Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on How long is the pause? by Eric

0
0

Kim says, “Some people think humans are ‘wrong’.”

jim2 thinks American humans are ‘wrong’


Comment on How long is the pause? by ordvic

0
0

Thanks for posting that information here; It’s good to have input :-)

Comment on How long is the pause? by Eric

0
0

Logic, common sense and the scientific method has seemed to escaped you daveandrews723. I would suggest finding it by learning about that which you write. A good place to start would be the IPCC reports which are available online.

Comment on How long is the pause? by Jim D

0
0

Ragnaar, they seem to have debated the datasets at SkS. Anyway, I would have used the CRUTEM4 NH land plot that comfortably has the same range for the period after 1900, since the proxy data was NH land.

Comment on How long is the pause? by Eric

0
0

On the contrary, most ‘sceptics’ seem nothing but alarmed. How alarming is the EPA to you kim?

Comment on How long is the pause? by Jim D

0
0

McKitrick also had the idea of a carbon tax indexed to the temperature rise, which I think would be good, but he would only use tropical ocean temperatures for some reason, not global. I would index it as $10 per tonne for every 0.1 C above the 2000-2010 decade global average, for example, using only moving decadal averages as they vary slowly, maybe updated every 5 years.

Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Canman

0
0

Update On Prothero’s Post

Prothero has deleted these comments. There are two new comments:

J W says:
September 1, 2014 at 4:04 pm
Okay, I’ve gotta ask: are there actual people behind the bevy of denier-ish comments since August 30th, or

is someone resorting to bots?
The 97%+ scientific consensus is not based on one survey, but on multiple sources.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

To claim that it is based on just one survey (of which you seem to have chosen to misrepresent:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article) is an outright lie. That at least three different

people would repeat roughly the same lie within such a limited time-frame seems especially suspicious. Did

something malfunction?
Reply
Donald Prothero says:
September 1, 2014 at 11:39 pm
Sorry–I was in the field for 3 days (and had no power for 24 hours before that), so I could not log in to

my site until just now. I cleaned out all the trolls and bots.
Reply

Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Canman

0
0

I posted a copy of the comments that were deleted, but they probably got caught by the spam filter because they contained a lot of links.


Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Canman

0
0

There were 16 deleted comments, so I’m going to try to post them in sets of 4. The first 4:

Mark Green says:
August 30, 2014 at 11:59 am
The “truth” of climate change is far more complex than the hysterics on both sides take the time to grasp. First, I will deal with the rather clumsily expressed underlying views of the “deniars”, then the doom-saying true believers.
First, no rational person should believe in a wide-spread global conspiracy (though there are clearly some pockets of the climate change community which do actively engage in exaggeration and misleading the public). What there is, more reasonably, is bit of group think based on a fundamental underlying premise which is taken for granted by climate change doom-sayers, and should not be. Raise your hand if you have heard almost the exact words out of a climate change alarmist – “We are pumping [fill in the amount] of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that can’t be a good thing”. This is based on the article of faith of the environmental extremists that man can only be bad for the environment. This is not a scientific fact, it is an article of faith which has become (probably subconsciously) an underlying assumption of many in the field. Of course their theories all suggest that whatever it is man is doing MUST be having net negative consequences for man…after all, it CAN’T be any GOOD…ergo it must be bad (of course being neither net good nor bad also falls outside their basic premise). This is not nefarious, or a conscious conspiracy, but just a failure to question their own base assumptions. Now, for similarly thoughtless “deniers” this group think (coupled with clear examples of fraud and intentional exaggeration) can LOOK very much like a conspiracy, but a bit of thinking reveals it to be simply well intentioned and sincere people pushing a view that they truly believe, and not nefarious people intentionally misleading (though some are).
Now, for the alarmists themselves. They falsely portray this issue as simply a matter of science, nothing else. But insofar as it requires acts of public policy, it is not merely a question of scientific facts and theory, it also becomes a question of economics (which scientist are no better suited to weigh in on than your typical cab driver). Here is how the REAL issues break down vis-à-vis public policy:
1. If mankind is having an impact on climate change (let’s first establish that climate change is a constant — it has always changed and WILL always change, even if man had never evolved) is it an appreciable or significant contribution. (this is a science question, which not a single existing climate model/theory has made accurate predictions…merely ones which have been adjusted to explain the past real-world observations and are assumed to then be accurate predictors of yet to be observed future events).
2. What will the impact of the changes be? This is another question of science). This is really were science ceases to be particularly relevant to the public policy discussion.
3. What are the net economic costs/benefits to mankind resulting from those changes/impacts (a question for well trained economists, not scientists)
4. Is the impact a net cost or a net benefit to mankind (the underlying article of faith among the alarmists is it MUST be a net cost because whatever it is we are doing “can’t be good”). Bear in mind that over the last 3,000 years, mankind has tended to fair better when the global climate was warmer than cooler.
5. IF (and it is a BIG IF)climate change’s impact will be a net cost to mankind, how much is that cost (economist’s question)
6. What are the costs of the actions required to ameliorate the change (assuming we can) – also and economist’s question
7. Finally, does the economic cost to mankind of trying to prevent the changes outweigh the net cost (IF there are net costs rather than benefits) of just adapting to the changes. In fact, this is more complex because we know that costs to try and prevent are frontloaded, whereas costs to adapt will be spread out, so what we really need to measure is whether the present value of the future costs of amelioration are greater than the present value of future costs of adaptation (to put it in a simple example, spending $100 billion today to prevent $200 billion in costs that will be spread out over the next century is not actually a sensible thing to do, because the net PRESENT value of the $100 billion is likely higher than the net PRESENT value of $200 billion spread out over a century…think of it as the difference between winning the lottery and accepting a lump sum payout that is far less than what you would get if you accepted the payments over 30 years)
Reply
D. Bradt says:
August 30, 2014 at 1:18 pm
Geo centric view of the solar system enjoyed 97% condenses of the learned before the solar centric view prevailed so what consensus at one particularly tine in history doesn’t mean much. We look back at history and the learned class has always been wrong. To think we got it right now flies in the face of all of experience. Water vapor has not been part of climate models and is looking to be the major greenhouse gas. It is possible that If we stop all Co2 there will be little effect on climate change.
Reply
Pooka says:
August 30, 2014 at 2:10 pm
I’m not a denier, but our side needs to stop making near term predictions that are so wrong so often. The ice free arctic by 2012 one I’d being used relentlessly by the deniers now. I can totally understand otherwise normal, intelligent people who don’t follow thus issue beyond the evening news seeing these prediction fails and thinking, “Well, I guess that’s that.” I can also understand them looking at a temperature graph and dismissing it due to the scale of the vertical axis. Who gets excited over 0.2 degrees, right?
Too many scientists spend years training to think like scientists and then wonder why everyone doesn’t think that way.
Reply
KellyJ says:
August 30, 2014 at 2:12 pm
Unfortunately, your starting premise that “97% of scientists agree” is based on a fraudulent 2 question survey (of which the true majority refused to even participate based on the simplistic and leading questions) where the survey responses from over 3000 (out of over 11,000 sent out) returns were parsed down to 77 “acceptable” responses. Of those 77 final surveys, 75 agreed with the 2 question survey. Hence 75 out of 77…97%.
And since the entirety of your article focuses on this magical 97% figure, you either don’t know WHERE the number comes from (which leaves you with a large credibility issue) or you do know, but choose to pass along the mantra, which makes you as much a fraud as the originators.
Regarding the topic, you don’t have science. You have computer models. And to date not a single prediction from these models has come to pass. By now we were promised the arctic would be ice free. It is not. That Britain’s children would never see snow after 2012…yet they have had some of the coldest, snowiest, winters in history these past few years. On and on…models predicting doom and gloom. And the opposite is what’s occurring. In REAL Science, if the results to not fit the hypothesis, your hypothesis is wrong and must be thrown out or reworked. In ‘Global Warming/Climate Change/whatever you call it this week’ when the results do not fit the reality, the data is adjusted, ignored, or cherry picked to match what was predicted.
Is that Science?
Reply

Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Canman

0
0

Here’s the second 4:

Sweet Old Bill says:
August 30, 2014 at 4:58 pm
It might be worth some time to evaluate the raw data on global climate change. Precision, accuracy and adjustments come to mind. It would also be interesting to have a reference for a model that predicted, in 1999-2000 the halt in global temperature rise. It is inconceivable to me that anyone could be a “climate denier, it is also inconceivable to me than anyone could deny climate change. The issue is the extent of the anthropogenic contribution.
Reply
Matt says:
August 30, 2014 at 5:14 pm
How did over 99% of economists conspire to miss the greatest financial crash since the Great Depression? When they all went through university systems pushing similar ideas, then what happens if some of those ideas are wrong? Those ideas might sound true and even be true for awhile. However, the foundation of those ideas might be just plain wrong and it takes 50 to 100 years to figure that out. Welcome to modern economics.
Take a look at this little time-bomb from economics: Their models assume no herding. Now you know why their models blow up during a crisis.
What about climate science?
What alarms me is the confidence climate scientists have for their models – just like economists. Well, the models do an excellent job forecasting the last 100 years, so why shouldn’t I have confidence about future projections? Developing and calibrating a complex model means that there is great danger when moving outside of the calibration range. And that is something global warming is going to do. Basically, climate scientists cannot have a high degree of confidence in their models as parameters (CO2, temperature, …) rise beyond the calibration range. Maybe the models are right, but who knows. Right now they are not looking so good.
The next problem is what to do about global warming? What if recommended solutions don’t work? What then? Does that mean climate scientists close up shop, go home and leave us alone? No, it means they will ask for more. What if the impact of man on the climate is much smaller than believed because the scientists screwed up? Is there any penalty for that?
What happens to a profession when there is little penalty for getting it wrong? Is anybody getting fired? To me climate science sounds a lot like economics. Does anybody trust economists?
Reply
amos says:
August 30, 2014 at 5:38 pm
I am what might be called a ‘catastrophic AGW skeptic.’ I’d say that most of us who are labelled ‘climate deniers’ fall into this category, at least those that I know or have communicated with.
I believe the following:
that The greenhouse effect from CO2 is real.
that human beings have increased the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere significantly, or by 50 percent.
that we do not have enough natural carbon sinks to safely absorb our extra emissions
that we’re trapping more energy in our atmosphere.
that we cannot alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere without consequences.
We are almost always described as believing the opposite on most or all of these points, and this fallacious description is used as the basis for dismissing anything we say out of hand.
What we actually deny, however, is that there is actual scientific evidence to support the conclusion that CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophe, or even anything close to it. Here is what has actually happened so far (this could be taken from the IPCC report itself, incidentally, I’m not just ‘making it up’):
Human activity added 150 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.
The temperature increased 0.7 deg. C
Sea level rose 8 inches
Now if you believe that 100% of the temperature rise was due to the CO2 increase (NOT established IMO, but let’s just assume it for the purposes of this argument) then by extrapolation we need to add an additional 300ppm to produce another 0.7 deg. C rise in temperature. 2012 CO2 emissions are about 2.2 ppm, so at the current rate, if ALL warming were due to human activity it would take 137 years to raise the temperature another 0.7 degrees.
So where does the alarmism come from? Forcing. It’s a snowball effect, more heat creates or influences more processes that create more heat creating a vicious, ever escalating cycle of disaster.
But here’s the problem: NONE of these ‘forcing’ events have ever been observed in nature, which means (to us, anyway) that they are PURE speculation. One example: more heat means more moisture in the air thus more greenhouse effect. (Water is 20 times stronger that CO2 for heat trapping.) Sounds pretty convincing, right? But maybe there will be more clouds. Oops, that causes cooling. Or maybe there won’t actually be more water in the atmosphere, deserts are VERY hot, no moisture there. I’d say nobody has any idea, really.
The consequences of drastic action to reduce carbon emissions will fall, as always, disproportionately on the poor. Most alarmists (sorry, if I’m a ‘denier’ I get to use a label too) attribute the campaign against major carbon regulation as something perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry and its cronies with profit as the final motive. But the vast majority of people on this planet have limited access to things like food and clean water, much less electricity. If policies are enacted which result in a dramatic increase in the cost of energy at all levels globally (please look at the example of Germany over the last 10 years) BILLIONS of the world’s poor will suffer, and remain in poverty longer than they might have had to.
All policy options have consequences. Drastic action to reduce carbon emissions will condemn billions who have really no say in that policy to continued poverty.
Reply
Mike says:
August 30, 2014 at 8:11 pm
Two things missing are- 1) The disparity between scientists working in private industry, who are paid only to provide useful results, and those in the world of academia, government labs, and think-tanks that ultimately have their paychecks funded based on political concerns, as politicians hold the pursestrings and have no choice but to put their own, inarguably compromised agendas first, and 2) what happens to scientists in the latter group if they challenge the orthodoxy. (Hint: they get called “climate deniers,” a clumsy attempt to liken them to Holocaust deniers. Those are the only other kind of people called “deniers.”)
So I’m not buying. No, you didn’t become professors for the money. You did it for the pleasant working environment and the job security. But when the money is waved in front of you, it has the same hypnotic effect as it does on anyone else. As it stands now basically all the government money is “green,” and an academic scientist who wants the six-figure income knows what he has to do to get it. By the way, a scientist (not an executive) who works for a big oil company doesn’t make much more than a professor does. Six figures probably, but the most significant digit will only be a ’1′.
Reply

Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Canman

0
0

Here’s the last 4:

Randall says:
August 31, 2014 at 5:33 pm
Today there’s an article about the massive increase in article ice, accompanied by a reminder that Al Gore earlier predicted that Arctic Ice would be gone by now. Apparently, the recovery of the ice was unanticipated by more people than Al Gore.
I have two questions: Was Al Gore’s prediction of the complete disappearance of Arctic ice consistent or inconsistent with the scientific data at the time? It certainly appears to be at odds with reality today.
Second question: if Al Gore’s prediction of the disappearance of article ice was inconsistent with scientific evidence at the time, why didn’t any reputable climate scientist dispute him publicly? Perhaps some did, but I’m not aware.
It seems to me that if politicians get themselves mixed up in someone’s scientific bailiwick like that, it is the responsibility of the scientists to come out and dial back the hysteria. If that’s not happening then perhaps the hysteria serves someone’s agenda, or at least it surely may appear that way to outsiders such as myself. Credibility lost isn’t easily regained. Predict the end of the world, and if the sun rises that day, you ought to lose credibility. The surprising thing in this world is that even those who have lost all credibility still attract believers.
Reply
BarryW says:
August 31, 2014 at 9:37 pm
And you call yourself a skeptic? All I see here is ad hominem attacks. So Dr. John Christy, Dr. Judith Curry, Fred Dyson, Dr. Plekie are all in the pay of Big Oil? The conspiracy theorists are people like you and Dr Mann who smear anyone who disagrees with you. Ever read any of the papers by actual statisticians that have shown Mann’s work to be statistically invalid? Reviews of Oreskes 97% paper and others that show they totally twisted the meaning of agreeing with CAGW? Of course not. You’ve already made up your mind. Peer Review? You mean peer review papers such as those papers that an independent group were unable to replicate? Peer reviewed papers that were reviewed by friends and co-authors of other papers the submitter wrote with? CAGW scientists who threatened editors who dared to publish papers that disagreed with them?
Speaking of Muller, how about Dr. Judith Curry who was a believer in CAGW till the facts woke her up that the science isn’t settled? Oh, she must have been subverted by Big Oil. And by Big Oil you mean the oil companies that are giving millions to pro AGW groups?
Reply
Alrenous says:
September 1, 2014 at 2:02 am
The claim that climatology is pseudoscience has been borne out by their failure to model the climate. I quote, “The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.” That’s the American Physical Society saying climate modelling per se has been falsified at p<0.02, or so. Given that 80-some models are now all falsified, the actual p-value is probably much lower. Apparently you don't include the APS in 'virtually every scientist,' I guess?
A scientist who fails to predict is just a tax leech. As a matter of public record, the predictions of the 'energy companies' have been accurate and predictions of those like yourself have been inaccurate. Until this situation reverses, there is no empirical basis for crediting climatology.
Reply
Mason I. Bilderberg says:
September 1, 2014 at 12:11 pm
First off, the meme with the black background at the top of this post and the “denier” label are both extremist, straw man arguments because neither represents the true debate.
I believe 100% of rational minds on both sides of the debate would answer “yes” to the following questions:
• Does climate change?
• Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
• Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
• Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
• Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
• Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?
The debate centers around the (failed) apocalyptic projections being espoused by some in the global warming camp and the blaming of global warming for everything from the mating habits of cats (http://tinyurl.com/net66jb) to an increase in human rights violations (http://tinyurl.com/o7eft3g) to the hundreds of other ridiculous things being blamed on global warming (http://tinyurl.com/lt8qggm).
It’s about failed apocalyptic projections: In 2007 Al Gore told us there was a 75% chance (consensus?) the arctic would be completely ice free by 2014. Approximately 97% (consensus?) of climate models failed to accurately predict the last 17 years of temperatures.
The “science” is unable to accurately and repeatedly aftcast past, known climate conditions.
It’s about failed “studies” like the “97% agree” Cook study (PDF: http://tinyurl.com/nqoooh8) which disproves ITSELF on page 4, table 3 (http://tinyurl.com/oxb6buw) where it says – in black and white – that only 32.6% of the papers “studied” by Cook et. al. endorsed AGW. The same paper explains they arrived at their 97% figure by ignoring 2/3 (7,930) of papers out of the 11,944 they “studied.”
You have Michael Mann claiming in court documents that he won a Nobel Prize when, in fact, he hasn’t.
This is just a small sample of reasons why people are skeptical. Not skeptical about the answers to the 6 questions at the top of this response – skeptical of the conclusions, assertions and distortions.
I’ll end with a fill-in-the-blank to highlight another point: The last 150 years contain the warmest temperatures since _ _ _ _ (enter a year prior to 1860).
Reply
LEAVE A REPLY

Comment on How long is the pause? by Kristian

0
0

Er, no. The null hypothesis that the AGW hypothesis is supposed to falsify is “100% og ‘global warming’ since 1950 is due to natual causes”. “Climate change is ALL natural. Like it’s been for the last 4-4.5 billion years.” That is the hypothesis that the AGW hypothesis claims is not the case since about 1950.

Comment on How long is the pause? by Kristian

0
0

The AGW promoters haven’t even shown that 1% of recent global warming is anthropogenic in origin. So this nonsense about 100% or 50% or more or less than 50% being anthropogenic is simply completely unscientific. Show empirically that there IS a contribution to be observed in the real Earth system AT ALL first. THEN we can talk. Where’s the ‘unnatural’ signal? Outside the models, all already based circularly on the assumption that there IS a contribution and its large.

Comment on How long is the pause? by rls

0
0

Shaun: Thank you for your reply. Tony has a paper that compares CET to BEST and I don’tsee the 0.9 C between 1663-1763. Here is an excerpt from the paper:
“According to studies made by a number of climate scientists, CET is a reasonable proxy for Northern Hemisphere -and to
some extent global temperatures- as documenoted in ‘The Long Slow Thaw’. However, as Hubert Lamb observed, it can ‘show us the tendency but not the precision’.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/

Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Canman

0
0

I honestly don’t know if anyone cares about this (whether I’m a threat to bit sustainability or kicking cans and taking names), but I do feel it is a good example of low tolerance of diverse views.


Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by kim

0
0

I wonder if Prothero has any doubt at all. What is it about this issue that turns so many people into freaks?
=========================

Comment on Week in review by brent

0
0

United Nations predicts climate hell in 2050 with imagined weather forecasts
‘Reports from the future’ warn of floods, storms and searing heat in campaign for climate change summit
The United Nations is warning of floods, storms and searing heat from Arizona to Zambia within four decades, as part of a series of imagined weather forecasts released on Monday for a campaign publicising a UN climate summit.

“Miami South Beach is under water,” one forecaster says in a first edition of “weather reports from the future”, a series set in 2050 and produced by companies including Japan’s NHK, the US Weather Channel and ARD in Germany.

The UN World Meteorological Organization, which invited well-known television presenters to make videos to be issued before the summit on 23 September, said the scenarios were imaginary but realistic for a warming world.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/01/un-weather-forecasts-2050-climate-change-floods-drought

We’ve lost our fear of hellfire, but put climate change in its place

“Billions will die,” says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not normally a gloomy type. Human civilisation will be reduced to a “broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords”, and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot, where a few breeding couples will survive.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/01/global-warming-versus-climate-change/#comment-580680

Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Canman

0
0

The second half of the third 4:

John M. Cates says:
August 31, 2014 at 8:26 am
Your argument is irretrievably damaged by your roll-out of the debunked “97% of climate scientists agree…” trope.

http://justbunk.net/2014/02/27/97-of-scientists-agree-with-global-warming-bunk/

From the cited article: This piece of propaganda comes from a 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey. The AGU survey has been widely mocked and criticized by the scientific community, most notably by the respondents to the original survey.
Here’s what you need to know:
— The “survey” was a two-minute, two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois.
— Only 3,146 earth scientists responded.
— The researchers then cherry-picked 77 of the 3,146 who responded and labeled them “experts”.
— Of those 77 “experts”, 75 ( 97.4%) agreed with man-made Global Warming. Surprise!
Reply
Shane says:
August 31, 2014 at 10:30 am
Science is about looking at the data. Make a hypothesis and either support it or prove it wrong. The hypothesis was as CO2 increases, the temperature increases and they are directly related. For the past 15 years, CO2 has climbed and temperature has not. So it is wrong. The data shows this. Secondly, the 97% that Prothero is speaking of is also wrong. That has been shown to be a false number. So what we have here is another politically motivated hit piece. Making a claim that he hasn’t made a six figure salary even once like that is something to be proud of, Prothero uses the fact that the oil companies make money as a bludgeon. Perhaps he isn’t aware that many of the oil companies made a great deal of money off the cult of global warming erecting windmills and getting government subsidy money? And regardless of what the over paid Prothero thinks, the oil companies make more money because of the global warming crowd as they drive the price of energy up? I am also a scientist. I for one would like to see more nuclear plants built because it is cleaner than coal by a long stretch but I am unwilling as Prothero is to look at the data and make excuses. I just want cleaner air. Prothero overlooks the temperature adjustments made to the original data by James Hansen, the emails by Mann and claims everyone else is just crazy in bed with big oil. They have spent far less than big government by a long margin. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
The government spends 2.5 billion a year on research as well as 6 billion a year on clean energies. Seems like they out spend the billionaires and influence the game because they have the most to gain as seen by the EPA shutting down coal fire plants without legislation. So mostly, Prothero looks like another political hack who ignores the data.
Reply

Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Canman

0
0

Two of these deleted comments don’t want to show up here, but they are not that much different. Prothero says he was gone for a few days. I wonder if my thread here had anything to do with all these comments appearing so close together or if he gets them all the time and is continually rejecting them. I suppose some group could have spoofed them. They mostly seem to have moderate views like mine. Are we seeing a plague of lukewarm astroturfers?

Comment on How long is the pause? by kim

0
0

Too bad the Working Groups can’t cash the check the Summary for Policymakers wrote.
===================

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images