Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

Scientists from around the world are providing even more evidence of global warming, one day after President Barack Obama renewed his call for climate legislation. Full Story

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#23541 Jan 31, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Actually I just passed gas in your general direction because you enjoy that type of hot air.
What I thought. You are all hot air. Not only that but you stink.
PHD

Overton, TX

#23542 Jan 31, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
What I thought. You are all hot air. Not only that but you stink.
Therefore, than you do agree you enjoyed it. Maybe the rest can indulge in satisfying your newfound craving.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#23543 Jan 31, 2013
YYes ?? Poor P-ppppenny...
Of course, I'm dead, just like your Global Warming credibility.
If you REALLY want a laugh, imagine Penny putting all those "judging marks" up after we copy/paste posts....
Hi, Mistake a minute P-P-Penny,
How are Sheldon and Leonard...
Ps- Almost a moron, stick with it.
People say that you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are not perfect, but you are doing alright.
Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#23545 Jan 31, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Understand statistics?
Here is NASA on "How do we Know?"
• Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Where did you get your data, from the University of East Anglia? LOL!!!

See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites easy to fool!!!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdeling...

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

...

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

"In an odd way this is cheering news."

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#23546 Jan 31, 2013
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as "How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie" - CRU's researchers were exposed as having "cherry-picked" data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#23547 Jan 31, 2013
I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that's sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore's Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called "sceptical" view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled 'Barbecue the Polar Bears' in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I'VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN'T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we've a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby's credibility from which it is never likely to recover.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#23548 Jan 31, 2013
UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and the threads below my posts often contain an impressive range of informed opinion from readers with solid scientific backgrounds (plus lots of cheap swipes from Libtards – but, hey, their discomfort and rage are my joy).

Here are a few links:

Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.

An earlier scandal at the Climate Research Unit, this time involving "cherry-picked" data samples.

A contretemps with a Climate Bully who wonders whether I have a science degree.(No I don't. I just happen to be a believer in empiricism and not spending taxpayers' money on a problem that may well not exist)

59 per cent of UK population does not believe in AGW. The Times decides they are "village idiots"

Comparing "Climate Change" to the 9/11 and the Holocaust is despicable and dumb

Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?

UK Government blows £6 million on eco-propaganda ad which makes children cry

and a very funny piece by Damian Thompson comparing the liberal media's coverage of Watergate with its almost non-existent coverage of Climategate

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdeling...
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#23549 Jan 31, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get your data, from the University of East Anglia? LOL!!!
See? Liberals are brain dead hypocrites easy to fool!!!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdeling...
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
...
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
"In an odd way this is cheering news."
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters.
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Yeah, but you're a nut-so....
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#23550 Jan 31, 2013
Sure, a nutcase source, but a nut-so writer....

A "hacker" ??? Yeah, there's an honest "source" ?? LMAOROTFU~!

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#23551 Jan 31, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
UPDATE: Here are a few links:
Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.
Ian Plimer is the guy who thinks the sun is made out of iron (Heaven and Earth, pp. 110-120).

:
Wikipedia states that Plimer owns 3 mines.

The reporter Monbiot wrote some questions to Plimer which he did not respond to

1. The first graph in your book (Figure 1, page 11) shows global temperatures, as measured by the Hadley Centre (HadCRUT), falling by 0.3C between 2007 and 2008. In reality the fall recorded by the HadCRUT3 data series is 0.089C.

How do you explain the discrepancy between the HadCRUT3 figure and your claim?

2. Figure 3 (page 25) is a graph purporting to show that most of the warming in the 20th Century took place before 1945, and was followed by a period of sharp cooling. You cite no source for it, but it closely resembles the global temperature graph in the first edition of Martin Durkin's film The Great Global Warming Swindle. Durkin later changed the graph after it was shown to have been distorted by extending the timeline.

In your book it remains unchanged.
Tim Lambert has reproduced the graph here.
a. What is the source for the graph you used?
b. Where was it first published?
c. Whose figures does it use?
d. How do you explain the alteration of both the curves and the timeline?

3. You maintain that:
"the last two years of global cooling have erased nearly thirty years of temperature increase."
(page 25)
Again you do not provide a reference. As you can see here, the Met Office HadCRUT3 series shows that this claim is untrue.
a. Please give the source for your claim.
b. How do you reconcile it with the published data?

4. In your discussion of global temperature trends, you maintain that:
"NASA now states that [...] the warmest year was 1934." (p99)
a. Are you aware that this applies only to the United States?
b. Was this a mistake or did you deliberately confuse these two datasets?

5. Discussing climate trends in the Arctic, you state that:
"the sea ice has expanded" (p198).
Again, you give no reference.
a. Please give a source for this claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data?

6. You state that:
"If the current atmospheric CO2 content of 380 ppmv were doubled to 760 ppmv [...][a]n increase of
0.5C is likely" (p366).
Again you give no source. Please provide a reference for this claim.

7. You claim that:
"About 98% of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is due to water vapour." (p370).

Ian Enting says:
"In some cases the numbers given by Plimer are exaggerated to such an extent as to imply that without water vapour, Earth's temperature would be below absolute zero - a physical impossibility."
He explains this as follows.
You state:
"The Earth has an average surface temperature of about 15C [...] If the atmosphere had no CO2, far more heat would be lost from Earth and the average surface temperature would be -3C." (p366)
Enting says:

"The implication of attributing 18C of warming to CO2 while saying [...]'About 98% of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is due to water vapour' is to imply that in the absence of CO2 and H2O, the temperature would be 900C lower, i.e. well below the physical limit of absolute zero."
Again you give no source.
a. Please provide a reference for your claim about water vapour.
b. Please explain how your two statements (98% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour and 18C can be attributed to CO2) can both be true.

continued

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#23552 Jan 31, 2013
part 2, continued

8. You cite a paper by Charles F Keller as the source of your claim that:
"satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming." (p382)
This is what the paper says:

"The big news [is] the collapse of the climate critics' last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes show no significant warming in the past quarter century. Figuratively speaking, this was the center pole that held up the critics' entire "tent." Their argument was that, if there had been little warming in the past 25 years or so, then what warming was observed would have been within the range of natural variations with solar forcing as the major player. Further, the models would have been shown to be unreliable since they were predicting warming that was not happening. But now both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions."

a. How did you manage to reverse the findings of this paper?
b. Was it a mistake or was it deliberate misrepresentation?
9. You state:

"The Hadley Centre in the UK has shown that warming stopped in 1998" (p391).
Again you produce no reference.
This is what the Hadley Centre says:

"The evidence is clear - the long-term trend is that global temperatures are rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last. Natural phenomena will mean that some years will be much warmer and others cooler. You only need to look at 1998 to see a record-breaking warm year caused by a very strong El Niño. In the last couple of years, the underlying warming is partially masked caused by a strong La Niña. Despite this, 11 of the last 13 years were the warmest ever recorded.[...] Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming."

a. Please give a reference for your claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between your account of what the Hadley Centre says and theirs?

10. You state that:
"Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined." (p413)
This is similar to the claim in The Great Global Warming Swindle, whose narrator maintained that:
"Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than all the factories and cars and planes and other sources of man-made carbon dioxide put together."

But you do not provide a source for it.

This is what the US Geological Survey says:
"Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes".
a. Please provide a reference for your claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data?

11. You maintain that:
"termite methane emissions are 20 times potent than human CO2 emissions".(p472)

Please provide a source for this claim.

Thank you,
Yours Sincerely,

George Monbiot

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgem...

Care to answer the questions from his book that Plimer couldn't?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#23553 Jan 31, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and

Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdeling...
TS: No.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/...

While it is true a greenhouse effect has a CO2 fertilization effect -- this is only true if there is enough rain and fertilizer to sustain the added growth. Turns out the real world doesn't work like a commercial greenhouse.

There are season cereals (Wheat, rye, triticale, oats, barley, and spelt) that grow in moderate weather but cease to grow in hot climates.

A study of the warming from this century has shown a very uneven distribution of rains –
And the warmer temperatures means more evaporation of moisture in the soil leading to MORE intense and larger drought areas

More important global warming has been estimated to harm the oceans. This has the greatest negative effect of all!

(i) Science studies have shown that as the surface water of the oceans warmed up, phytoplankton biomass declined -- which means that there will be less ocean plants to uptake this greenhouse gas and less food in the chain for ocean life.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/061206...

(ii) Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Carbon dioxide gas dissolved in the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid, resulting in ocean acidification. This is already killing off the coral reefs and creating dead spots.

<<New study says oceans' chemistry changing rapidly
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/ap_on_sc/...

WASHINGTON – The chemistry of the oceans is changing faster than it has in hundreds of thousands of years because of the carbon dioxide being absorbed from the atmosphere, the National Research Council reported Thursday.

Carbon dioxide and other industrial gases have been a concern for several years because of their impact on the air, raising global temperatures in a process called the greenhouse effect.
One factor easing that warmth has been the amount of CO2 taken up by the oceans, but that has also caused scientific concerns because the chemicals make the water more acidic, which can affect sea life.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the pH of ocean water has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 and a further decline of 0.2 to 0.3 units is expected by the end of this century, according to the Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Science.
The current rate of change "exceeds any known change in ocean chemistry for at least 800,000 years," the report said.
As most folks will remember from school chemistry, pH is a measure of how alkaline or acidic something is. A pH of 7 is neutral, while higher numbers are more alkaline and lower numbers are more acidic.

As the ocean becomes more acidic scientists have raised concern about dissolving coral reefs and potential effects on fish and other sea life.

For example, studies have shown that increasing seawater acidity affects photosynthesis, nutrient acquisition, growth, reproduction and individual survival of certain sea life.

++++++++++

So cut the right wing crap, ok?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#23554 Jan 31, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore's Anthropogenic Global Warming theory
Scientists do not support Gore,

Al Gore supports the scientists.

GW scientific case was established long before Al Gore's documentary. For example:

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/obj...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#23558 Jan 31, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdeling...

As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails... suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
I can't believe you're trying to dredge up this LYING NONSENSE yet AGAIN!!

Firstly, Wallop10 has simply crushed most of your errant "arguments" - care to answer his questions? You've been refuted repeatedly. But there are more errors in your post.

The Telegraph is a true fishwrap, a tabloid that has trouble coming "up" to the standards of our Enquirer.

There is NO scandal with the ginned-up nonsense about "climategate." The scientists did NOTHING wrong, & they've been cleared by multiple investigations.

Your charges about "manipulation & suppression) of evidence" are outrageous, slanderous lies, for which you should pay, either in civil court or criminal.

You probably don't even know that "Mike's trick" & "hide the decline" refer to two totally different things, do you? Hmmm?

From 1880 onward, we actually have temperature measurements from an increasing number of places on the earth. Before that, though, we must use proxies for temperature, indirect indicators of temps at that time.

Michael E Mann et al used tree rings as proxies to infer temps back to ~1000 AD (CE). Tree rings are narrower, & wood more dense, with lower temps.

"Mike's trick" was to use modern temps along with tree ring data to infer temps going back ~1000 years. In science, a "trick" isn't anything depeptive or nefarious, it's just a way of simplifying or combining things so you can better understand them. The result was the famous "hockey stick" shape showing a marked increase in recent temps.

There was nothing nefarious about it. Mann's methods have been cleared by 6 formal investigations, but more importantly, other scientists using other proxies have confirmed his work. Presuming you're not colorblind, just look at the graph. Multiple colors indicate work by other scientists using other proxies that essentially confirm Mann's work. He was right all along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_T...

Most of the trees around the world have rings that have widened, & wood that has become less dense, recently. However, some northern trees show the opposite pattern, with narrowing rings & denser wood.

This is called the "divergence problem," & it has been much discussed in the literature. Since it didn't fit the broad outlines of the rest of the data, Mann et al threw these data out. This is what Dr Jones meant when he said "hide the decline." It was a decline in tree rings widths in some trees. Of course ALL recent tree ring data were thrown out after "Mike's trick" was applied, so it didn't really matter.

But in their paper, Mann et al did hide it, THEY CALLED ATTENTION TO IT! They asked other scientists to study it & figure out what was going on. Several hypotheses have been put forth.

BTW, deleting emails wasn't "suppression of evidence"; all evidence they had was turned over in freedom of information requests. Some data didn't belong to them, so they COULDN'T release it.

Yes, they threatened some deniers in the emails. But several honest climate scientists have been threatened publicly with bodily harm & death. Deniers have tried to get a LOT of them fired.

There is NO scandal. The scientists did NOTHING wrong.
PHD

Overton, TX

#23560 Feb 1, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
YYes ?? Poor P-ppppenny...
Of course, I'm dead, just like your Global Warming credibility.
If you REALLY want a laugh, imagine Penny putting all those "judging marks" up after we copy/paste posts....
Hi, Mistake a minute P-P-Penny,
How are Sheldon and Leonard...
Ps- Almost a moron, stick with it.
People say that you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are not perfect, but you are doing alright.
Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live.
More from the posting dead that never learn or live. Poor UNAmused Stewed.
PHD

Overton, TX

#23561 Feb 1, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists do not support Gore,
Al Gore supports the scientists.
GW scientific case was established long before Al Gore's documentary. For example:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/obj...
Walloped, walloped, walloped all day long. How are those walloped tires working for you?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#23562 Feb 1, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists do not support Gore,
Al Gore supports the scientists.
GW scientific case was established long before Al Gore's documentary. For example:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/obj...
Indeed. I watched yesterday Al Gore interview by Charlie Rose.

He was shining bright in every subject but especially on climate change. His new book must be a great read.
PHD

Overton, TX

#23563 Feb 1, 2013
"WOW" the solar panel guy gets thanks for conserving energy. I would disagree with his scientific science fiction. It must be correct the spaced out spacedoutblues said it is. More scare tactics form the tax extractors.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#23564 Feb 1, 2013
YYes ?? Poor P-ppppenny...
Of course, I'm dead, just like your Global Warming credibility.
If you REALLY want a laugh, imagine Penny putting all those "judging marks" up after we copy/paste posts....
Hi, Mistake a minute P-P-Penny,
How are Sheldon and Leonard...
Ps- Almost a moron, stick with it.
People say that you are the perfect idiot. I say that you are not perfect, but you are doing alright.
Ordinarily people live and learn. You just live
PHD

Overton, TX

#23565 Feb 1, 2013
More of the dead postiong called UNAmused Stewed The UNAmused Stewed never learned or lived. Poor UNAmused Stewed will anyone out there send it flowers?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
State Fair: Corn Dog Vs. Pronto Pup! (Aug '07) 8 min onexpresso 57
Feminist mafia demonizes cosby 10 min Imma Gunna 4
The Politically Correct Religion in Politics 2 hr Culture Auditor 1
Vikings' Peterson says he'll never use a switch... 5 hr cowboy chris 3
Dear White People: Mayor Betsy Hodges is Not in... 5 hr cowboy chris 6
Bill cosby special drink 13 hr Space ace 4
Minneapolis man molests 10-year-old sleepover g... Sat Liberal 6
Minneapolis Dating
Find my Match

Minneapolis People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Minneapolis News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Minneapolis

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:59 am PST

NBC Sports10:59AM
Vikings use long drive to tie the Packers
Bleacher Report11:27 AM
Don't Make It That Easy for Rodgers
Bleacher Report11:27 AM
Don't Make It That Easy for Rodgers
NBC Sports12:07 PM
Packers lead 14-13, but Vikings hanging around
NBC Sports12:07 PM
Packers lead 14-13, but Vikings hanging around