Personal View site logo
EU: Global warming results
  • 94 Replies sorted by
  • Meanwhile, the French news (Antenne 2) is showing a "heat wave" (31°C) within the Arctic circle:

    «La Laponie, pays du Père noël .. au moment où l'Europe se plaint du froid, la Laponie connaît les records de chaleur»

    Of course, the rest of the news bulletin still shows mostly news from France, with people still wearing their pre-May April gear, «au mois d'avril, ne te decouvre d'un fil» - woolies and anoraks.

    So this is one of those news bulletins where the weather appears right in the middle of news items, just after the flooding news.

    At times like this I wish I'd quit media school and studied meteorology. Who'd ever have imagined it was going to become such a cool job and the weather such a fascinating, evolving discipline?

    100_0517.JPG
    2048 x 1360 - 545K
  • I've quoted quite a few Wikipedia items, partly because, like academic papers, it's a peer-reviewed kind of shambolic academic paper. (Yeah yeah yeah we know what Wikipedia is).

    But, since some of us may well have something to contribute , why don't we jump onto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming and just edit out whatever we disagree with and replace it with our own?

  • Guys, Personal View com may well become the last bastion of Global Warming Denial. I suppose we should be congratulated in some way.

    LOL

    I guess I'd be saying, in response to the past few accusations, a "sticks and stones" kind of thing. But of course, I don't care: I've got the entire scientific community with me and I'm not going to bother anyone with repeating the motherhood-style global warming message.

    Thing is that this topic is not about whom you have behind, better just provide facts and links.

  • The arguments over the science obviously won't be resolved here, unambiguous though the data is, but there's one argument adopted by the skeptics/deniers which is very puzzling: the claim that the U.S. government, in a conspiracy with the environmental movement, is promoting this huge global warming scam.

    If you actually examine U.S. policy, foreign and domestic, the U.S. government is one of the major impediments, world-wide, to getting any real reduction in fossil fuel emissions. All it does is issue pious, insincere exhortations to Brazil and China, to make the sacrifices we ourselves won't make, because Exxon-Mobil's lobbyists won't let us.

    I would also think you guys would be swayed by the ultimate arbiters of reality: the insurance industry. As has been pointed out, insurance companies believe in global warming (it's already showing up in your policy rates) and they have the data to prove it. And internal analyses at the Dept. of Defense regard global warming as a serious threat to national security.

    But what the hell. As has also been pointed out, species last on average 100,000 years before heading for extinction, and we're overdue by that measure. Besides, with the increasing disparities in wealth, low wages and the growth of corporate power, people are more miserable than ever, and movies won't restore happiness.

  • Guys, Personal View com may well become the last bastion of Global Warming Denial. I suppose we should be congratulated in some way.

    I guess I'd be saying, in response to the past few accusations, a "sticks and stones" kind of thing. But of course, I don't care: I've got the entire scientific community with me and I'm not going to bother anyone with repeating the motherhood-style global warming message.

    The only time, (to repeat, the only time) people's opinion about the science matters is when they vote. An individual's tiny contribution at home matters, of course, but we're all in for an interesting ride as governments and industry grapple with the plague of Homo Sapiens and his energy demands.

    As a topic, global warming is massive. The daily news will get distracted from it by more immediate, compelling concerns, but its effect on us will almost certainly be inexorable*: throughout whatever wars, financial crises and quite clearly despite a shrinking minority of individuals who in some ways deny part of the science - and seem not to understand how science works.

    The strange thing is, the pseudo-sceptics, when they do get converted, do so in the least scientific way, by saying a particular hurricane or event is directly due to global warming.

    When it comes to Climate Change 101, I think I've cited a lot of the sites producing responsible news. On to Climate change V.102. Which is a fascinating topic, because of the inherently poor predictability of the multiple elements climate is composed of, I've mentioned fluid dynamics before - but there are all those other contributing (and diminishing) factors, like the earth's crust, radiation and a host of things which have probably never happened before.

    Incrementally, though, climate prediction computer models are being refined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model .

    News of climate change might rarely be absent from our nightly bulletins. We can check the warts-and-all Google News - although I have set up my own RSS alerts to trim off the bulk of information so as to show only real scientific news.

    In fact, for me, the seemingly obscure highlight in today's news is

    Of course, as usual, this relates to published research.

    The paper, led by Dr Roger Bodman from Victoria University with Professors David Karoly and Peter Rayner from the University of Melbourne and published in Nature Climate Change today, found that exceeding 6 degrees warming was now unlikely while exceeding 2 degrees is very likely for business-as-usual emissions.

    When I said, " *almost certainly .. .inexorable" I meant that it is possible, though not likely, that we're coming into a ice-age anyway and that our warming our planet may save us from freezing to death. (wouldn't that be nice?) That's the kind of thing we tell ourselves when we're in a taxi, running late to get to the airport: "the plane might be delayed anyway."

    That said, a lot of Climate Change denial arises from human difficulty in distinguishing what's possible from what's probable: hence the conspiracy analogy: somebody explains to us, point by point, how NASA could have faked the moon landing, and the more we look at the parameters and agree that they could have faked it the more we strangely start to like the idea and think they did fake it. DIstinct from confabulation, Conspiracy theorists' thinking processes are within us all.

  • Gonna throw my completely opinion driven non scientific hat into the ring just for fun. Do I believe that the Earth's Climate is slowly becoming Warmer? Yes

    Do I believe that this will have several harmful side effects for Humans and Animals? Yes Do I think pollution is bad and that looking for Alternate sources of energy is good? Yes

    Do I think that the Climate would not be changing if not for the industrial revolution? No.

    Global Warming is inevitable, as is Global Cooling, the Earth's Climate has been changing since the beginning of the Earth. Super Volcanoes that erupt every 5 million years or so spew more C02 and other harmful gasses into the air in a few seconds than mankind has created since the 1800's, but the Earth recovers. (Albeit not without time and devastating loss of life.) My only real point is that while I believe ManKind's pollution does have an effect on the Earth, Some other problem will probably wipe us all out long before we destroy the planet, maybe we'll clean up our act and natural Climate Change will occur anyway. There have been Several Mass Extinctions since the dawn of the Earth, way before Man existed, so whether we cause it or not is silly to argue over.

    Sources: Science Classes, Kindergarten - College Geology

  • Perhaps the great weakness of capitalism will turn out to be the flipside of its strength. Capitalism is a incredible wealth generator, allowing us all to consume more, become fat and complacent, and insuring that each of us in some way has a vested interest in the status quo. A totalitarian system can dictate change from the top, but it seems like in our capitalist system change is mostly driven by economics, with a big exception being catastrophes and wars, where humans have a great ability to rally to an immediate threat. Perhaps we could say these catastrophes are an economic threat as well, but that's another issue… In the US, environmentalism was initially widely popular in the 60's and 70's with both Republicans and Democrats, and only ran into serious opposition when it appeared to threatened the economic status quo of industry. The whole idea of climate change, that the status quo is somehow moving in a self destructive direction and has been for a long time (in human terms), is incredibly threatening to most of us - economically and at some fundamental level, morally. People don't like to be wrong. Governments don't like to be wrong. People that have money invested don't want to here that there investment might be injurious to the wider community.

    Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” This could comfortably translate into, "It is difficult to get people to believe in something when your whole way of life depends on it not being true."

    Most of my income comes from skiing, so I would dearly love to see the fallacy in climate change. Perhaps it will all be disproved in time. But I also have 2 daughters and will soon have a granddaughter, and worry about the their future and what the possible changes will bring. To ignore such a large body of evidence and agreement within the relevant scientific community seem very caviler from this vantage point. If I do a mental exercise of composing a letter to my progeny, then taking at least a cautionary and proactive approach to a potentially devastating threat seems like a minimum and conservative position.

    One could say the scientific method of investigation based on empirical and measurable evidence has brought incredible changes to humanity and our planet in the last few hundred years, some good and some not, but it would be tough to argue that this system has not had an incredible magnifying effect on humans' innate cleverness. There have been, no doubt, mistakes, some quite profound. The system of pier review has been set up to try and catch and correct the bias and unseen errors that we all are capable of. Scientists, to a great degree, hold the scientific method as their religion. To say there is a large scale conspiracy among scientists and like minded governments - non of whom have done anything meaningful about climate change - is not credible. Scientists are human and prone to bias, bribery, and contrarianism just like the rest of us, but thousands of scientists are not conspiring to deceive us… for?

    As to Al Gore or any other climate change believer being hypocritical - they most definitely are. I am too. I fly, drive a car, the list goes on and on. Being hypocritical is being human. It does not disprove science or make someones message inaccurate.

    I would note that the insurance industry is no longer on the fence about this - they are planning according to a world affected by climate change (already). The US defense department (hardly a bastion of left wing ideology) is also basing its future scenario assessments on a world with climate change as the reality. Finally, the same energy companies that are donating millions to obfuscate the issue are madly jockeying for position (along with northern hemisphere governments)to drill in the arctic as soon as the ice is gone….

    For those who think they are bravely standing up and defending the status quo, welcome to the party, there's a lot of intelligent like minded people there, the music's really good and the drinks are on the house.

  • three links just to make a short selection which show the dominant agreement among scientists and governments:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782

    http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/08/science/earth/record-setting-heat-across-the-us-in-2012.html?ref=globalwarming&_r=0 warmest summer ever

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5911/240.short food shortage due to global warming

    what would actually be the benefit of all those governments achknowledging global warming? all those debt ridden countries, who would prefer to invest their budgets in other areas.

    @svart: good thing that those stations in the states might be influenced by other factors and dont give the real temperatures. i am sure the same applies for east africa, with its similiar infrastructure than the united states, all those buildings, airports and gas stations.... http://globalwarming.markey.house.gov/impactzones/eastafrica.html

  • @Mirrorkisser

    ok lets end this thread and all agree on: there is no global warming, no overfishing of the seas, no extinction of a dozen species everyday, no shrinking rainforrests, no racism, no lobbyism, bill clinton never got a bj by lewinsky, no starvation in the 3rd world, no radioactive radiation in fukushima and last but not least, just to repeat myself as you do: there are weapons of mass destruction in iraq. and we need guantanamo to defend our freedom!

    I doubt it add any value here and is proper way to handle this discussion. It is better to keep it all to yourself.

  • ok lets end this thread and all agree on: there is no global warming, no overfishing of the seas, no extinction of a dozen species everyday, no shrinking rainforrests, no racism, no lobbyism, bill clinton never got a bj by lewinsky, no starvation in the 3rd world, no radioactive radiation in fukushima and last but not least, just to repeat myself as you do: there are weapons of mass destruction in iraq. and we need guantanamo to defend our freedom!

    and capitalism in its strongest form and hardcore neoliberalism are the tools to help the poor man, because the money works its way down to the bottom, thats why every american can have a decent life on one fulltimejob. and we should go on and make more and more debts, companies like the good people of halliburton need our money, so its best to ship taxes to the companies that do the best lobbyism, those honest folks deserve it!

    palin for president!

    @svart and please, you have hardly read anything that anybody here posted that contradicts your opinion. this thread died a long time ago, as nobody including you was able to discuss without emotions and nobody moved a single inch. @jrd was right. there is no point in posting the most convincing data in the world, you would not even read it and would not be willing to move one inch, so why bother...

  • Just for fun, here is a paper that presents data that suggests that CFCs are the real culprit behind AGW:

    http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732

  • @BlackLegSanji The temperature records are reconstructed from various sources of data depending on their length of record and quality of data. Obviously direct measurement is best, but the best satellite data is only about 30 years old and much of the early data was pretty crude. Before that, manual temperature readings were done, before that, tree-ring proxy data is used and before that, ice coring. That can take you back several thousand years with VERY careful work.

    I'm going to attempt to link to nothing BUT research work being done by credible universities or professionals since a number of previous posts seem to skip over factual data and attempt to insinuate (poorly) that my links are not worthy of reading and also insinuating that I've linked to profiteering websites of people who secretly work for "The Man" somehow.

    Since someone was stating that there were no papers, none, that dispute global warming, Here is a lengthy paper from Jan Esper, Ulf Büntgen, Mauri Timonen, David C. Frank of The Gutenberg University, the Swiss Federal Research Institute, Finnish Forest Research Institute and Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research that clearly shows that temperatures were warmer 1000 years ago and again 2000 years ago:

    http://www.wsl.ch/fe/landschaftsdynamik/dendroclimatology/Publikationen/Esper_etal.2012_GPC

    With a graph pulled out for your viewing convenience:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/esper_2012_fig4.png?w=640&h=206

    I've already linked to ice coring data that shows that CO2 increases follow temperature increases over the millennia, with pretty boring results. Up, down, up, down, the cycle goes, we just happen to be on the tip of an up cycle. That seems to have been completely overlooked in this thread, but I'm not surprised one bit. Opinions die hard and even plain data isn't enough to convince people who are emotionally invested in an idea.

    However, since NOAA data is being cited but not really shown, here is a Greenland ice core that shows a number of things. One of which is that yes, there is an uptick in temperature in the last100 years. However, it also shows that in the last 1000 years, temperatures were MUCH warmer than they are now. Going back 5000 years, it shows that temperatures were MUCH warmer than the spike 1000 years ago, going back 10000 years shows that the temperature cycle over time is actually cooling, and going back 500000 years in Antarctica, shows a very clear cycle in the earth's climate.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html

    500 years graphed from the ice core data provided by NOAA:

    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo61.png

    1000 years:

    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo5.png

    5000 years:

    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png

    10K years:

    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png

    500K years (from Antarctica):

    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png

    Do these graphs make it clear yet?

    The other problem is that even the most careful scientist can fall victim to his own bias (confirmation bias) and foul up his data reconstruction as was the result in Michael Mann's hockey stick graph or Ken Briffa's tree ring data, both shown to be inaccurate when compared to actual data.

    Mann's hockey stick is alone in leaving out the Medieval Warm Period, which shows that temperatures were likely warmer than they are today, not to mention relying heavily on NWS surface station data that appears to be flawed (more on the surface station later):

    A vehemently skeptical Australian website explains what happened to create the "hockey stick" graph that people use as "proof" of global warming:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

    Mann backtracking on his work saying that it shouldn't have been taken as seriously as it was after his graph was proven to have grand flaws:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7849441/Michael-Mann-says-hockey-stick-should-not-have-become-climate-change-icon.html

    Paywalled paper showing MWP being warmer than now, but you can still see a number of graphs:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018212003926

    Briffa's tree ring proxy data seems to be cherry picked featuring a single tree, but I'm not totally sold that he did this on purpose, however the Hadley Climate Research Unit has taken his data off their webpage and I'm having trouble finding a suitable link showing his result. I'll leave the other data to speak for itself:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/whats-going-on-cru-takes-down-briffa-tree-ring-data-and-more/

    Whereas others have reconstructed tree ring proxy data and found the earth COOLING over time (from Nature, since others in this thread only seem to think magazine articles are worthy due to their peer review):

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/full/nclimate1589.html

    Or this one, from NOAA which shows that the same Yamal tree ring data that Briffa used showed completely flat results:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/hantemirov2002/hantemirov2002.html

    So lets talk about some modern surface stations. The problem is that stations that were once situated properly are now too close to buildings, roads, airports and so forth, which biases their temperature readings upwards because all these man made objects either emit heat or trap natural heat and radiate it. You can read all about it and the VOLUNTEERS who check up on the stations when the NWS refuses to admit failure to adhere to their own standards for station siting here:

    http://www.surfacestations.org/

    Once you take a look at the work these folks are doing, you'll see that much of the modern meteorological temp data is biased upwards and no attempt is made to unbias it, which results in a false sense of warming if you are only looking at raw data.

    So there. Tons and tons of research being done by credible universities, professionals and volunteers that refute tons of the hear-say and rather dogmatic topics that many have brought up. I've attempted to bring a fact-driven argument to the table, so lets see who actually cares enough to review the data I've posted and engage in a fact-based discussion and who will continue to resort to emotional opinion and underhanded insults rather than post their own facts.

    Oh and for good measure, here is a link to a list of 250 PEER REVIEWED skeptical papers on Climate Change:

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

  • Walker is a bit of a zealot...and he gets his info mainly from the CSIRO...now even senior scientists that belonged to the organization (as I put a link to a page or so back) have said its government controlled and government biased, its not allowed to contradict government and it pushes government policies.

    And Walker talking about Conspiracy theories? ...honestly whats he really saying? he's saying dont doubt government, dont doubt so called approved scientific data, even if the organization is fully government controlled.

    Well I say...if you are not suspicious...you are 1. Either on the gravy train. 2 Completely Niave 3. Both

    The Australian government (The Gillard Govt) is the type of government that recently tried to control the press (for political) reasons and failed (that made world news recently), so to say they wont interfere is naive at best.

    They also own the ABC practically speaking (Walker worked for them to) the ABC does not have a single conservative or right wing commentator on its panels (although it's tax payer funded) and 70% of the people want the Socialist Union controlled Left Wing Gillard Government out. Every other self funded or business owned station has both right and left wing commentators...but not the ABC. This directly contradicts Walkers claims that business is always biased or whatever it is he is trying to push across, I would say the opposite is true, its the government thats biased, business is biased too, but Government is far worse and more insidious.

    So to say the CSIRO is not unbiased is absolute nonsense...I would trust them THE LEAST when it comes to to unbiased information, they are a ROGUE source and are POLITICALLY left wing motivated.

    So my beef is Walker is constantly trumpeting all this government approved so called scientific data re GW from the CSIRO. One of my pupils father works for the CSIRO and even he does not have a lot of good to say about it. Just informing anyone who wants to know...you can check on it if you like...also see my earlier links. heres another

    http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/CSIROpaperFinalNoLink.pdf

    There are tons more.

  • @Walker pulling the 'conspiracy nut' card now? As if your previous ad hominem attacks weren't enough. Stick with reason - the labelling of others as nuts, idiots, paranoids etc. won't do you any favours. Makes you sound like a red guard shouting 'beware - counter revolutionaries!'

  • I said it doesn't matter. Read it again, please.

    Well ok then. I'm saying that it does.

  • Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories

    (relevant to this discussion for reasons which will become evident)

    by University of Kent psychologists Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton in a paper entitled “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories,” published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science this past January. [2012]

    From By Michael Shermer, Scientific Americain

    The authors begin by defining a conspiracy theory as “a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal” that is “notoriously resistant to falsification … with new layers of conspiracy being added to rationalize each new piece of disconfirming evidence.” Once you believe that “one massive, sinister conspiracy could be successfully executed in near-perfect secrecy, [it] suggests that many such plots are possible.” With this cabalistic paradigm in place, conspiracies can become “the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system.”

    The authors suggest there is a higher-order process at work that they call global coherence that overrules local contradictions: “Someone who believes in a significant number of conspiracy theories would naturally begin to see authorities as fundamentally deceptive, and new conspiracy theories would seem more plausible in light of that belief.” Moreover, “conspiracy advocates' distrust of official narratives may be so strong that many alternative theories are simultaneously endorsed in spite of any contradictions between them.” Thus, they assert, “the more that participants believe that a person at the centre of a death-related conspiracy theory, such as Princess Diana or Osama [bin] Laden, is still alive, the more they also tend to believe that the same person was killed, so long as the alleged manner of death involves deception by officialdom.

    Now, does this not set any bells ringing? State-subsidised research into Climate Change being a [sinister plot revenue-earning scenario], etc etc? >

    As Alex Jones proclaimed in Conspiracy Rising: “No one is safe, do you understand that? Pure evil is running wild everywhere at the highest levels.” On his Infowars.com Web site, Jones headlines his page with “Because There Is a War on for Your Mind.” True enough, which is why science and reason must always prevail over fear and irrationality, and conspiracy mongering traffics in the latter at the expense of the former.

    Comment on this article at ScientificAmerican.com/sep2012

  • @Gamer_s

    So you are saying that gov. grants are a rare sight in science? CISCRO has no monetary connection to the AU government?

    I said it doesn't matter. Read it again, please.

  • @Mirrorkisser

    While some [often pharmaceutical] companies do engage scientists - but with very limited terms of reference so as to enhance their products, what's more common is not the result of the research but rather the decision not to publish the results which cross their table but do not serve the company's needs.

    The tobacco industry, after trying this technique to prove smoking is not harmful, failed in their forays into science, but still managed to limp along selling cigarettes for another 20 or more years, claiming instead that there as "doubt" as to whether smoking caused cancer.

    The Global Warming Denial industry have been accused of exactly the same tactics.

  • @gamer_s commercial research is ALWAYS there to prove a point. Gov. funded science perhaps sometimes. But putting them on the same level is just false, thats like comparing a 50-50 shot with winning the lottery jackpot, just because it can happen..

    I never said anything about putting them on the same level. What im trying to explain, but obiously not doing a very well job at it, is that you have to look at the actual science. Not automatically approve or disprove it based on the funding. I think a lot of people automatically approve gov funded science based on the belief that it is unbiased just because the money came from the government.

  • I don't know or care where you got the idea government grants were involved.

    @Walker

    So you are saying that gov. grants are a rare sight in science? CISCRO has no monetary connection to the AU government?

    I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I know from experience of working in healthcare, that without gov. money, there would not be a whole lot of research going on at karolinska institutet in stockholm anyway.

    The swedish governemnt spent 30 330 000 000 sek on research during 2012 and is, according to itself anyway, the biggest economic contributor research at universities in sweden.

    http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/2470/a/35318

    How would you suggest this does not affect the science carried out in sweden?

    Fart in the universe you say. Lets see. How about the HTLV virus "discovery" and subsequent AZT treatment? This science does not even hold up in court. Pretty far reaching consequences i'd say.

  • @gamer_s commercial research is ALWAYS there to prove a point. Gov. funded science perhaps sometimes. But putting them on the same level is just false, thats like comparing a 50-50 shot with winning the lottery jackpot, just because it can happen...

  • @Gamer_s

    So gov. funded science is never there to "prove the point"? To further a political agenda? Create lifelong careers for the scientists, should the results prove "fruitful"? Guess again!

    Can you provide any instances of such a thing ever happening, resulting in papers we can read? Frankly, I imagine it must have been tried somewhere. I remember the Soviets researching ESP. That sounds pointless, but it now makes me wonder whether they ever really published their findings, or was it just for the newspapers? In which case, it would have made fish and chips wrappers & bin liners but not so much as a solitary fart in the universe of science.

    Are you suggesting people are managing to get falsified results past the peer review process and afterwards? This severely published.

    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

  • @Mirrorkisser

    So gov. funded science is never there to "prove the point"? To further a political agenda? Create lifelong careers for the scientists, should the results prove "fruitful"? Guess again!

  • @Gamer_s

    The process of getting an academic paper finished and published is very rigorous.

    I don't know or care where you got the idea government grants were involved.

    Anybody, self-funded, privately funded or an unfunded individual who can contribute to our knowledge by successfully publishing results, deserves to be listened to. The spokespersons I have cited are authorities in their field because they are published.

This topic is closed.
← All Discussions