Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > Current Affairs and Environmental Issues > Environmental Issues
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-18-2014, 12:10 PM   #281
Glen
Check please
 
Glen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Bay, NY
Posts: 1,109
From what I've read Thorium has promise but a start up if approved in the U.S., would take 10 to 20 years for a variety of reasons. So yes, we should start on this sooner rather than later. You are correct that the governments choice in fuels was geared to those that could be weaponized.
Glen is offline  
Old 04-18-2014, 02:23 PM   #282
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,678
Thanks, Glen.

I think if we have the will, we could do better. 20 months would be my goal; pull out all the stops. The reasons for the 10-20 years are not technical but political.

(There was an old science fiction movie from the 50s where the earth was going to be destroyed by an asteroid. There was a project to build ships to get off earth and colonize some other planet (can't remember which one). The reason I mention it is that in one scene, engineers are working on some kind of design, and there is a poster on the wall behind them that says "Time is our most valuable resource. Waste anything, except time.")

If we took a "Manhattan Project" approach we could have Thorium nuclear on line in 5 years, and start cutting way down on coal, oil and gas. Again, I don't buy the "settled science" argument for AGW, but there are other and better reasons to stop burning these materials.
TCD is offline  
Old 04-18-2014, 04:22 PM   #283
Schultzz
Low Impact Skidder
 
Schultzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 741
"This is what we should be working on; not getting all in a lather about whether a little CO2 is melting the glaciers. It may well be, but we're wasting a lot of time on that when we should be pursuing better solutions."

Part of the problem to overcome to get started on a better solution to our energy needs comes from the back and forth argument for which we have seen right here on this forum. Whether intentional or not it has become a tactic for doing nothing and deciding nothing. Thorium reactors do have some drawbacks concerning safety issues not saying that they could not be overcome or solved with more research but research takes money and right now we are basically broke. I believe that the current administration's attempts at producing new energy sources are a "smoke screen" (please excuse the pun.) Wind generators are very expensive and are currently subsidized by our own government. They often break down and/or are affected by a number of factors which require them to stop production to rectify the problem. Would you believe people shoot at the blades (like a shooting gallery), birds and ice and dirt slow down and stop productivity.

Solar energy takes time to amortize the initial investment which most folks cannot now afford. Coal is cheap and plentiful but burning it without the use of scrubbers and reactors to filter out the hazardous by-products produces pollution (the three "p's") which adds to our current problem. So you see it is not an overnight solution especially with an administration which offers no real initiative to solve the problem. Many people rely on coal production for their livelihoods and deeply resent those who would take it away overnight.
__________________
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.

Last edited by Schultzz; 04-18-2014 at 09:31 PM..
Schultzz is offline  
Old 04-18-2014, 07:00 PM   #284
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schultzz View Post
So Mr. Redhawk, stop being so negative and have a little more faith in your fellow man.
I would love to. Unfortunately my fellow man has has given no reason to have faith. On the contrary, more and more his actions have given me less hope. It will take what it always takes to do anything, Get to the point where the results of our actions are devastating, and then the naysayers will blame the proponents by saying the warning was too late or that they should have pointed out how severe the consequences would be so something would have been done. The conservatives will blame the liberals, the democrats will blame the Republicans, the rich will blame the poor and people of color. America will blame China, the Russians will blame the Capitalists and Homeland Security will blame the terrorists.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 04-18-2014, 09:29 PM   #285
Schultzz
Low Impact Skidder
 
Schultzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 741
Okay. Have it your way. But you were the one who told me not to maintain a hopeless attitude. Perhaps putting your faith in your fellow man will only lead to more disappointment. I am still hopeful that good outcomes will prevail. I wish you were too. You're an interesting person and I hope you stay around here for a long time and enjoy your health and happiness and our great Adirondacks.
__________________
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.
Schultzz is offline  
Old 04-18-2014, 09:57 PM   #286
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schultzz View Post
Okay. Have it your way. But you were the one who told me not to maintain a hopeless attitude. Perhaps putting your faith in your fellow man will only lead to more disappointment. I am still hopeful that good outcomes will prevail. I wish you were too. You're an interesting person and I hope you stay around here for a long time and enjoy your health and happiness and our great Adirondacks.
I don't want to stay around too long. That's part of the problem, we're living too long and contributing to the over population. But I thank you for your best wishes.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 04-19-2014, 08:03 AM   #287
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Hobbit View Post
So.....about my previous two posts about per-capita pollution?

Still waiting...

I see you chose the "ignore post/change subject" option? With a little "declare victory" thrown in as seasoning.
Professor who were you addressing this to? If it was me I suggest next time you include my name in your posts.

The short answer is per-capita pollution is a very flawed statistic. Its true purpose is to convey guilt rather than being a valid comparison.

Your example of China vs US is a perfect example of why it is a statistic about nothing and belongs on Seinfeld. If you would take 5 minutes to think about it you wouldn't even bring it up let alone ask me to educate you.

You're not seriously suggesting that we be more like China are you?
cityboy is offline  
Old 04-19-2014, 09:31 AM   #288
Hobbitling
spring fever
 
Hobbitling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester area
Posts: 2,236
yes, I meant you. Cityboy.

Per capita pollution is simple division. Divide the amount of pollution by the number of people producing it. How is that flawed? Do you disagree with math itself?
I'm not at all sorry if that makes anyone feel guilty. Feeling guilty doesn't disprove the math.

I'm not saying China is a model of environmental policy. One lungful of Beijing smog would convince anyone they aren't. I'm just saying, they do have about five times our population, while producing about the same amount of pollution. And maybe if we're the ones buying all the plastic crap they make, maybe we're a tiny bit responsible too. Or maybe more than a tiny bit. We're paying them to pollute. And they're willing to pollute, for the right price. I'd say that makes both countries look pretty foolish.
__________________
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.
Hobbitling is offline  
Old 04-19-2014, 11:03 AM   #289
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Hobbit View Post
yes, I meant you. Cityboy.

Per capita pollution is simple division. Divide the amount of pollution by the number of people producing it. How is that flawed? Do you disagree with math itself?
I'm not at all sorry if that makes anyone feel guilty. Feeling guilty doesn't disprove the math.

I'm not saying China is a model of environmental policy. One lungful of Beijing smog would convince anyone they aren't. I'm just saying, they do have about five times our population, while producing about the same amount of pollution. And maybe if we're the ones buying all the plastic crap they make, maybe we're a tiny bit responsible too. Or maybe more than a tiny bit. We're paying them to pollute. And they're willing to pollute, for the right price. I'd say that makes both countries look pretty foolish.
We may be buying Chinese goods but we are not forcing them to use 90% coal for energy to make them. Perhaps if they used renewable energy instead of cheap coal our products would be more competitive and we would consume less of theirs. But that is another subject.

The statistic is very flawed and is essentially comparing apples (developed) vs oranges (developing). You mentioned that the US is number 1 in developing but I know you meant developed. The US is number 1 in LARGE developed countries but is number 17 in the world (source=wiki). One of the Arab countries is listed at about 3 times greater per capita than the US. Even one of the Caribbean countries (Trinidad?) was in the 40s.

Perhaps its because of my 30 plus years in Mass Appraisal but 1 statistic comparing all groups is badly flawed. It gets even worse when you dilute it further dividing it by population. Its a very poor attempt at quantifying "efficiency" and hence guilt.

I don't want to get too technical but my first step would be to use one of the 3 clustering routines in SPSS to determine proper "groups". At a minimum I would use a variable that measures country wealth (GNP?) and one for country size (population)and one for location (Latitude?). I'm sure their are others I've missed but the end result would be a list of proper groupings that could be used to compare comparable countries rather than just developed vs developing categories.

In any event since scientists are concerned with rising CO2 levels China is number 1 in tonnage and responsible for 24% of the worlds overall total and rapidly increasing. By dividing by population you are essentially giving them a free pass. The reason that they're rapidly rising is that they are at 90% coal and adding new coal plants every few weeks.

Also you need to take a historical perspective too. The US has reduced their level since 1990 whereas China has tripled theirs. China is the biggest offender by far and is attempting to shirk their fair share by hiding under the developing country status.
cityboy is offline  
Old 04-19-2014, 12:28 PM   #290
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
We may be buying Chinese goods but we are not forcing them to use 90% coal for energy to make them. Perhaps if they used renewable energy instead of cheap coal our products would be more competitive and we would consume less of theirs. But that is another subject.

The statistic is very flawed and is essentially comparing apples (developed) vs oranges (developing). You mentioned that the US is number 1 in developing but I know you meant developed. The US is number 1 in LARGE developed countries but is number 17 in the world (source=wiki). One of the Arab countries is listed at about 3 times greater per capita than the US. Even one of the Caribbean countries (Trinidad?) was in the 40s.

Perhaps its because of my 30 plus years in Mass Appraisal but 1 statistic comparing all groups is badly flawed. It gets even worse when you dilute it further dividing it by population. Its a very poor attempt at quantifying "efficiency" and hence guilt.

I don't want to get too technical but my first step would be to use one of the 3 clustering routines in SPSS to determine proper "groups". At a minimum I would use a variable that measures country wealth (GNP?) and one for country size (population)and one for location (Latitude?). I'm sure their are others I've missed but the end result would be a list of proper groupings that could be used to compare comparable countries rather than just developed vs developing categories.

In any event since scientists are concerned with rising CO2 levels China is number 1 in tonnage and responsible for 24% of the worlds overall total and rapidly increasing. By dividing by population you are essentially giving them a free pass. The reason that they're rapidly rising is that they are at 90% coal and adding new coal plants every few weeks.

Also you need to take a historical perspective too. The US has reduced their level since 1990 whereas China has tripled theirs. China is the biggest offender by far and is attempting to shirk their fair share by hiding under the developing country status.
This post is a perfect example to the problem. Taking whatever you want and make it fit whatever you are trying to say. Your concern seems to be not what the facts are, but how you wnt to make them appear, whether they really indicate that or not.

It's like the police trying to make the evidence point the blame to a specified individual that they want to convict, rather then follow the evidence and convict the guilty party.

Here's a fact. If China is responsible for 90% of the pollution and the United States is responsible for 10%, if the US cleans up it's act, than pollution will be reduced by at least 10% regardless of what China Does.

Here's another fact, if the US is responsible for 10% of the pollution, it's not China's responsibility to make the US stop, it's the US's.

How about another fact. More would get done if all nations would look to cleaning up their own messes, rather then blaming others for the mess they make.

I can even go Biblical: Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

How about: "When you point a finger at someone else, you have three pointing back at you"?

How about if you quote a source to make your point, use the full content of the source, not just one or two cherry picked, out of context sentences?

As far as the coal argument goes with China, that if they used renewable energy it would cost them more and then Americans would buy less goods, therefore less pollution by China, then how about this argument? If the US citizens refused to buy cheap Chinese goods because of the pollution, wouldn't that help solve the problem? Or do Americans want cheaper products more then they want clean air or a healthy environment?

Does an employee in Ohio want a healthier environment or does he want his job in a coal fired energy producing plant?

There's a great quote by Walt Kelly, the author of the comic strip Pogo. "We have met the enemy, and they is us"
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 04-19-2014, 12:44 PM   #291
randomscooter
Native Earthling
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scooterville, NY
Posts: 1,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by backwoodsman View Post
Agreed, it's time to cull out the unnecessary things in our lives, like driving long distances to stay at Random Scoots cabin.
That's an interesting point, and one that I worried about when the economy tanked. As it turns out, a lot of our guests are now making shorter trips, such as to the Adirondacks, rather than the longer, more expensive, and higher carbon footprint trips that involve air travel or long distance driving.
__________________
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks
Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


"Pushing the limits of easy."
randomscooter is offline  
Old 04-19-2014, 01:57 PM   #292
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 572
"This post is a perfect example to the problem. Taking whatever you want and make it fit whatever you are trying to say"

Answer:
Yes, Redhawk, that is exactly what you are doing.

"Here's a fact. If China is responsible for 90% of the pollution and the United States is responsible for 10%, if the US cleans up it's act, than pollution will be reduced by at least 10% regardless of what China Does."

Answer:
Your argument assumes that China is not increasing CO2 rapidly every year. Here is a fact for you. If the US stopped producing CO2 today within 5 years China would make up the difference.

"Here's another fact, if the US is responsible for 10% of the pollution, it's not China's responsibility to make the US stop, it's the US's."

Answer:
And here is your logic reversed. Not only is it not the responsibility of the US to make China stop but we no longer are the super power we once were to make them. And its not just China. India has said point blank we don't have the right nor will they comply.

"How about another fact. More would get done if all nations would look to cleaning up their own messes, rather then blaming others for the mess they make."

Answer:
Two things. First, this would be true if all nations agreed to do it. They don't and never will.
Second, the "developing" nations not only won't agree to CO2 restrictions but they want to be paid reparations for mythical damages.

"I can even go Biblical: Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

Answer:
Anyone who hopes that 240 million Americans disappear off the face of the earth should not be quoting scripture.
cityboy is offline  
Old 04-19-2014, 02:09 PM   #293
backwoodsman
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomscooter View Post
That's an interesting point, and one that I worried about when the economy tanked. As it turns out, a lot of our guests are now making shorter trips, such as to the Adirondacks, rather than the longer, more expensive, and higher carbon footprint trips that involve air travel or long distance driving.
I'm sorry, but that's not quite good enough. We're looking for 0% CO2 emissions. So your customers will either have to walk, ride bike, ski, ect to your place or be turned away.

Of course within a short time your place will be confiscated so it can be torn down to restore the planet to it's proper natural state, so you might want to get your things packed.
backwoodsman is offline  
Old 04-19-2014, 02:13 PM   #294
randomscooter
Native Earthling
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scooterville, NY
Posts: 1,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by backwoodsman View Post
I'm sorry, but that's not quite good enough. We're looking for 0% CO2 emissions. So your customers will either have to walk, ride bike, ski, ect to your place or be turned away.

Of course within a short time your place will be confiscated so it can be torn down to restore the planet to it's proper natural state, so you might want to get your things packed.
I'm confused. Really. What is it you think I said that provoked your responses?
__________________
Scooting here and there
Through the woods and up the peaks
Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


"Pushing the limits of easy."

Last edited by randomscooter; 04-19-2014 at 02:53 PM..
randomscooter is offline  
Old 04-19-2014, 04:54 PM   #295
Glen
Check please
 
Glen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Bay, NY
Posts: 1,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomscooter View Post
I'm confused. Really. What is it you think I said that provoked your responses?
You're not the only one. Maybe an attempt at sarcasm?
Glen is offline  
Old 04-19-2014, 06:13 PM   #296
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
"This post is a perfect example to the problem. Taking whatever you want and make it fit whatever you are trying to say"

Answer:
Yes, Redhawk, that is exactly what you are doing.

"Here's a fact. If China is responsible for 90% of the pollution and the United States is responsible for 10%, if the US cleans up it's act, than pollution will be reduced by at least 10% regardless of what China Does."

Answer:
Your argument assumes that China is not increasing CO2 rapidly every year. Here is a fact for you. If the US stopped producing CO2 today within 5 years China would make up the difference.
And there would still be 10% less than if the US was still producing
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
"Here's another fact, if the US is responsible for 10% of the pollution, it's not China's responsibility to make the US stop, it's the US's."

Answer:
And here is your logic reversed. Not only is it not the responsibility of the US to make China stop but we no longer are the super power we once were to make them. And its not just China. India has said point blank we don't have the right nor will they comply.
Well here's the flaw in your logic. First of all what other nations do are none of our business. That's the arrogance of Americans, thinking that they have the right to tell everyone else what to do. Secondly, If a country is going to lead, they should lead by example, America doesn't, it dictates, but continues to do what is profitable for itself. So India is right, we don't have the right to tell it or any other country what to do, except America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
"How about another fact. More would get done if all nations would look to cleaning up their own messes, rather then blaming others for the mess they make."

Answer:
Two things. First, this would be true if all nations agreed to do it. They don't and never will.
Second, the "developing" nations not only won't agree to CO2 restrictions but they want to be paid reparations for mythical damages.
There you go again, We should be repairing our own house, We can only do what we can do. To not act because others won't is just an excuse to justify being irresponsible., So far your replies and excuses validate exactly what I am saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
"I can even go Biblical: Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

Answer:
Anyone who hopes that 240 million Americans disappear off the face of the earth should not be quoting scripture.
First of all, hoping isn't a sin. Secondly, I said it would be justice, not that I was going to make it happen. And perhaps you skipped the final chapter of the New Testament. It's called Apocalypse.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline  
Old 04-20-2014, 06:05 AM   #297
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 572
AN ANSWER TO VTFLYFISH:

"The problem is other sources of positive feedback. Per the presentation, the remaining uncertainty is due to feedback in the global atmosphere/earth system, the major variables being atmospheric water vapor, ice-albedo, and cloud feedback."
If you are prepared to state these are zero I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying. Otherwise, your approach dooms us to an uncomfortable existence. BTW, concensus is that these could add as little as 2 and as much as 6 degrees to global temperature by 2100."

How exactly does your positive feedback of 2 to 6C jive with the TOTAL IPCC estimated range of 1.5 to 4C Per doubling of CO2? That range was based upon 108 Climate Models. To me this implies that not all modelers agree on your 2-6C for positive feedbacks that you state as certainty. This is quite a spread and shows why the models need to be validated against actual temperatures.

And the relationship between a doubling and the original 1.2C that is scientific fact is Logarithmic. That means that temperature rises much more steeply in the early years and drastically tapers off towards the end. Since temperatures have already risen .8C since 1850 if the feedbacks do cancel each other out than we've already experience most of the future increase.

"The major argument you put forth for not tackling the problem immediately is expense and difficulty in coordinationg global cooperation. There's a huge downside to your approach if you're wrong."

That's part of my argument. The main point is that you first determine IF there really is a problem and quantify the EXTENT of the problem BEFORE you throw money at it.

"Note this: with every period of technological innovation in human history there has been a positive step change in prosperity. I challenge you to look at the global warming problem as if you were running a hedge fund: where would you place your bet: on the go-slow case???"

I think the stock market has already voted. Cap and Trade on carbon has not been successful in other countries because the price of carbon has fallen dramatically. Also the index of Green Companies has crashed over the last 7 years and was down as much as 90%. No wonder the Greens are calling for imprisonment of deniers they cost them a bundle of money.
cityboy is offline  
Old 04-20-2014, 10:07 AM   #298
Hobbitling
spring fever
 
Hobbitling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester area
Posts: 2,236
Yes, how dare ANY of you question the omniscience of The Free Hand of The Market, (peace be upon it, amen), and the omnipotence of Technology (May it never rust, amen).

The Market has declared carbon to be cheap, and environmental stewardship to be without value!
So it is written! So it shall be!
__________________
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.
Hobbitling is offline  
Old 04-20-2014, 05:16 PM   #299
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 572
I don't want to keep harping on Climate Models but lest you just think its just my opinion that they're terrible here are the statements from some very influential pro climate change scientists and IPCC officials. This was taken from the Forbes article.

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com, admitted: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.

Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying: *“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary…”

In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved.* I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”

Still another observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, reported in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues in big sweats: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they don’t know what to do.”

So much for that ironclad science and unwavering confidence. As I've said before, when the model predictions fall outside the confidence intervals than your theory is disproven. Figure 3 years tops.

Last edited by cityboy; 04-20-2014 at 05:19 PM.. Reason: spelling
cityboy is offline  
Old 04-20-2014, 07:52 PM   #300
Glen
Check please
 
Glen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Bay, NY
Posts: 1,109
Wow Cityboy. More cherry picked quotes from such a balanced non-biased source as Forbes. Next you'll be posting denials from the API.
Glen is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.