Interesting take on all of this. With so many people "religion-less" in our society, it's hard for them to think about their impact on morality as a whole. I mean, if there isn't a God or greater being, then what is the problem with whoring it up, doing all the drugs they can find, and other acts of depravity without any consideration of right or wrong, just about "right now". Global warming and mankind's role in it is a leap of faith using science as a crutch to believe. They WANT to believe it's true so much, they'll use any means to convince others to join their "religion". I do think some people have a real problem with climate change denial. How anyone can deny that the climate changed long before man invented the internal combustion engine is beyond me. The climate is changing at a very rapid rate. How can anyone deny the facts. If you accept that the climate is changing at an unbelievable rapid rate, then the only other question is.....what part does man play in this unusual event. If you believe man is having no effect whatsoever on the rapidly changing climate.... then it will certainly be a good idea to believe in God. He will take care of things as he sees fit.......... Yah.....and the easter bunny is coming soon! By the way..... what the hell does this mean? In a nutshell, the pro-postmodernism argument runs that economic and technological conditions of our age have given rise to a decentralized, media-dominated society in which ideas are simulacra and only inter-referential representations and copies of each other, with no real original, stable or objective source for communication and meaning. I think that there isn't enough information to conclude how much of an effect man is having on global warming. I think the fact that Mars is warming is important and it makes me wonder why so called scientists dismiss it. It makes me suspicious when so called scientists declare the debate over, the debate is never over in real science. And it really makes me wonder how they think they can predict what the temperature will be 100 years from now by tenths of a degree when they aren't nearly so sure what the temperature will be ten days from now. And most of all, I think anyone who claims they are sure about anything having to do with something so complex as the global climate is a liar or an idiot and should be ridiculed and dismissed. Liars and Idiots......somehow my thoughts turned immediately to George W. This is an interesting turning of ideas and shows a pathetic understanding about Post-modernism. In fact the article is Postmodernist in it's approach. There are no fact's to support Anthropogenic Global Warming. The fact is facts DO matter, objective truth matters, and consensus does not. This blogger is not very up on his reasoning about what he's talking about. It does not even makes sense. To turn Post-modernism back on global warming skeptics is like turning Marxist ideology back on Conservatives. The exact opposite is true. Post Modernists want there to be no objective truth. They argue for things like consensus. This rationale of this clip is distorted and nonsensical, it makes me think I am missing something. This is an interesting turning of ideas and shows a pathetic understanding about Post-modernism. In fact the article is Postmodernist in it's approach. There are no fact's to support Anthropogenic Global Warming. The fact is facts DO matter, objective truth matters, and consensus does not. This blogger is not very up on his reasoning about what he's talking about. It does not even makes sense. To turn Post-modernism back on global warming skeptics is like turning Marxist ideology back on Conservatives. The exact opposite is true. Post Modernists want there to be no objective truth. They argue for things like consensus. This rationale of this clip is distorted and nonsensical, it makes... Let them say what they want to... the science won't change here, but among scientists. ... There are no fact's to support Anthropogenic Global Warming. ... To turn Post-modernism back on global warming skeptics is like turning Marxist ideology back on Conservatives.The ironies and irony of ironies of willhelm's statements are just amazing. Willhelm, your knowledge of the subject of climate change is limited, why do you make such blanket statements over such a broad subject with such certainty. You legitimize the clips critique by doing the very thing you deny doing. Hilarious. And did you know that some of the founders of the neo-con movement were 'former' communists? The science has been changing and the IPCC has lowered it's projections every time it releases a report. Yet to listen to the media you would think it is growing. Fact is, as science improves, the global warming threat decreases. n2sooners, what are you talking about? Lowered projections for what? The IPCC projects a lot of things. They have lowered their projected temperature increases and sea level increases. Of course the IPCC does not project a temperature but a range of temperatures. There have been four assessments so far. From the second to the third assessments (1995 v. 2001) there was an increase in both the bottom and total range (hardly the decrease that you assert) and from the third to the fourth there has been a decrease in the upper bound of the range. What has not changed from any of the three reports I mention above is the most likely value of change of about 3 to 3.5 degrees be 2X CO2. Your statements are misleading. As misleading as the headlines touting this as the most dire IPCC report ever? You do not know what you are talking about as your false assertion has laid bare. Why do you insist on continuing to assert knowledge? What "headlines"? Now you are shifting the focus from the science to the reporting of the science? Let's keep the focus on the science. And did you know that some of the founders of the neo-con movement were 'former' communists?Actually socialists. That is why I am not a neo-con. My knowledge of climate change IS limited, of course. So is yours. Mine is not as limited as yours. We have gone back and forth on this and you have never given an adequate reason why YOU believe anthropogenic global warming to be a fact. I on the other hand have given dozens of facts showing anthropogenic global warming to be a farse. Judging by your assessment of my comment, I doubt you even understand it. I leave you and shreibe to scratch you heads in utter ignorance. My knowledge of climate change IS limited, of course. So is yours. Mine is not as limited as yours.You're trying to fight against the scientist ... see his prof Thanks Luixxiul, I have had many exchanges with kmcolo. He has never presented any serious support for his view of anthropogenic global warming nor has he presented any rebuttal to any clip I have ever posted at Clipmarks. I can think for myself and do my own research. I do not need to listen to partisan agenda drivers. You can believe what you want, but you believe it because you WANT to, not because it is factual. You can believe what you want, but you believe it because you WANT to, not because it is factual.There is no belief in science, Willhelm. Belief and faith is for religion. That's why climate change denialism looks like "iconoclasm", "exorcism" or "stoning the devil". willhelm you are like the Bush administration, so much bluster and saber rattling yet so little substance. Feel free to ask this climate scientist any question you might have. There is no belief in science,Then where is the science? Stop with the consensus BS. There is no science to believe in. All the science points away from man causing global warming. So you are faith-driven in fact. Thanks for the admission. so much bluster and saber rattling yet so little substance.I know. I've trounced you with so many FACTS it is beginning to hurt you. You are not much of scientist in my opinion. Denial aint a river in Egypt. I am glad you know what denial is NOT. 1. Historic correlations in solar irradiance and global temps throughout global history are EXACT. 2. No correlations in high green house gas periods in ancient history and high temps. In fact, many times the opposite was true. 3. All the planets in the inner solar system are also warming. 4. The earth has warmed and cooled for millenia. 5. The troposphere has to warm before a green house effect can occur - this has not happened. ( This is proof positive it is natural warming and not a green house effect). 6. It is an impossibility to perfectly measure global temperatures. Most reading are taken from the northern hemisphere around metropolitan areas. ... 1. Historic correlations in solar irradiance and global temps throughout global history are EXACT.What "solar irradiance" measure are you talking about? Let’s be clear here so we know what you are attempting to say. 2. No correlations in high green house gas periods in ancient history and high temps. In fact, many times the opposite was true.A statement like this deserves a citation. What time period? What concentrations? Really? That's news to me. Enlighten me on how you know this? There is recent talk about how Mars is warming. A good discussion on this can be found ... A small perturbation can go a long way. Imagine two trucks that weigh the same on a very sensitive balance. It only takes the weight of a feather to throw the balance. And water vapor is a feedback to increased CO2. More CO2 = warmer = more H2O = warmer. more H2O = warmer.Well, at least that is true. here is a clip from a fellow clipper-scientist. You should follow amgumen Kmcolo. He has some very interesting clips. Well, at least that is true.Which brings us back, full circle, to the truth addressed in the clip. I suppose that by not addressing any of the points or questions you have 'trounced' me again? (Why are you trying to 'trounce' people anyway? Is this a forum for you to go around trouncing people or a forum for learning and departing knowledge? I sense from your words that you see this as a place for competitive word battle. Such mentality will naturally prevent inquiry.) You should follow amgumen...Thanks for the tip. In another, but related, setting, Creationists have drawn on postmodernism in a big way, to argue that all science is just a discursive construct, therefore ID is as valid as anything else. They actually went so far as to use a postmodernist sociologist as an expert witness in the Dover trial. I vaguely recall them doing so in an earlier trial as well. However I haven't yet seen the same argument used by climate change deniers, although that could be because I have come to rely exclusively on Willhelm and n2sooners for the right-wing blogosphere's take on climate change. I have come to rely exclusively on Willhelm and n2sooners for the right-wing blogosphere's take on climate change.I suspected you were highly uneducated. willhelm, no answers? Your silence is deafening. You can either refute the facts or agree with them. Your lack of refutation is what is deafening. Especially from a climate scientist. willhelm, you win. You are just too knowledgeable for me. 11 facts and you cannot refute ONE ? I believe kmcolo had some questions on "Facts" 1 through 6, and 11. Maybe you could answer them. Or you could just bluster instead. Well I have questions about his questions. So I'll just bluster until he can refute. So I'll just bluster until he can refute.Yes, as this clip (remember the clip?) states. This is all that is left to the denialists. Bluster. OK, I take it you have nothing. Just like this clip. http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/17AAD2BC-A8A3-45AE-B08F-E7D18CA70E23/ Face it. You cannot do it. Can you? Yup. Once again you've got me. Nothing here. You win. So now that we have established your complete and utter victory can we get on to the questions? We'll do one at a time. You said: 1. Historic correlations in solar irradiance and global temps throughout global history are EXACT.Now since there are many different potential ways to define "solar irradiance" (as you no doubt know) what way are you defining it? Define it however you want. Educate me. You're the climate scientist. I offered just a few simple facts on the subject of global warming. Now, I ask you to tell me why these facts are not facts. I sincerely want to learn about this. Well, first, it was you that stated these points as facts, the very least you could do is substantiate them with references when asked to do so... Something like "all the inner planets are warming (though as mentioned at odds with a previous assertion that we can't measure the surface temperature all that well) should not be too hard to establish as to why you've come to that conclusion. If you look at this graph of insolation and glaciation for the last 1 million years you will see that though there are strong correlations in solar irradiance and global temperatures they are not exact in that similar solar inputs ... If you look at this graphIt seems this evidence is weak because it more likely supports the evidence of correlation between solar cycles and warming/cooling cycles. Also how is the measure of Earths obliquity determined for any given period of time . Obliquity has probably the largest influence on climate second only to solar cycles. [i]The Milankovitch theory of climate change is not perfectly worked out; in particular, the large... Also, the most glaring example of why to me Anthropogenic Global Warming is false is the stages of glaciation. First, it only covers a 1000 year period, and second it begs the question: What caused the warming? Basically this all interesting stuff I learned in Astronomy Class at College. I understand how these things effect the climate, but I do not see how they are support for Anthropogenic Global Warming. In fact, I see the opposite. Thanks for that link kmcolo. Doesn't it strike you to question anthropogenic climate change given the present correspondence of solar radiance and obliquity. Obliquity had never even occurred to me. It seems to me this information is really a drastic blow to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Do you not think so? If not, why? clarification: obliquity obviously occured to me as it relates to weather patterns, but I had not idea the Earth was presently at it's peak tilt. First, it only covers a 1000 year periodIf you are speaking of the graph. It covers a one million year period. They are not exact because there are other variables.So you now agree that your prior statement: 1. Historic correlations in solar irradiance and global temps throughout global history are EXACT.is false. Shall we move on to point 2? As for solar irradiation be it from Milankovitch cycles or changes in solar output you might visit this page which is a link to a Science paper on the different influences (solar, dust, GHGs) on climate. The present-day obliquity happens to be close to the mean value, and we are in the middle of a downswing (see figure (1)). So you now agree that your prior statement: is falseNo. I agree that they are not exact because of other varaiables. Not that they are insignificant because of other variables. Your graph is aclear indication of both facts 1. They are not exact and 2. other factors are at play preventing them being exact. One of the other variables being obliquity, which clearly supports non-anthropogenic warming. If anything, you have strengthed my understanding of the correlation and made it more obvious to me when you introduce obliquity to the equation. Your interesting description of mean value in your link as it relates to obliquity is misleading. OK. I'm ready for the next one. Hey, restless naturalists, Temperature of your debates is rising. This is a good example how climate influence us. I wish I could live to see how we, human beings, influence climate by means of CO2 or another harmful gas. I would be happy to know that my knowledge empowered me to stop human-induced warming (if any) and to do something to stop ice melting, or to lessen frequency and strength of tornado and other hazards. I even don’t know how much applicable such the scientific terms like “theory”, “correlation” regarding to that set of knowledge and specific data we accumulated about climate. There is no a theory of climate at all, enough to approximate in most common features... Temperature of your debates is rising.I think it has become a good deal more substantive. I agree that they are not exact because of other varaiables. Not that they are insignificant because of other variablesWhich is exactly opposite of what you stated. Not at all. There is an exact correlation in the amount of food I eat and how much weight I gain. However, my actual weight gain is affected by how much energy I expend. That is an exact correlation between weight and amount of food I eat. That is not to say the AMOUNT of weight I gain is fixed according to how much food I eat. Another example: Summer is always warmer than Winter exactly 100% of the time. This is exactly true. Even though actual temperature is affected by other cicumstances. What is very enlightening about our exchange on FACT 1 is that you have to agree with this fact in order to PARSE the word exact. So, it appears you agree with me on FACT 1 g... Not at all. There is an exact correlation in the amount of food I eat and how much weight I gain. However, my actual weight gain is affected by how much energy I expend. That is an exact correlation between weight and amount of food I eat. That is not to say the AMOUNT of weight I gain is fixed according to how much food I eat.So doesn't that mean the idea that greenhouse gases have little to no correlation with temperature is analogous to the idea that exercise has little to no correlation with weight gain? JK, Only YOU can intertwine premises of two different arguments and have them come out to support some view you hold. This is a classic example of my proper perceptions about your reasoning skills. First: We were not talking about green-house gases. Second: We were talking about a direct correlataion in solar radiance and earth temperature. Third: You're premise is false because greenhouse gases do have a correlation with temperature. This is not in question. Third: You're premise is false because greenhouse gases do have a correlation with temperature. This is not in question.Really? Because you seem to be saying the exact opposite when you say that human-made global warming is a myth. In fact, you appear to specifically deny that such a correlation exists here: 2. No correlations in high green house gas periods in ancient history and high temps. In fact, many times the opposite was true. So doesn't that mean the idea that greenhouse gases have little to no correlation with temperature is analogous to the idea that exercise has little to no correlation with weight gain?That isn't true at all. I have never argued that exercise has little to no correlation with weight gain, although it would be nice if that were the case. Anyone that knows anything at all about the global warming issue would know this not to be the case. You caught a mis-statement. The fact is - No correlations in high CO2 presence in ancient history and high temps. In fact, many times the opposite was true. Good for you JK. There is an exact correlation in the amount of food I eat and how much weight I gain. However, my actual weight gain is affected by how much energy I expend.Then it is not an exact correlation between the amount of food you ate and weight gain. You need to call Sears and set-up a service ticket. You've got a spin cycle, but it sure don't wash. There is a Direct correlation in solar irradiance and global temperatures.So, now that you have seen your error and changed your point... Yes, there is a correlation between the amount of power form the sun (at what latitude willhelm and why is that important?), not a big surprise. But why would the Earth's temperature response not be the same over time? Becasue there are factors other than the sun's output that influence climate. Sort of defeats the implied message of your 'EXACT' statement, doesn't it. 2. No correlations in high green house gas periods in ancient history and high temps. In fact, many times the opposite was true.Just a quick view of this graph shows your statement to be false. Shall we go on to question 3 or do we need to go through another spin cycle? This graph... This is just the graph that shows us very important thing in correlation between T and CO2: the temperature changes pre-date changes in CO2. And we even don't need to zoom-in this graph to see it on the left part of the graph. By the way, Kmcolo, this was your question: A statement like this deservesJust take look on your graph in more details. Kmcolo, I'm a bit saddened you choose not to engage in good faith. To resort to accusing a novice of spin must be embarrassing for you. Especially when you have shown that you agree in principle to my comment. You have to in order to argue your point about the word exact. Do you fail to see that? My revision was a good faith compromise on semantics, but does not change the legitimacy of the idea in principle. Furthermore, You are suggesting that because I, in good faith, changed 1 word, that means I agree with you, when It clearly shows the opposite. Because you now agree with this statement: [i]There is a Direct correlation in solar irradiance and global temperatures.... I studied the graph. It shows a couple of things. 1. Amugen is right, overall temperature increase precedes CO2 rise, just like I stated in fact #8. 8. The ppm measure of green gases increases as a result of warming, not the opposite. 2. There are many areas where they move in opposite directions. So, You have just proven facts #1, #2 AND #8 for me. Getting back to the name of the clip. Could you please, Kmcolo, tell us if you know a scientist who would be a climate change denialists? I don't know anyone, no matter how a cause of climate change is considered. The name of the clip is absurd, along with the rest of the clip. Let alone moral decay. The author of the text you clipped lacks logical intellect. Clipping that verbiage you are just multiplying incompetence. Kmcolo, Why did you show the graph? It is a great argument against alarmisim. To prove real impact of human CO2 on climate you should show us a graph with human CO2 and temperature. I going to try to do so. Please see the graph http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s3/amgumen/dT-GFF.jpg with human fuel consumption (that is to blame for CO2) and T. But no ground for alarmism turned out to be from the graph too. Some interesting details in the paper you can read in a clip http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/88FC41EB-B55D-43D9-820F-A830EA6F408A/ Fact # 3 solar trend triton Pluto Mars Jupiter We can skip this one if you want! If you do it means you agree with me so far on facts 1, 2, 3, 8, and you might as well throw in Fact #4. moving on Good work on the Jupiter and Pluto clipping, Willhelm. I'm especially impressed how you managed to keep under the 1000 character word limit in the Pluto clipping. I am also particularly impressed by how the "inner planets" have been redefined. Thanks JK, Apparently it is all too clear how this debate is going. Well kmcolo, despite the usual larks of JK , shall we continue, or do you want to parse this one out? I Repeat, Apparently the tin-foil hatters don't know the difference between evidence and proof. JK, I don't know how I can manage to have a lower opinion of your thinking ability. Let's see we have this chart of the correlation formerly know as EXACT (now known as Direct whatever that means. Will this correlation have more names than Sean Combs?) and we have this chart which shows "no correlation between greenhouse gases and higher temperatures". Pathetic. You know when I was a young man I was a conservative because I saw conservatism to be based in reality. The reality of budgets, markets, and international threats. Now more than a generation later con... As far as I can see, Kmcolo, labeling by means of dofferent -isms is a specific feature of your demagogy. You do so the way communists used to do. Any further discussion of the scientific issures does not make sense. OK Kmcolo, You don't like Republicans. Good for you. We have something in common. Except I don't like Democrats either. So we agree that I am right on facts 1, 2, 3, 8, and 4. In fact, we apparently agree so much you have strengthened the case for me. I agree with you you, I should have said global warming is occurring throughout the solar system. Shall we continue? Or, do you actually think JK, of all people, can tell us what seasonal cycles have to do with global warming. This claim alone shows a vast ignorance about the subject. But I have no doubt his appeal to ignorance was not on purpose. That would suggest he knows what he is talking about. So would you like to take JK's lead and continue on this fact or shall we move on? More of your bluster. It must be hard to have to be right all the time. I like the Jupiter link. You really don't know what you are talking about do you? Well I'm sure that hasn't stopped you before... Wow. Signs of frustration? You haven't refuted a single point ! All you have done is played games of semantics. Either disprove, refute, or provide opposing evidence YOU HAVE DONE NONE OF THESE THINGS ! You have strengthened my case every step of the way. It seems you can't make a case so you call mine bluster. Well that's fine. I know the language games materialist, leftists play. The don't bother me. So the bluster is all yours. UNLESS, you can 1. Disprove 2. Refute with logic or 3. Provide opposing evidence. If I don't know what I'm talking about, you sure aren't doing a very good job setting the record straight. You global warming alarmist liars are tiring. There IS no case. You just W... Regarding point #8 ("The ppm measure of green gases increases as a result of warming, not the opposite.") ...However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations I have to say this is more like it. Good info. However, your falling into a trap and that is that in your opinion and that seemingly of GristMill is that feedback loops always lead to warming. The opposite is true. Also, your source admits that CO2 does not cause the warming, but contributes to it. Well this is not really in question. We know that when the earth is warmed by solar radiance, ocean moisture increases in the atmosphere. When this happens more natural CO2 is created and it takes time for the oceans to absorb it. We can go into feedback loops and feedback loops and feedback loops on feedback loops and they all act as a stabilizing force on Earth's climate. No climate model... Kmcolo, JK linked a very good site for someone that is a climate scientist and agrees with the hype. This site should help a discerning climate scientist see the flaws presented by the alarmists. One of things I did several years ago when I was coming out of my drunken, liberal, sad world was to challenge myself on every idea I held . I made arguments for and against everything. I have a whole bookshelf of journals where I did this. This is very good exercise if you can be honest with yourself. You don't have to accuse Republicans for your disillusionment. There is nobody that has been wrong more than me. I still could be wrong. However, I live by this motto - [i]I could be wrong. But just ... It seems that a lot of time is being spent proving that man is probably not the cause of global warming. I think the argument should be turned around. If you are going to assert that man is a major factor in global warming, shouldn't YOU provide some evidence to that end? I have yet to see any evidence of man's impact on temperature. I'm not arguing that we have zero impact on temperature. Our very presence may have an imperceptible effect. What I'm looking for is proof that we have the kind of impact on global temperature that can harm us. Al Gore claimed in his movie that sea levels could rise as high as 20 feet as well as a myriad of other catastrophes. Claims like these are the v... Wow willhelm, I hate to say it, but you really come off looking pretty bad in that debate.ENBAR Somehow another global warming propagandist wants to chime in. However, does not do it here. Funny thing is Enbar also gives no defense. So here I am still waiting. Well, maybe enbar can read a graph to begin with... Simply stating that man creates CO2 and CO2 = climate change is not evidence.Actually it is evidence, what it is not is proof. The 20 foot sea level remark (I assume since have not seen the Gore movie) has to do with complete loss of the Greenland ice sheet. Not likely any time soon. If you are truly interested in understanding the science of climate change feel free to ask questions. No climate models can take into account with any good degree of certainty the impact and stabalization of all the feedback loops.I don't know if that's true or not, but even if it is true, that doesn't mean that climate models have been failures at predicting climate. [1] Kmcolo, JK linked a very good site for someone that is a climate scientist and agrees with the hype. This site should help a discerning climate scientist see the flaws presented by the alarmists.I'll be honest--kmcolo has shown a lot more intelligence, class, and restraint that you have in these discussions. I can't blame h... I don't know if that's true or not, but even if it is true, thatOf course there are! There are models that predict every scenario. Once again, pitiful ! When there's a dought - models predict it, when there are heavy rains - models predict it, when glaciers advance in India- models predict it, when they recede in Alaska - models predict it, when there are a lot of hurricanes - models predict it, when there are NO hurricanes - models predict it. Show me an outcome and I'll show you a model that predicts it. I'll be honestThanks for admitting that you usually are not. OK, so you assumed that when I talked about "model predictions" I was talking about post hoc predictions. But in fact, the link I provided gave a clear example of a non-post-hoc prediction: in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcan... kmcolo has shown a lot more intelligence, class, and restraint that youOK, great! I am sorry that you and Kmcolo being wrong makes you feel so inferior. Your's and kmcolo's frustration about your inability to present a cogent rational, scientific evidence of anthropogenic warming has become clearly evident. I would expect a climate scientist to be able to present facts, not parse words and prove my point in the process. Also, your comments on my other clips about global war... Somehow I think you're accusing me. How could I think such? I'm apologize if I offended you kmcolo. I get greatly offended by dishonesty, half-truths, misrepresented facts, and alarmism. All I wanted was scientific fact and every "fact" you presented strengthened my case every step of the way. For example, like I commented to JK. A good exchange would be if you were to provide opposing evidence. Where is cooling presently occuring in the Solar Sysytem. That would be a good start. Still having a problem reading the graphs are you willhelm? Tell me again how you see "Historic correlations in solar irradiance and global temps throughout global history" that are now formerly known as EXACT? And tell me again how you see "No correlations in high green house gas periods in ancient history and high temps. In fact, many times the opposite was true." when looking at those graphs? I mean you should be able to discuss what a correlation is and tell us how you see these things, no? Or is this more bluster from you about things of which you do not have a clue? Still waiting... In the meantime I think I will post a link to this exchange on my blog. |
View the Top Clips from February 28, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||
