back to article Climate scientists agree: Humans cause global warming

A major study of nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed papers in the climate-science literature has – again – proven that among climate scientists, an overwhelming percentage agree with the consensus view that human activity causes global warming. The study was led by John Cook, a post-doctoral fellow in the Global Change Institute at …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. henrydddd
    Unhappy

    Well

    Now are we have to do is eliminate humans from the planet earth and we would have a perfect world. If course, these scientists would be exempt as the earth needs them to take care of it.

    1. aidanstevens
      FAIL

      Re: Well

      This is perhaps the most ridiculous comment on climate change I've read on the El Reg forums, and that's saying a LOT.

      So desperate are you to attack climate science, you dream up a theory that climate scientists are secret psychopaths and want to wipe everyone other than themselves off the face of the planet .

      I completely despair.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Well

        It's absurd all right, everybody knows that's Greenpeace's plan! :)

        1. Rampant Spaniel

          Re: Well

          How many of those 'scientists' would be out of a job next year if climate change didn't exist? Unbiased? Perhaps the correct title should have been 97% of climate scientists are praying climate change is mans fault because they really want a google glass.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Well

            In which case 100x that number of astronomers, geologists, geophysicists etc would be saying it was natural to keep their jobs

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: How many of those 'scientists' would be out of a job next year if climate change didn't exist?

            Most likely none or very few. All those scientists would do what they already do, what they most likely are interested in, i.e. understanding how climate works. I have yet to hear any politician talk of vast sums that could be saved by cutting grants to climate science.

            As it happens, even if there were a decrease in funding for climate science, the researchers who would lose their jobs would be the postdocs employed on soft money (ie research grants), permanent academics are paid largely by their institution, and would have time to adapt their research field. And those postdocs already face unemployment every few years anyway (or sometimes more often) anyway, due to unsucessful grant applications.

          3. John Stith

            Re: Well

            During the Bush years, when researchers in numerous cases knew they risked losing funding when their findings supported the notion of climate change, they continued to report anyway.

          4. Bernardo Sviso
            Facepalm

            Re: Well

            > How many of those 'scientists' would be out of a job next year if climate change didn't exist?

            Actually -- none of them.

            If someone could come up with strong evidence to cast Anthropogenic Climate Change into doubt -- well, such a ground-breaking finding, if the least bit robust, would make their career and win them some rather prestigious awards, as well. That's the kind of work that leads to promotions, offers of one's own laboratory, guest spots on TV programs, etc.

          5. Psyx
            Mushroom

            Re: Well

            "How many of those 'scientists'..."

            They have relevant degrees and are working in the field. They are scientists. Using inverted commas is just pathetic. Before we even get to what you are trying to put across you are already making yourself look pretty ignorant. Don't try to undermine the qualifications of those who are far better qualified than you. Unless you work in the field. Otherwise your opinion on their qualifications is utterly worthless.

            "would be out of a job next year if climate change didn't exist? Unbiased? Perhaps the correct title should have been 97% of climate scientists are praying climate change is mans fault because they really want a google glass."

            Yeah, How many Physicists would be out of a job too if their work was mooted, so that field must be bullshit too.

            That's just weak. And biased. And downright ignorant.

    2. TheVogon
      Mushroom

      Re: Well

      How is this news? Everyone apart from a few staunch Republican Faux News viewers knew this at least a decade ago.....

  2. flearider
    Paris Hilton

    let them keep saying that big ball of fire in the sky has nothing to do with it ...

    and give me a pm in 7 yrs when where all freezing are arses off

    1. David Hicks
      Facepalm

      Seriously, seriously, you don't think the discipline of climate science might, just *might*, take the sun into account?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Sun wasn't in climate model before 2013

        The Sun's activity wasn't included in the model everyone swears by until this year.

        Makes you wonder if they all followed the Pied Piper on this one.

        The model they did use predicted heating for the last 20 years, and there hasn't been any.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: Sun wasn't in climate model before 2013

          "The Sun's activity wasn't included in the model everyone swears by until this year"

          There has been no event this year that even remotely matches your claim. There isn't even any single "model" that "everyone swears by". I love how people just brazenly make stuff up for the purpose of argument.

        2. quarky
          Facepalm

          Re: Sun wasn't in climate model before 2013

          "The model they did use predicted heating for the last 20 years, and there hasn't been any."

          Only if you read the Daily Mail.

      2. Marshalltown
        Coat

        How can they?

        "Seriously, seriously, you don't think the discipline of climate science might, just *might*, take the sun into account?"

        How can they? That would mean they actually understand how the sun works, which is far from a forgone conclusion. What's more it would also mean that they understand how the climate works, also far from proven. In fact, the last 10 to years of data imply the opposite. Consider for instance that temperature should increase one degree per doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere per current AGW theory, which pretty much insists that only CO2 is of significance as a GHG - there other gases such as methane and water vapor that are far more efficient, but AGW theory pretty much subjects them to serf-hood to CO2.

        Now consider this reductio ad absurdum: During the last glacial maximum the average global temperature was very roughly 8 degrees C below the present mean. If we were to employ that simplest of models - CO2 is the sole important influence, and that temperature varies directly according the concentration of CO2, increasing or falling one degree C per doubling or halving of the concentration, then green plant productivity quit when the mean global temperature dropped to one degree below the present mean and didn't not resume until the temperature returned to that level. That's because half the present level reduces atmospheric CO2 to a point where green plants can't really produce hydrocarbons any longer - not enough carbon available. Two degrees colder should have seen a massive extinction event. Eight degrees colder and there's no way to account for the present existence of life on earth. None of this happened. That means, at the least , that the planetary climate cannot be nearly as simple as AGW theory assumes. Granted climate models are really more complex - I did say this was a reductio ad absurdum - but the common talking point is that there's one degree of warming per doubling of CO2, a proposal that is false to fact, regardless of how "sophisticated" the models employed are.

        Right now given that no one of any theoretical orientation seems capable of fine grained forecasting of either weather or climate trends, its pretty clear that there really is no "theory" of climate, just some not very good hypotheses.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: How can they?

          "During the last glacial maximum the average global temperature was very roughly 8 degrees C below the present mean"

          More like 5C. And CO2 level was about 180ppm at that time. Halving CO2 causes more than 1C cooling. Lower CO2 = colder. Colder = less water vapor, less methane = colder still.

          http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

      3. Tom 13

        @David Hicks

        Seriously? Yeah I would. When I found out that all the models assumed static output from the sun was the point at which my ire against Warmists was solidified. I was strongly leaning their way since I come from an astronomy background and KNOW how long your observational baselines need to be before you can start making the kinds of predictions they are, and what the error bars REALLY look like. The Warmists simply don't have them.

  3. NomNomNom

    Climate skeptics, going on past form, will generally respond in three ways to this study:

    a) "Scientists DONT agree! The study is WRONG!"

    b) "OF COURSE scientists agree! They agree because they'd be fired/lose funding if they didn't!"

    c) "SURE scientists agree on that! But so do skeptics! The REAL controversy is whether the human caused warming causes any harm!"

    One of those three responses may indeed be right. But at least two of them must be wrong because the three statements contradict each other. But something must be wrong to have all three of these responses dished out by climate skeptic circles in abundance, with zero introspection of the obvious contradiction.

    1. graphicconception

      "But at least two of them must be wrong ..."

      Not so, there could be three different sets of scientists involved.

      Ignoring that, the big problem with a survey like this is that it is trying to show a consensus of a consensus. You play politics by consensus not science. All those in favour of gravity raise their hand!

      Even more fundamentally, the "science" is flawed from the start. What exactly is a "global average temperature"? It has no meaning in reality and cannot be measured. It is about as useful as a global average telephone number or a global average currency exchange rate.

      1. NomNomNom

        Global average temperature is a statistical indicator that has a physical meaning. The average height of a population would be another example. The two examples you give are in contrast meaningless as their provide neither.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Even more fundamentally, the "science" is flawed from the start. What exactly is a "global average temperature"? It has no meaning in reality and cannot be measured. "

        I am reasonably confident that the satellites put in space since the 70s have done a pretty good job in measuring this. There is, on average a slight temperature rise (according to the published numbers) consistent with the climate currently exiting the last ice age.

        The measurement of the principle indicator (temperature) is flawed, inconsistent and unfortunately subject to change according to the whim of those responsible for maintaining the data. Flawed data means flawed conclusions (excluding random dumb luck).

        I don't think too many disagree that the planet is warming gradually. This is not news, but consistent with our understanding of the geological past and past temperature inductions by proxy, plus the satellite record.

        There is precious little evidence that human activity is even remotely a part of this.

    2. SuccessCase

      Yep, the headline is spin, a travesty of statistical analysis and the study proves absolutely nothing.

      It's a matter of simple logic. The two "positions" being investigated are skepticism versus the view global warming is man-made. As anyone who has studied philosophical logic to any degree will tell you, you can never directly prove a negative, only a positive. So this study is deliberately presenting the view framed on the positive under study e.g. the assertion there is global warming and it is man made as though there is a second side to the debate "there is global warming *and it is NOT man made*". But no sensible scientist would ever make a claim about a negative. That totally misrepresents what it is to be a sceptic!

      With deliciously spun logic the study presents this as though it is a conclusion.

      "among the abstracts that did express an opinion – pro or con – on AGW, 97.1 per cent endorsed the position that humans are causing global warming."

      When the skeptical case is precisely that you do science, look at the facts and avoid expressing an opinion unless it's supported by strong evidence - if which you will by definition have none where a negative is concerned! Any scientist worth his salt will avoid confirming a negative assertion like the plague.

      So in reality the data is showing 66.4% of papers are consistent with the skeptical view. I say "consistent" but I'm not going to attempt to spin the result like this paper. "Consistent" does not mean "confirmed skeptical" it actually translates to a null in a database: a no value or no conclusion. All we have here is is evidence that if you ask scientists to set about checking if you can prove a positive statement, you will get a proportion who will express a view on the positive, but you will get virtually none who will compromise their scientific method and spontaneously include a specious remark contradicting a positive by asserting the truth of a negative statement "I believe global warming is NOT caused by humans" Because you only make such remarks as a scientist when you have found another positive which firmly contradicts the negative and no one is saying there is any single clear candidate in that category (and few are looking for such anyway).

      I read reports like this. Look at how the headline conclusion is spun and seriously despair. These are senior scientists failing in the most basic matters of logical analysis. But still, this something I've always noticed about scientists. They are far more driven by human emotion and daily politics than the lay stereotype likes to admit.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: SuccessCase

        Indeed. This is more Hockeystick "science" - using a flawed method to deliberately "prove" the desired result. Nothing exposes this more then the statement about the first step of the method, where they took biased members of his own team to do the first pass and found only ".....32.6 per cent endorsed AGW...."! They then made a second pass consisting of approaching the scientists that they believed had a preference for AGW and asked them "do you believe in AGW?" - that's like asking the Catholic Church to only talk to Bible printers and ask them if they believe in God. Result - massively skewed, predetermined result, seized on by the gullible to justify their position and browbeat anyone that dares to disagree.

  4. Frank Zuiderduin
    Coat

    More like global cooling...

    There *IS* no global warming. Take a look outside. It hasn't been this cold this time of year in decades.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: More like global cooling...

      are you on the ISS?

    2. g e

      Re: More like global cooling...

      That's why they started calling it Climate Change, dontcha know

    3. TheVogon
      Mushroom

      Re: More like global cooling...

      The long term global warming trend is clear: http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/indicator8_2012_tempgraph.PNG

      http://www.livescience.com/6472-study-ocean-warmed-significantly-16-years.html

    4. localzuk Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: More like global cooling...

      Frank has gotta be trolling. Trying to disprove global warming by localised weather patterns...

    5. Bernardo Sviso
      FAIL

      Re: More like global cooling...

      Another idiot who refuses to learn the distinction between "weather" and "climate". Or between "local" and "global".

      PS: Where I live, we've been having record high temperatures, lately-- so chew on that a bit, if you didn't understand my first sentance.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The problem with studies like this is that they examine authority rather than facts.

    The good thing is that they are sufficiently explicit about what it is they are trying to achieve.

    The problem with anything to do with climate change is they they are inherently uncertain. There's nothing that you can replicate. You can't demonstrate the effect in any meaningful way. It's all statistics and pretty dodgy ones at that.

    As any fule no, we must be having *some* affect on the climate (butterfly flaps its wings and someone dies on the other side of the world and all that), but how much? Hard to say really.

    1. Adrian Midgley 1
      Thumb Down

      can demonstrate warming with thermometers

      How did you miss that?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: can demonstrate warming with thermometers

        > can demonstrate warming with thermometers

        Shame that we've been cooling despite the predictions.

        Also, that the climate is changing is not at issue. The climate has been changing since the dawn of the earth.

        Proving what proportion is influenced by us is harder to demonstrate, reproducibly.

    2. John Angelico

      So, if they can't replicate anything...

      ... can we actually address the proposition scientifically at all, since the scientific method requires that experiments and observations be amenable to replication by other scientists?

      1. Tom 13

        Re: So, if they can't replicate anything...

        Maybe. Being replicable is just the most solid form of science, and it isn't actually the value of the science. The value is in it's predictive capabilities. Having deduced Kepler's Laws of Motion we can predict where an object in orbit will be found at a different time. Or, seeing a deviation from where something is supposed to be, find another object which we hadn't noticed before.

        You should be able to test that predictive part of the models. But that's where the problems start. All of the models predict far greater warming than we've actually seen. And you can't actually look at models, only the inputs and outputs of the models. The rest is "proprietary intellectual property." Hell, even some of the data is "proprietary" or at least how they have calculated the inputs from the raw data is. There's big money involved in all of this. Here in the US it's large chunks of some of the budgets at NOAA whether at the weather service or the division working on environmental predictions. Beyond that there are commercial companies making big bucks from processing and packaging that data. Some are just repackaging the weather data, others make money telling farmers how to improve their crop yields. So anybody claiming they have no monetary interest in this is full of crap.

        Some of the monetary interests need solid data - crop yields would be a big one here. Insurance companies are probably another. Even the weather service proper needs good data for short term predictions. If you get 7 out of 10 hurricane or flood warnings wrong, people won't take them seriously, so those bits need accuracy. Others, like what the some mean temperature is going to be 50 years from now? Not so much. There's plenty of time to correct that. And here's the rub: with 50 years to correct it, your local Congresscritter is likely to cut the budget for it because it doesn't affect his election chances next cycle. So if you want that budget money THIS budget cycle, you have to create an emergency on which he MUST act NOW. AWG is just that kind of emergency. And the professional unelected politicians who put together the budgets know that. Given a choice between two scientist, one of who believes in AWG and one of whom thinks it is a crock, they pull from the AWG believer to get the money. And thus the research becomes self-selecting.

    3. fmaxwell
      Megaphone

      No, they don't "examine authority." They examine the views of the scientists who have studied this subject -- those most able to come to an informed position on the subject. Rejecting the views of these scientists is akin to rejecting the views of the medical community about cigarette smoking.

      Don't take a grade-school view of science. It's not all about doing experiments. Much of science is about mathematical predictions and models. Stephen Hawking isn't going to be able to "demonstrate" his theories on time and space, but it doesn't mean they are "dodgy."

      AGW is not just based on statistics. It's based on the measured CO2 levels in the atmosphere and mathematical models of how an increase in CO2 leads to higher global temperatures. The problem with waiting for "proof" of AGW is that it's like trying to prove a gun is loaded by putting it to your head and pulling the trigger.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @fmaxwell

        "AGW is not just based on statistics. It's based on the measured CO2 levels in the atmosphere and mathematical models of how an increase in CO2 leads to higher global temperatures. The problem with waiting for "proof" of AGW is that it's like trying to prove a gun is loaded by putting it to your head and pulling the trigger."

        I have a model that says I would be a good soldier. Battlefield is a complex simulator which demonstrates I would be very gund lugging an LMG across a town and supporting other soldiers. In a second I can transition to a pistol and with accuracy finish off a guy up close. Apparently my tank driving skill is reasonable too and my lack of fear allows me to ride into heavy fire and hold my own while my friends around me are blown apart.

        So since the model says it is so is it now fact? Or do we need real world data to see if I can actually fire a gun accurately and under fire? Do we need real world data to demonstrate I can actually drive a tank? Or do we ignore the real world and accept the complex yet still very flawed model?

        1. fmaxwell
          Mushroom

          Re: @fmaxwell

          "So since the model says it is so is it now fact? Or do we need real world data to see if I can actually fire a gun accurately and under fire?"

          Really? You're going to be that much of an ass in your dismissal of the scientific work by thousands of climatologists all over the world?

          The problem with your "analogy" is that the mathematical models related to global warming are based on scientific fact while yours is based on fantasy. There is no doubt, at all, that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to global warming and that man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere at an alarming rate. All that scientists are doing now is fine-tuning the models to show how much warming will result.

  6. G R Goslin

    Proof?

    This is not proof. This is merely the assertions of a group with a lot to lose if the "truth" ran the other way. If we go back 50 years, the consensus among scientists was that Continental Drift, Plate Techtonics, whatever you like to call it were a myth. And they had good science to prove it, too.. Go back even further, and the consensus was that the World was flat, and if you went West far enough, you'd fall off the edge. All backed by science. Go back between the two and the consensus was that the atom was an indivisible entity. I could go on and on, and on.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Proof?

      Scientific consensus is a good predictor of truth, not proof of truth.

      1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

        Re: Proof?

        The scientific consensus held that the sun orbited the earth, ulcers were caused by excess stomach acid, plate tectonics was a silly myth and that piltdown man was the genuine article.

        Consensus is a good predictor of a group of people agreeing on something. Any relation to truth and reality are entirely coincidental.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: Proof?

          It's a matter of odds. An idea that has a consensus of experts backing it has a far higher chance of being right, and therefore carries more credibility to outside observers, than an idea that doesn't have a consensus of experts backing it. For good reason. Even without realizing it people will lean towards the weight of expert opinion, or expect their advisors (eg doctor) to convey that weight of expert opinion to them. Why should it be any different with climate? Whether they realize it or not people will factor in where the weight of expert opinion lies. If the article is correct that half the people in the US think scientists are divided on the matter then that implies a lot of people have faulty information.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Proof?

            "far higher chance of being right," ...Granted, but I for one would like to know what the odds are (or at least what the consensus of statistical opinion is) before we start taxing modern life into oblivion and handing out tax subsidies to hamster-wheel farms and wind turbines.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            FAIL

            Re: Proof?

            > Even without realizing it people will lean towards the weight of expert opinion, or expect their advisors (eg doctor) to convey that weight of expert opinion to them.

            Two points:

            1) Anyone with a scientific background would be horrified at the prospect that we just take someone's authoritive word for something unless what they assert is demonstrably provable by reproducible experimentation. We take it for granted that physicists are right because they can demonstrate their assertions with a high degree of confidence, backed by maths and experimental evidence. Climate "science" has nothing of those qualities and can only be loosely called science.

            2) Climate science, like the historical "sciences", can only go so far in terms of what assertions they make. When a paleologist looks at dinosaur bones, they can make some posits about the creature that they suggest that it came from. They cannot prove what they say with any kind of certainty unless someone invents a time machine, and most people appreciate that situation. The problem is climate "science" is being portrayed as though there is a high degree of certainty about AGW when the reality is far from it. It is far more like the historical science than the traditional science in terms of how useful it is and about what it can realistically tell us.

            1. The Craw

              Re: Proof?

              Mr. Skelband, you misunderstand the scientific process. Nothing in science has ever been proven. Proof is a mathematical concept, not a scientific concept. The process by which science progresses is as follows:

              A hypothesis is presented to the community. People set to work attempting to support or undermine it. If solid evidence appears that contradicts the hypothesis, most scientists reject it, but a few diehards will keep trying to overcome the contradictions. Usually lots of evidence arises that suggests refinements in the hypothesis. After enough evidence has accumulated, scientists begin to have confidence in the hypothesis. At some point the hypothesis may have enough supporting evidence and a lack of negative evidence such that most scientists accept that hypothesis.

              Because the scientific community is intellectually healthy, there will always be a few contrarians who reject the hypothesis. But once the scientific community has settled upon a hypothesis that has undergone lots of close examination, that hypothesis is treated as a reliable part of science.

              Such is clearly the case with ACC. We have mountains of evidence supporting the hypothesis; despite many efforts, no contradictory evidence has emerged. The vast majority of scientists embrace the hypothesis. The vast majority of those who understand the science embrace it. There is a sizable group of people who are unhappy with the political implications of the science and therefore reject the science. However, rational people start with evidence and draw political conclusions from evidence. Irrational people start with conclusions and proceed to deny evidence that clashes with their conclusions. Deniers are such people.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            FAIL

            Re: Proof?

            "An idea that has a consensus of experts backing it has a far higher chance of being right, and therefore carries more credibility to outside observers, than an idea that doesn't have a consensus of experts backing it."

            That works well for ideas, but AGW is more than an 'idea,' it's a social, political, and even quasi-religous meme too. And that meme swings a vast financial and 'moral' tail behind it. Thus a 97% 'consensus' is insufficiently credible to be included in the argument. Try again.

            1. TheOtherHobbes

              Re: Proof?

              By that logic 100% consensus wouldn't be credible to you because you.

              Try again. You're obviously not understanding how this science actually works. There's nothing quasi-religious about increased flooding, increased drought, and increased weather damage, rising food prices[1], and all the other non-rhetorical effects that AGW is creating - and which (e.g.) insurance companies are already considering when they set their premiums.

              [1] Not that market manipulation isn't playing a part there too. But still.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: TheOtherHobbes Re: Proof?

                "By that logic 100% consensus wouldn't be credible to you because you....." I would refer you back to the previous and since discredited scientific theorems mentioned - that the atom was the smallest possible building block of matter; that the Sun orbited the Earth; which replaced the discredited notion the Earth was flat - all of which had 100% consensus amongst the scientists of their respective days.

                ".....You're obviously not understanding how this science actually works...." I think it is more of a case that you have found a belief that lines up neatly with your sociopolitical views, and you therefore do not want to understand how science actually works (or doesn't).

                "...... There's nothing quasi-religious about increased flooding....." Please don't be so stupid. Flooding predates man's existence, the worst cases including the creation of the Mediterranean Sea, long before man got beyond the campfire stage. If you are referring in particular to flooding in the UK, that to a large extent is due to building on floodplains and not dredging waterways as we should. I would suggest you try reading more than the Al Gore Fanclub magazine.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Proof?

                "You're obviously not understanding how this science actually works. There's nothing quasi-religious about increased flooding, increased drought, and increased weather damage, rising food prices[1], and all the other non-rhetorical effects that AGW is creating..."

                Increased droughts and flooding have been shown to be caused by desertification (chopping too many trees). As for flooding, that's mostly down to the building of river levees that prevent rivers from occupying their natural floodplains, now occupied by houses. The levees drive the river crest to unprecedented heights, where they finally breach the levees and cause massive damage. Increased weather damage is to be expected with the rising population, and the tendency to build in risky but pretty areas like coastlines.

                Funny you should mention rising food prices; the big green push for biofuels account for the biggest chunk of that, and biofuels are a pet project of the left, just like carbon taxation. Want to try once more?

                1. El Andy

                  Re: Proof?

                  @Big John: "Increased droughts and flooding have been shown to be caused by desertification (chopping too many trees). As for flooding, that's mostly down to the building of river levees that prevent rivers from occupying their natural floodplains, now occupied by houses. The levees drive the river crest to unprecedented heights, where they finally breach the levees and cause massive damage. Increased weather damage is to be expected with the rising population, and the tendency to build in risky but pretty areas like coastlines."

                  So, human activity then? Glad to see you've finally grasped that one.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like