamprat wrote:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions


EPA really





We tend to want simple answers. There is a tendency to group several issues, for example pollution and global warming under the broad category of climate change. Then there are also economic features associated and placed under the category as well, which span national and international boundaries.

These are all separate issues but for the sake of simplicity politicians want to put all of these problems under the category of climate change. In this manner, simple solutions can be proposed such as catalytic converters etc. which ultimately may not affect anything except make the manufacturer of catalytic converters richer.
Every time some crazy person goes out and kills people, the left will always capitalize on the moment and bring up the topic of gun control. If you talk about pollution and all the toxic chemicals in our environment, from human activity I would simply agree. And I would further suggest that this long list of toxic pollutants is probably responsible for a host of human illness such as cancer etc. and the least of which mental competency. This is my own theory but shared by others. Unprovable but logically sound.

The left would like to lump all of this under climate change. But it is an entirely separate issue. People should keep this in mind when discussing global warming or climate change. There can be solutions to reduce toxic chemicals such as lead, heavy metals, insecticides, PCBs, VOCs from the auto paint industry, and radiation from failed nuclear power plants (Chernobyl) with better designs, scrutiny and safety precautions. The list would be too long and too depressing to review here but you can be sure that each and every one of us is a living compilation and history of bio accumulated toxins.
On the issue of greenhouse gases, this is in my opinion a misnomer as it cannot be proven that greenhouse gases (which may cause an increase in temperature in a laboratory controlled experiment) are responsible for climate change.
In other words, a chart of rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution seemingly to coincide with a global increase in temperature does not necessarily indicate a casual effect of man induced climate change. Some are quick to get onto this bandwagon and as I said before think that a host of ills can be solved with political agendas and policies regulating “climate change”.

We could be foolishly spending money to reduce CO2 emissions which could be better spent on reducing toxic chemicals.
I certainly don’t have all the answers but I’ve seen enough to be very skeptical of how data can be skewed and statistical significance fabricated to promote someone’s agenda or future funding.
FYI

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html



User IP Logged

Swamprat
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4289
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #36 on: Dec 9th, 2016, 09:48am »

Well, I certainly agree politicians (and industrial giants) with billions at stake are not to be trusted. But I am more interested in the science.

As the Live Science article indicated, it does not appear that the Earth's own CO² emissions are increasing, we are just figuring out how to measure them. However, mankind's CO² emissions certainly have been increasing. Have you read about China's smog and health issues as they become an industrialized nation with a ginormous increase in automobiles?

As I said earlier, forget about the greedy politicians and industry magnates; it's all about the physics and chemistry.

My background is not nearly as impressive as yours; while I WAS a biology major in college, my life experience was in manufacturing, in the (gasp!) automotive manufacturing sector. tongue

As I said above, we'll see who is more right with the passage of time. When Gore first started screaming about it, I was skeptical, but the deeper I dug, the more I became convinced that mankind is a significant contributor to climate change.

Peace be wichas!

Swamprat out.
User IP Logged

"Let's see what's over there."
MrGort
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 343
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #37 on: Dec 10th, 2016, 01:18am »

Some more FYI

There are large reserves of methane hydrate. It can be in the form of ice or even as liquid pools in the deep ocean contained by high water pressure and low temperatures. The development of this resource (natural gas) could be a game changer on a national and global scale. The attached article provides some information. However, it is known that under certain conditions this substance can be released from the ocean depths. Some even believe that it could be responsible for the sinking of ships and loss of airplanes in the Bermuda triangle and elsewhere. But more importantly it is a greenhouse gas. What is not known is how often and to what extent these releases occur. So, in the calculation of climate change this is one factor that has received very little attention but could be a major contributor beyond volcanoes and human intervention.

http://geology.com/articles/methane-hydrates/


Speaking of Deepwater, some photos of the Navy’s nuclear powered research submarine the
NR – 1

User Image
User Image
User Image


The depth gauge reads 2500 ft.



« Last Edit: Dec 10th, 2016, 08:09am by MrGort » User IP Logged

LoneGunMan
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Sgt. Major of the Deadly,Evil, Reptilian Hunters of America


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3369
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #38 on: Dec 10th, 2016, 09:45am »

http://www.allenbwest.com/mlee/truth-global-warming-revealed-liberals-silent

Uh oh: TRUTH about global warming revealed, liberals SILENT…


By Michael Lee12:02pm December 9, 2016

Liberals love to pretend the debate over global warming has been settled. To them, either you get behind every idea they have to save the planet from certain doom, or you’re a “denier” who doesn’t believe in science.

Of course, there are many people who believe in global warming; they just don’t see the need to panic yet. Some even think action needs to be taken, but believe any action should be given a thorough cost/benefit analysis to weigh its damage to our economy.

This sort of reasonable debate isn’t enough for liberals. Often, any argument against an environmental regulation is met with the retort, “the science is settled, 97% of scientists agree.”

However, a new survey of scientists is calling liberal claims of a climate “consensus” into question. From Forbes:

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

You could say this is an inconvenient truth for liberals. It calls their entire narrative into question. The left’s favorite tactic is to silence dissent so they can get their way, but if more scientists start poking holes in the argument, that strategy won’t work anymore.

The irony is that this wouldn’t be the first time liberals are on the wrong side of environmental issues. Environmental extremists love to block oil pipelines like Keystone XL and the Dakota Access Pipeline, even though pipelines are better for the environment. If the oil isn’t pumped through a safe pipeline, it will just be loaded on trucks and trains… burning fossil fuels. Moreover, these methods are even more likely to result in spills that damage the environment.

Of course, the truth has always been that the science is far from settled. Scientists have widely different views on whether or not climate change is happening, how severe it is, and what (if anything) should be done to combat it. This survey is just more evidence of how far scientists really are from marching in lock step on the issue.

Reasonable minds can have a debate about how bad climate change really is, and what our lawmakers should or should not do to mitigate the damage. The liberal climate alarmists just don’t fit into the reasonable minds category.
User IP Logged

De Opresso Libre! I Have Been many Men, In Many Times, I Shall Be Again!
\"The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.\"
Plutarch



Erno86
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3061
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #39 on: Dec 10th, 2016, 10:31am »

Micro-mini black hole technology, is hopefully the science that will eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels and obsolete forms of nuclear fission power generation, including wiping out the devastation that these forms of technology can an does wreck havoc on our planet.

« Last Edit: Dec 10th, 2016, 10:42am by Erno86 » User IP Logged

"It would be unsatisfactory, in my opinion, if a world without matter were possible."

Albert Einstein
MrGort
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 343
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #40 on: Dec 10th, 2016, 10:53am »

Okay just for supposition in regard to climate change and global warming. We know that there are vast accumulations of methane hydrate in the ocean’s bottom. Some of these are in vast pools that look like lakes. If you’ve ever seen a jar of oil and water a pool or Lake of methane hydrate resembles that analogy. Furthermore, consider that with the advent of the Industrial Revolution the entire fisheries industry has likewise developed. There are industrial ships which not only catch huge amounts of tuna but also process it and can it, just as there are Japanese whaling ships which do the same. Deepwater trawling is also part of the scenario.

Now imagine if you will a deepwater trawler with its huge expanse of netting plowing through quantities of methane hydrate lakes. It creates a havoc in this underwater environment and ultimately large quantities of methane are disturbed and bubble to the surface all because of deepwater trawling. This is an undocumented occurrence. However, this activity could cause significant increases in greenhouse gases affecting global warming and climate change. Yet in all your reviews have you ever come across such a scenario. Absolutely not, so I propose this for your information and future reference/study as an unanticipated and little-known possibility as a contribution to global climate change. So who could ultimately imagine that deepwater trawling could affect climate change. Consider that.

User IP Logged

Erno86
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3061
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #41 on: Dec 10th, 2016, 12:26pm »

"Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on 'politicized science.'"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research
User IP Logged

"It would be unsatisfactory, in my opinion, if a world without matter were possible."

Albert Einstein
Erno86
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3061
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #42 on: Dec 10th, 2016, 12:29pm »

"Permafrost Methane Time Bomb"

http://www.planetextinction.com/planet_extinction_permafrost.htm
User IP Logged

"It would be unsatisfactory, in my opinion, if a world without matter were possible."

Albert Einstein
Erno86
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3061
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #43 on: Dec 10th, 2016, 12:36pm »

"A 2015 study concluded that Arctic Sea ice decline accelerates methane emissions from the Arctic tundra. One of the researchers noted, 'The expectation is that with further sea ice decline, temperatures in the Arctic will rise, and so will methane emissions from northern wetlands.'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions '
« Last Edit: Dec 10th, 2016, 12:39pm by Erno86 » User IP Logged

"It would be unsatisfactory, in my opinion, if a world without matter were possible."

Albert Einstein
MrGort
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 343
xx Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #44 on: Dec 10th, 2016, 12:54pm »

on Dec 10th, 2016, 12:26pm, Erno86 wrote:
"Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on 'politicized science.'"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research


Between Al Gore, Hillary and Billary, cirrhosis or is that Soros and all the other rich cat Democrats and the Hollywood crowd they can fund it and I would encourage those so committed to donate as well.
User IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  ...  13 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 19,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls