Chris de Freitas is a prominent climate change denier best known for having
diddled the peer-review process at the journal
Climate Research so that some really ghastly nonsense by fellow-deniers
Willie Soon and
Sallie Baliunas could make it into print. Now, the justification behind Mr. De Freitas whole conflicted attitude towards peer-review can be revealed: he thinks its a kind of oppression! From the
Climate Change Skeptics Cafe:
These reactions of R F Keeling and H Meijer in E&E to Beck´s work in the same journal are revealing.They reveal that a) the two writers view the peer review system as a form of censorship, b) that journals should be condemned for what they publish, and c) that Beck´s work is ´pseudoscience´.My view of (a) is that, sadly, it is true: it´s called peer-review censorship.Deniers: rebelling against THE MAN!
26 comments:
Diddling ??
That's not diddling. Only ofThe Believers, the Faith Based Science sect can do diddling really well.
THIS is diddling
Y2Kyoto: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Unscrew All Your Lightbulbs?
Reader "ural" picked up on something in the comments;
"I just stuck the list [of contributors to the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report] into a spreadsheet to see who the 2500+ consensus scientists were ... See what happens when I sort the names... We're down to 605 consensus scientists"
Indeed. It's an exaggeration that's been previous noted. Roger Pielke Sr.;
The media is in error when it states that, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –made up of thousands of scientists from around the world — reported earlier this month they are more certain than ever that humans are heating earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels….” (see)
Are there really “thousands of scientists” who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists.
[...]
This candid report confirms that the Statement For Policymakers was actually written with a small number of climate scientists. That such a small number of scientists are actually involved in the writing may make sense from the perspective of efficiency, but it also is guaranteed to result in a report that emphasizes the particular perspectives of the small group of scientists who wrote it. The biases that result would have been balanced if other climate scientists were able to write alternative perspectives, but this was not done. A “unanimous consensus” is hardly how science should be presented by a subset of the climate science community.
The use of the term “lead authors” is also misleading as most are co-authors with one lead author per chapter. The contributing authors provide material and comment, but, based on my experience in the 1995 IPCC report process, do not function as true co-authors. Thus the actually number of true lead authors actually corresponds to just the first author on each chapter.
The list still includes the name of leading hurricane expert, Chris Landsea, who publicly withdrew in 2005, citing IPPC misrepresentation of the research ;
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.
So, ural, that should be 604.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005909.html
You're using something from SDA as support for an argument? Bizarre.
Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?
IN THE PAST few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that—should it occur—a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.
This is not to say that we don’t face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.
If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, however, it is essential that people better understand the issue.
Man-Made Warming?
The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?
At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the climate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced “greenhouse effect” needs to be taken seriously.
But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.
In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”
Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the “consensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.
The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.
But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.
What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.
What about the fact—as cited by, among others, those who produced the IPCC report—that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the “fingerprints” match—“fingerprints” meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and altitudes.
For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth’s surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.
The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (see www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.
What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor—i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2.
There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluating which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.
Natural Causes of Warming
A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experience—a scale of decades, let’s say—solar variability may be the most important.
Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth’s atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).
Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.
A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth’s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of climate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.
Policy Consequences
If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:
> Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.
> The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.
> Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies.
> Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons.
None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices—irrespective of what one may believe about global warming.
Science vs. Hysteria
You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012. What’s going on here?
To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming policies are not so serious about them, as seen in a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a CO2 emitter—i.e., an energy user—to support a fanciful CO2 reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on emitting CO2 unabated. “Emission trading” among those countries that have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge financial racket that could someday make the UN’s “Oil for Food” scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissions—not even in theory.
It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage.
The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees—and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.
You wouldn’t know it from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little facetious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? “It’s not that there won’t be bad things happening in those countries,” economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. “But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.” Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely because of projected increases in agricultural production.
To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.
* * *
The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.
We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore’s movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. Today, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.
http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2007/08/is-global-warming-man-made.html&TITLE=Is%20Global%20Warming%20Man-Made????
I wish I knew what "diddling" meant...
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the “consensus view,” defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes’ work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. (Daily Tech)
" I wish I knew what "diddling" meant...
2:03 PM "
just ask Monica Lewinsky
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
IPCC co-chairs for Netherlands and Sierra Leone debate changes to the Report Summary.Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
Deno,
I have not read this study yet. However, two things:
1) It appeared in E&E, which is the Deniers house organ (same place as the Beck study mentioned in my post). In other words, it is where pseudo scientists send their junk so they can say it got published in a "journal".
2) Most of the papers I've read on these various issues do NOT in fact use the term "IPCC consensus" or "looming catastrophe" or similar wordings. They are about technical aspects of the science. So it is entirely unsurprising that they should fall into the neutral category, as defined in this study. Nevertheless, it would be entirely appropriate to say that they support (elements of) the consensus.
BCL says
“So it is entirely unsurprising that they should fall into the neutral category, as defined in this study. Nevertheless, it would be entirely appropriate to say that they support (elements of) the consensus. “
BCL, supporting elements of AGW is a long way from what Al Gore and David Suzuki are saying when they say the science is done and AGW sceptics are no different then holocaust deniers.
It would be nice if you would refer to scientists who are sceptical of AGW sceptics, instead of deniers. When use you the word deniers you are saying that the science is done and anyone that disagrees with your view of the science is either stupid or has a secrete agenda.
You know full well that virtually all AGW sceptics are not associated with oil companies and many are leading scientist in their field.
Also it says a lot of AGW believers that the 2 most famous people pushing their AGW agenda is a former politician and a TV genesis who worked almost his entire carrier for the state sponsored CBC.
Deno
When use you the word deniers you are saying that the science is done and anyone that disagrees with your view of the science is either stupid or has a secrete agenda.
Well, that does seem to be the case.
Also it says a lot of AGW believers that the 2 most famous people pushing their AGW agenda is a former politician and a TV genesis who worked almost his entire carrier for the state sponsored CBC.
Carrier? What are you...French? Hmm...is it Denault?
Deno, I actually prefer "warmocaust collusionist" to denier.
And no, they are not leading scientists in their fields. Most of them are balding, retired old farts looking for a way to stay in the game when they aren't in the pay of big oil.
Furthermore, a single paper cannot in itself settle the science, only support aspects of it. It is the fact that so many papers support so many aspects that we can say that the basic science is settled. Anyway, that has nothing to do with the survey in question, in which the authors appear to be shocked! shocked! that when the do a text search for "consensus + we're all doomed!" they find very few papers containing the terms.
BCL
It is a shame that you've decided to close your mind and live on faith.
See ya
Deno
"...Al Gore and David Suzuki are saying when they say the science is done and AGW sceptics are no different then holocaust deniers..."
Where exactly has either of them made such a statement? I mean I think AGW deniers and Holocaust deniers share many similar characteristics, such as an inablitiy to face reality, but I am far too polite to actually say so.
http://tehipitetom.blogspot.com/2007/08/global-warming-denialists-and-consensus.html
All good questions about Deno's "scoop"
More grasping by those who do no wish to listen to science.
"Deniers: rebelling against THE MAN!
Yup.
And thus the Dewey Finn's come a flocking.....
.
Is he a geezer, or wears a toupee? Any other personal issues you can pick on to 'prove' that AGW is correct?
Loser. Lewwww-zer. loserloserloserloserloser.
There, I've just upped the overal maturity level of this site.
I'm always concerned about describing things in terms of false symmetries (based on my old Cold Warrior days). And this is not a "symmettry" (sorry I'm dirkning). But what is a problem is that both skeptics and warmers tend to use rhetoric rather than to search for truth. they do it in different ways, and to different extents. but they both noticeably do it.
I could get a killer skeptic paper published. But it would not be a propoganda peice. It would be a phlegmatic examination of analysis methods or inputs or the like. And I'm not the least bit concerned about a Micheal Mann or the like stopping me. Heck, HE has a lot of problems getting his stuff published.
The interchange about the E&E paper is a perfect example. Heck, maybe there was moral symmetry with the Soviets I was ready to kill.
Look, BCL is 100% correct that most papers are on discrete technical issues. This is how things move forward. This is good. This is a lesson that needs to be pushed into every half-assed skeptic like Steve McI. However, he's wrong to say that these papers should be counted as endorsing the AGW view. Because that's NOT WHAT THOSE PAPERS are about!
I really feel like a weeny having to be in the middle of you hoi polloi of each side. Why don't you come over so I can bang your heads together with "clop" sounds? I need some aggression to overcome this stance of moderateness. Maybe I could attack you all. Like a loosed 1983 Marine given license to kill both sides in Lebanon.
My hopes right now are with Meyer and Mosh-pit. I think I can get them to understand Steve's shortcomings. Then we can form the troika of smart truthseekers.
tco: "...But what is a problem is that both skeptics and warmers tend to use rhetoric rather than to search for truth. they do it in different ways, and to different extents. but they both noticeably do it."
What do you expect from people who frequent a bunch of freewheeling blogs which are often about politics? If you want scientific truth go to a science blog such as realclimate.
The difference between what you call sceptics (a politically loaded term) and I call denialists and what I call realists (more accurate and less loaded than "warmers") is that the realists can recognize when scientists are having an honest discussion in order to improve their knowledge. The denialists assume the scientists are acting solely based on dishonest motives of greed or politics. This is because denialists find it difficult to be objective or to be willing to change their minds in the face of the evidence.
I am not interested in finding a balance with denialists, because they are not willing to face facts.
realclimate. Give me a break. What a bunch of pole smokers. What a bunch of candy asses. They can't handle the truth.
That's not a science site! That's a fucking let's all cater to nitwits like Vincenthaven and avoid people who want to discuss things to real conclusion.
*drops hat while walking out*
This kind of rhetorical bullshit is what I would expect from someone who calls denialists "skeptics", once his mask is ripped off.
TCO,
The last one might have been two beers past coherent.
This is going to sound bizarre, but I hope I didn't hurt her feelings.
I don't feel bad any more.
Mensusa.com give offer discount and free shipping in all $99 above,like dinner jackets and many more.
Post a Comment