Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   The Podium (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   A cooling consensus on climate change (http://slickdeals.net/f/6106230-a-cooling-consensus-on-climate-change)

Krazen1211 06-21-2013 11:59 AM

A cooling consensus on climate change
 
Link [economist.com]

GLOBAL warming has slowed. The rate of warming of over the past 15 years has been lower than that of the preceding 20 years. There is no serious doubt that our planet continues to heat, but it has heated less than most climate scientists had predicted. Nate Cohn of the New Republic reports: "Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections".

As a rule, climate scientists were previously very confident that the planet would be warmer than it is by now, and no one knows for sure why it isn't. This isn't a crisis for climate science. This is just the way science goes. But it is a crisis for climate-policy advocates who based their arguments on the authority of scientific consensus. Mr Cohn eventually gets around to admitting that




Of course, the real issue is that some morons from San Francisco or Massachusetts are losing their pretext to stick their fingers in the economy and boss people around. People aren't willing to spend their money on nonsense, go figure.

CyberGuy 06-21-2013 01:01 PM

Don't we already have a thread on this?

link

Dr. J 06-21-2013 05:40 PM

Thus stressing my point that models are MODELS - real data with lots of fitted parameters. Extrapolation leads you astray.

Rebound 06-22-2013 11:07 AM

Thread title: "Cooling"
Thread contents: "Warming"

Good that the rate of warming is lower than predicted, but.... THE PLANET IS WARMING!

Radeck 06-22-2013 11:54 AM

this is the problem with basing policy on 'scientific consensus', which is a fancy term for saying "personal opinion / educated guess for which we have no proof"....science is NOT about consensus....you either have proof, or you do not....until a hypothesis is proven, it is considered just that: an idea, a proposal, a guess. If there was proof, then you would not need 'consensus'. Consensus implies a certain level of disagreement, ie it is not proven.

I for one am against worldwide economic and political upheaval, giving even more power and CONTROL to governments over our lives than they already have, and elimination of people's freedoms and rights. If you look at the warmists' proposals, they ALL have elements of totalitarian state control, erosion of personal freedoms, collectivism, erosion of private property rights, communism, and forced financial redistribution, just to mention a few....

Since I abhor all of these policies and ideas aimed at turning humanity into serfs and vassals to an all-powerful all-controlling soulless state bureaucracy (that as we have seen recently can and WILL abuse its power), I oppose all the current proposals for dealing with something that is not even proven and requires 'consensus' rather than being a proven fact.

If warmists can come up with proposals that do not have the elements outlined above, I, and the general public, would be more likely to listen and consider the proposals, especially in the light of the fact that none of the warmists' claims have been proven (consensus is NOT proof), and in fact the failure of the models to account for what has happened in the last 15 years does NOT help their credibility....but as long as their proposals are all veiled attempts at creating a new all-powerful all-controlling, (and usually communist) nanny state on a world wide level, I and the general public will not take them seriously.

Radeck 06-22-2013 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 60262302)
Thread title: "Cooling"
Thread contents: "Warming"

Good that the rate of warming is lower than predicted, but.... THE PLANET IS WARMING!

which it has done in the past (to even warmer temps than today), and will continue to oscillate forever.

It has not even been proven that CO2 is the cause...there is a correlation, yes, but that does not equal causation. Otherwise you would NOT see charts were warming PRECEDES the increase in CO2 levels....if CO2 was the cause, I would expect temps to always FOLLOW CO2 levels, not lead them. Clearly there is something else going on there. CO2 levels and warming might well be SYMPTOMS of something else going on (eg cosmic or solar events), so they share similar traits and correlations, but that does NOT mean one causes the other, but that something else is causing both.

Krazen1211 06-22-2013 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 60262302)
Thread title: "Cooling"
Thread contents: "Warming"

Good that the rate of warming is lower than predicted, but.... THE PLANET IS WARMING!

The article title: A cooling consensus

darkfrog 06-22-2013 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 60262918)
this is the problem with basing policy on 'scientific consensus', which is a fancy term for saying "personal opinion / educated guess for which we have no proof"....science is NOT about consensus....you either have proof, or you do not....until a hypothesis is proven, it is considered just that: an idea, a proposal, a guess. If there was proof, then you would not need 'consensus'. Consensus implies a certain level of disagreement, ie it is not proven.

No. Consensus implies that there no longer is any major disagreement. Science never proves theories. Theories are models, always open to revision if and when new information is found. Germ theory, chemistry, atomic theory, plate tectonics, common ancestry, heliocentrism, are all theories that have survived the rigors of the scientific process and have survived, but not a single one is considered 'proven.' Theories are based on induction, therefore we can gain very high levels of confidence that our theory is right but they are never 'proven.' Proofs are only found in mathematics and distilleries. A well-supported theory reaches a point where the level of confidence is so high that the vast majority of experts in that discipline consider that it is unlikely that anything will ever be found to falsify it, it is considered a consensus.

To call these models merely a guess demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method.

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=50985698&postcount=224

http://www.notjustatheory.com/

That said, there is a difference between having a scientific consensus and the idea that we can or should "do something about it" which falls into the realm of politics.
Although co2 does cause warming, something that can be demonstrated in the lab, that does not mean that even if we completely stop releasing trapped co2 and applied every known form of mitigation, that we will be able to stop the trend that has begun. So I am in agreement that many people use warming as a tool to gain some sort of political goal and act as alarmists which does create a backlash causing many people to doubt the facts.

Economics tells us that without the right incentives, we will likely not change our habits. However, there can be free market solutions that may be able to mitigate the problem and offering an X-prize or something similar might give us some good solutions. One in the works is being able to mimic the cooling effect (global dimming) that occurs when volcanoes spit out sulfates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra...ngineering)

jonsmith74 06-22-2013 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 60262302)
Thread title: "Cooling"
Thread contents: "Warming"

Good that the rate of warming is lower than predicted, but.... THE PLANET IS WARMING!

My goodness, puhlease.

The global warming alarmists simply did not stop at the climate is warming. So don't pretend that all is well with the forecasting models and the "consensus." The alarmists were demanding immediate, substantial changes to the world economy in order to mitigate what they projected to be worldwide climate change caused by warming.

However, we now see that the models were not accurate and that the actual warming is hardly what the "consensus" would have had us believe.

I just have to wonder if the alarmists will apologize to all of us who argued for humility, argued that the models were, at best, deficient (at worst, gamed), and suggested that we humans might not be impacting the climate to the extent the alarmists were predicting????????????????????

Not likely.

Humility...something liberals and progressives simply don't possess or understand.

andyfico 06-23-2013 03:27 PM

http://iphone.france24.com/en/201...ency-study


Quote:

Higher levels of air pollution reduced the frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes and other tropical storms for most of the 20th century, a study said

Ocean warmth provides the raw energy for tropical storms, which in extreme conditions can brew into destructive hurricanes.
Conversely, the study found that measures since the 1980s to tackle pollution and improve air quality reduced levels of aerosols -- and in turn ramped up hurricane activity.

Radeck 06-24-2013 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyfico (Post 60281444)


the irony....all this time Al Gore and the tree-huggers have been shedding their crocodile tears about how global warming is causing hurricanes, only to now find out that it is THEIR pollution-control programs that are the real cause....I doubt we will be hearing anything about this from all the usual tree-hugger crowd.

xveganrox 06-24-2013 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 60289204)
the irony....all this time Al Gore and the tree-huggers have been shedding their crocodile tears about how global warming is causing hurricanes, only to now find out that it is THEIR pollution-control programs that are the real cause....I doubt we will be hearing anything about this from all the usual tree-hugger crowd.

Yes! Clearly the answer is to increase air pollution! That'll stick it to the planet!

Did you read what you wrote before hitting "post?" Are you actually suggesting that the best way to deal with climate change and extreme weather is to pollute more? :bounce:

OhNoItsDEVO 06-24-2013 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xveganrox (Post 60289586)
Yes! Clearly the answer is to increase air pollution! That'll stick it to the planet!

Did you read what you wrote before hitting "post?" Are you actually suggesting that the best way to deal with climate change and extreme weather is to pollute more? :bounce:

No one is claiming that shit and you know it....

Tony_Danza 06-24-2013 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 60291400)
No one is claiming that shit and you know it....

It's true. The claim that pollution controls are the REAL cause of increased hurricane activity is dumb enough to be mocked on it's own.

Something that masks the symptoms of an ailment isn't the cause of the ailment.

Radeck 06-24-2013 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xveganrox (Post 60289586)
Yes! Clearly the answer is to increase air pollution! That'll stick it to the planet!

Did you read what you wrote before hitting "post?" Are you actually suggesting that the best way to deal with climate change and extreme weather is to pollute more? :bounce:

yes..that is EXACTLY what i said :rolleyes:

bonkman 06-24-2013 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyfico (Post 60281444)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 60289204)
the irony....all this time Al Gore and the tree-huggers have been shedding their crocodile tears about how global warming is causing hurricanes, only to now find out that it is THEIR pollution-control programs that are the real cause....I doubt we will be hearing anything about this from all the usual tree-hugger crowd.

How interesting....

The people on TP who don't "believe" in MMGW often discuss (incorrectly) how "it's all based on computer models and so therefore it can say anything it wants to" (also incorrect, btw).

And yet this one research, which is entirely model based, is lauded.

So the message is that models are good when they show what you believe?


Also, they need to do quite a bit more to demonstrate that this is causal and not correlative. The mechanism is plausible, but that doesn't mean it's correct. It'll be tough to do, of course -- as climate change deniers like to point out when it comes to MMGW.

brbubba 06-24-2013 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 60296534)
How interesting....

The people on TP who don't "believe" in MMGW often discuss (incorrectly) how "it's all based on computer models and so therefore it can say anything it wants to" (also incorrect, btw).

And yet this one research, which is entirely model based, is lauded.

So the message is that models are good when they show what you believe?


Also, they need to do quite a bit more to demonstrate that this is causal and not correlative. The mechanism is plausible, but that doesn't mean it's correct. It'll be tough to do, of course -- as climate change deniers like to point out when it comes to MMGW.

It's also observational, anyone hear of glacial ablation??? :lol:

Although I don't know why this crap always turns into a political debate, the Dems aren't exactly knocking down the doors on this either.

At this point though it's a moot point since no one is intentionally curbing pollution from CO2 and the market seems to working on its own to decrease the cost of solar panels. At this stage adoption will come, but if the government pegs high buyback rates, obviously that adoption will come sooner rather htan later. So our CO2 free future seems cemented regardless of either side bickering.

andyfico 06-24-2013 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 60296534)
How interesting....

The people on TP who don't "believe" in MMGW often discuss (incorrectly) how "it's all based on computer models and so therefore it can say anything it wants to" (also incorrect, btw).

And yet this one research, which is entirely model based, is lauded.

So the message is that models are good when they show what you believe?


Also, they need to do quite a bit more to demonstrate that this is causal and not correlative. The mechanism is plausible, but that doesn't mean it's correct. It'll be tough to do, of course -- as climate change deniers like to point out when it comes to MMGW.

Not sure why you quoted my post.

bonkman 06-24-2013 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyfico (Post 60300378)
Not sure why you quoted my post.

because it was the one with the article in it.

andyfico 06-24-2013 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 60302856)
because it was the one with the article in it.

Ahhh got it.

Krazen1211 06-24-2013 05:29 PM

It's the left that wants to take over the economy with Waxman Markey and other nonsense. Good thing the Senate did not listen.

Deusxmachina 06-26-2013 11:52 AM

Want to save the world? Decrease the size of government.

The Number One Worst Polluter on Earth Is… The U.S. Federal Government
http://ivn.us/2012/04/18/the-numb...overnment/
Quote:

With Earth Day coming up this weekend, it might be helpful to remember that the worst polluter on planet Earth is not a major corporation, but the United States federal government, and if we’re going to be serious about reducing our impact on the environment, we need to advocate for less, not more government.

astromarmot 06-27-2013 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 60350596)
Want to save the world? Decrease the size of government.

The Number One Worst Polluter on Earth Is… The U.S. Federal Government
http://ivn.us/2012/04/18/the-numb...overnment/

And political rhetoric releases little more than hot air and CO2...can we cap and trade it for the good of the planet?

Dr. J 06-27-2013 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 60350596)
Want to save the world? Decrease the size of government.

The Number One Worst Polluter on Earth Is… The U.S. Federal Government
http://ivn.us/2012/04/18/the-numb...overnment/

600,000 vehicles!

As an aside - how much does the POTUS add to this with all the jet setting?

Deusxmachina 06-27-2013 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 60367138)
600,000 vehicles!

As an aside - how much does the POTUS add to this with all the jet setting?

Don't forget the gas-guzzling V8 luxury car he had while a senator. He becomes President and suddenly starts caring about the environment. ...lol, actually, no he doesn't, for the reason you stated.

I'll start worrying about using too much fuel as soon as the hypocrite-in-chief starts. And vice-hypocrite Al Gore.

We could solve the world's energy problems with wind. Just put a windmill in front of those two windbags and collect the energy.

Copperblade 06-27-2013 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 60350596)
Want to save the world? Decrease the size of government.

The Number One Worst Polluter on Earth Is… The U.S. Federal Government
http://ivn.us/2012/04/18/the-numb...overnment/

Hope you're not a hawk, because that's probably mostly military.

Hawk2007 06-27-2013 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Copperblade (Post 60384616)
Hope you're not a hawk, because that's probably mostly military.


Take your ornithophobia out of here...

TRNT 07-01-2013 04:22 AM

19 out of a 20 crew firefighter died in a fire over the weekend. There are temperatures of high 110s in Las Vegas. High 130s in Death Valley.

Just sayin'.

dealgate 07-01-2013 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 60435170)
19 out of a 20 crew firefighter died in a fire over the weekend. There are temperatures of high 110s in Las Vegas. High 130s in Death Valley.

Just sayin'.

The heat wave comes just a couple weeks before the 100th anniversary of what the National Weather Service calls the "highest reliably recorded air temperature on Earth" -- 134 degrees on July 10, 1913, in Death Valley's Greenland Ranch.

Just sayin'

OhNoItsDEVO 07-01-2013 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dealgate (Post 60436068)
The heat wave comes just a couple weeks before the 100th anniversary of what the National Weather Service calls the "highest reliably recorded air temperature on Earth" -- 134 degrees on July 10, 1913, in Death Valley's Greenland Ranch.

Just sayin'

That MMGW must have been going strong back in 1913...

andyfico 07-01-2013 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 60436646)
That MMGW must have been going strong back in 1913...

100 years later we are still here after all that nasty MMGW in 1913. Now they are saying "Watch out! In 100 years, this will be a HUGE issue). Starting to sound like chicken little.

vaultaddict 07-01-2013 09:40 AM

these record temps in Death Valley don't make sense!

I'm certain I read a thread here that said we're in a cooling phase.

Halfspin 07-01-2013 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 60435170)
19 out of a 20 crew firefighter died in a fire over the weekend. There are temperatures of high 110s in Las Vegas. High 130s in Death Valley.

Just sayin'.

:facepalm2:

Just sayin'

Radeck 07-01-2013 12:37 PM

UAH/RSS are the actual temp measurements, the other squiggles are the 'models' used to "predict" life-ending global warming

just sayin'

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/...rom-space/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...AH-and-RSS.png

jplayland 07-01-2013 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 60444148)
UAH/RSS are the actual temp measurements, the other squiggles are the 'models' used to "predict" life-ending global warming

just sayin'

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/...rom-space/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...AH-and-RSS.png

It is amazing that we are below the levels predicted of any fromerly considered "reputable" model. If we were just lower than 60, 70, 80, even 90% of them, I could let it go as a fluke, but not 100%. Either the folks who determine what is reputable are wrong/lying, or they have a much lesser understanding of these things than they thought and the models are worthless without further learning.

jplayland 07-01-2013 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 60444860)
I go with that ^

It's really both I think. The leaked emails make it clear that it's not just an issue of understanding. Corruption is clearly also at play, but then again, it's everywhere, so I can't say I'm surprised or that anyone else should be.

zzyzzx 07-03-2013 11:52 AM

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/fi...Cooling_11.gif

Gotchaforce 07-03-2013 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 60445346)
It's really both I think. The leaked emails make it clear that it's not just an issue of understanding. Corruption is clearly also at play, but then again, it's everywhere, so I can't say I'm surprised or that anyone else should be.

^^^

Clearly a scientist who has dealt with tree ring proxy data points and how to compare those to completely different proxy points, like surface temperatures. :lmao:

Hurricane 07-04-2013 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 60435170)
19 out of a 20 crew firefighter died in a fire over the weekend. There are temperatures of high 110s in Las Vegas. High 130s in Death Valley.

Just sayin'.


And the midwest experienced record lows and record snowfall during the first few days of MAY (as in exactly two months ago).

Just sayin'.

flancrest 07-05-2013 04:23 PM

UN Charts ‘Unprecedented’ Global Warming Since 2000 [bloomberg.com]

Quote:

The planet has warmed faster since the turn of the century than ever recorded, almost doubling the pace of sea-level increase and causing a 20-fold jump in heat-related deaths, the United Nations said.
The decade through 2010 was the warmest for both hemispheres and for land and sea, the UN’s World Meteorological Organization said today in an e-mailed report examining climate trends for the beginning of the millennium. Almost 94 percent of countries logged their warmest 10 years on record, it said.

Radeck 07-05-2013 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flancrest (Post 60526316)

BS. see the chart in post 34...note how there is a low in 2000, and an unusual one-time peak in 2010....how convenient for this BS report to use a low-point to compare to a high-point, ignoring the rest of the chart....

I wonder why they didn't pick the 1998 peak to compare to the 2010 peak to conclude the planet is heading to an ice-age ????

sorry..cherry-picking time frames to play games with statistics and present a false urgency of Armageddon doesn't fly.

flancrest 07-06-2013 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 60527328)
sorry..cherry-picking time frames to play games with statistics and present a false urgency of Armageddon doesn't fly.

But ignoring a report based on what you think it would say, or cherry picking a single statistic from a broad report with lots of other data points that support a warming planet is somehow a legitimate way to engage in this conversation.

You've clearly misrepresented or ignored the report in the first place as they make no mention of single data points in 2000 or 2010 as evidence for anything.

Your claim is that they lucked into a cool year at the start and a hot year at the end of their measuring period, which amplified the change. But they considered average temp over the entire decade, and compared it to the previous decade's average temperatures. So the idea that they just looked at the temperature in 2000, the temp in 2010 and said "derrr it's hotter derrrr" is completely misleading.

Do you have a substantive response to the fact that 94% of countries recorded their hottest decade on record? That it was the hottest decade on land and sea in both hemispheres? To the warming trend demonstrated in the report?

http://s13.postimg.org/6a0p4dr1j/Ful...3_75335_AM.jpg

The chart in #34 does demonstrate we have continued to have above average temperatures (relative to the baseline). That the climate models have been inaccurate is irrelevant to the historical data, it just demonstrates that climate science is super difficult. Moreover, the models are only valid from 2005 on, all the "data" in the period before is a hindcast, which is about as scientific as tarot cards, so claiming the predictive models show decades of failure is plainly a lie.

But measuring the past is much easier. And you're content to ignore those measurements and the corresponding reports, clinging to an inaccurate prediction as a way to ignore the entirety of the data, which are far more compelling than your claims about scientific conspiracies and misrepresentation of others' arguments (nobody is using the word Armageddon except you).

Foreveryours 07-06-2013 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 60527328)
I wonder why they didn't pick the 1998 peak to compare to the 2010 peak to conclude the planet is heading to an ice-age ???.

Of course you wonder why.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Gotchaforce 07-06-2013 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flancrest (Post 60533132)
But ignoring a report based on what you think it would say, or cherry picking a single statistic from a broad report with lots of other data points that support a warming planet is somehow a legitimate way to engage in this conversation.

You've clearly misrepresented or ignored the report in the first place as they make no mention of single data points in 2000 or 2010 as evidence for anything.

Your claim is that they lucked into a cool year at the start and a hot year at the end of their measuring period, which amplified the change. But they considered average temp over the entire decade, and compared it to the previous decade's average temperatures. So the idea that they just looked at the temperature in 2000, the temp in 2010 and said "derrr it's hotter derrrr" is completely misleading.

Do you have a substantive response to the fact that 94% of countries recorded their hottest decade on record? That it was the hottest decade on land and sea in both hemispheres? To the warming trend demonstrated in the report?

http://s13.postimg.org/6a0p4dr1j/Ful...3_75335_AM.jpg

The chart in #34 does demonstrate we have continued to have above average temperatures (relative to the baseline). That the climate models have been inaccurate is irrelevant to the historical data, it just demonstrates that climate science is super difficult. Moreover, the models are only valid from 2005 on, all the "data" in the period before is a hindcast, which is about as scientific as tarot cards, so claiming the predictive models show decades of failure is plainly a lie.

But measuring the past is much easier. And you're content to ignore those measurements and the corresponding reports, clinging to an inaccurate prediction as a way to ignore the entirety of the data, which are far more compelling than your claims about scientific conspiracies and misrepresentation of others' arguments (nobody is using the word Armageddon except you).

A very succinct and accurate response but just be aware that radeck started the thread about unskewedpolls.com and how liberals were intentionally using wrong numbers to show obama as leading the polls in the 2012 election. Basically objective stats mean nothing to him.

flancrest 07-07-2013 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 60537696)
A very succinct and accurate response but just be aware that radeck started the thread about unskewedpolls.com and how liberals were intentionally using wrong numbers to show obama as leading the polls in the 2012 election. Basically objective stats mean nothing to him.

Remind me how that one worked out for him and all the head-in-the-sanders on Team Romney? :D

TheObserver84 07-07-2013 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 60537696)
A very succinct and accurate response but just be aware that radeck started the thread about unskewedpolls.com and how liberals were intentionally using wrong numbers to show obama as leading the polls in the 2012 election. Basically objective stats mean nothing to him.

Yup! This is the same "genius" that screams anytime he imagines his rights are being violated by the goverment and then posts stuff like this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 59310052)
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and now Syria...the US policy of propping up Islamists over secular dictators, is causing a new wave of slaughter and persecution of the minority Christians.

:insane:

Apparently he wants Saddam Hussein back :lol:


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:58 AM.


1999-2014