Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

2017's global temperatures

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    I have no particular issue with this but I am going to nitpick a bit on this one point. I doubt capacity for comprehension was a major player in this - I suspect that's not exactly what you're getting at anyway. "Cut on the bias, baste and add darts." is a perfectly clear set of instructions - but only if you already know the jargon. Those without training don't necessarily lack the capacity to understand - they lack the foundation.

    I also suspect the pride and arrogance thing came just as much from those who believed in global warming but who wouldn't know a thermometer from a barometer. That's a big part of the problem of using that kind of derogatory jargon - it sounds mostly like 'rah, rah' for our side' and little like 'you know better'.
    Perhaps so. I struggle with that actually. Some of it is poor science and math education across the board in the US. Some is the aforementioned fear induced by anti-science associated directly with faith itself (e.g. YEC). But this is not just a matter of jargon. It's a fundamental avoidance of science and scientific knowledge by a large part of the population. And to be fair, to fully understand and parse what is going on does require an above average IQ, which means that the majority of people aren't really going to be able to fully parse all the different voices and figure out which ones are based on solid science and which ones are not. Take my afore-mentioned TOB. How many can actually read and understand the paper describing the problem, presenting the data and math that shows the bias and how and why it occurs? 20%, 10% of the population? So 80 or 90% depend on voices they trust to tell them if it 'really' makes sense to apply that adjustment.

    To your second point: absolutely. That happens way too often. And on ALL sides. The environmentalist that just likes the outdoors and believes in 'the cause'. The YEC that thinks AIG proves the Bible is miraculous and that if those silly atheists would just read their webpage they'd suddenly know they were wrong. These are the guys, in my experience, that do the majority of the name calling.

    Jim
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      It's a fundamental avoidance of science and scientific knowledge by a large part of the population.
      I'm going to paraphrase someone (i can't remember who, it's been a while): we live in a society where most people would be embarrassed to admit they've never read Shakespeare, but have no problems saying they hate math or know nothing about quantum mechanics.

      In some ways, i think it's a very long-term hangover from the formation of our higher education institutions in the 1700s, when learning the Greeks and Romans (who never had science) became the baseline for what was considered education.
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        On the surface, one would think a theology that sees humanity as caretakers of the Earth would tend to be for those things that protect it or nurture it. But that fear of science based on battles over evolution and with many of the anti-religious voices of science, and the sort of 'don't look at the real evidence, it's a lie of the Devil' mentality that accompanies YEC sort of dialogues I believe is at least in part what has predisposed the evangelical community to tend to be on the anti-AGW side of the fence.
        Makes sense to me - a pre-existing vulnerability that was easy to exploit once the politics came into alignment.

        Yes, Hayhoe is great. She does a lot of public speaking, and is worth going to see if she's anywhere near you. Based on your posts here, she's unlikely to tell you anything new about the science, but she usually mixes a bit of science with a larger exploration of the cultural issues.

        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        * This is a bit comical. The youth organization website uses 'yecaction', which could mislead one to thing they are Young Earth Creationists (yec), but 'yec' here stands for

        'Young Evangelicals for Climate action".
        Branding - it's important! People tend to dismiss it as just PR, but it's actually often based on our scientific understanding of human perception and behavior.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          Perhaps so. I struggle with that actually. Some of it is poor science and math education across the board in the US. Some is the aforementioned fear induced by anti-science associated directly with faith itself (e.g. YEC). But this is not just a matter of jargon. It's a fundamental avoidance of science and scientific knowledge by a large part of the population. And to be fair, to fully understand and parse what is going on does require an above average IQ, which means that the majority of people aren't really going to be able to fully parse all the different voices and figure out which ones are based on solid science and which ones are not. Take my afore-mentioned TOB. How many can actually read and understand the paper describing the problem, presenting the data and math that shows the bias and how and why it occurs? 20%, 10% of the population? So 80 or 90% depend on voices they trust to tell them if it 'really' makes sense to apply that adjustment.
          I'm going to have to differ on the causality here. The reason I can kinda parse out the methodology is two fold: a solid background in statistics and survey research and a misguided original major in physics (nearly thirty years since last taking math does not help) - the majority of people don't have a background in methodology because it simply isn't taught outside the sciences, yet it's critical to being able to separate wheat from chaff in a world of 'studies'* in so many varied fields. More have at least the rudiments of calculus - but even then, very few have the advanced mathematical skills either at all or in practice (try even simple trig some thirty years out of practice!). I should have pointed this out specifically but 'jargon' in a real sense includes mathematics since math is very much the language of many sciences and definitely a necessary skill to pull apart the internal validity of any climate related study.

          To do the actual research may well take an above average IQ (I am dubious of this but I'm also extremely dubious of 'IQ' as a valid measure of intelligence - it's too poorly targeted) but to see whether or not the thing measures what it says it does takes just knowledge and persistance (I'm convinced many 'slow' kids,with the training they need, could crunch numbers better than a lot of us who have high IQ's - but they might not be able to conceptualize as well - they become engineers instead. ) but to simply examine validity does not - it DOES require the technical knowledge and prowess that the majority of people don't have. And, truth be told, don't need.

          I did my foot note earlier and rambled through the next point so I'll just mention it here - over the last forty years 'science' (using the term in the public perception sense, not to describe the field as a whole) has made thousands of pronouncements - and been wrong a heck of a lot of times in some very high profile ways. Eggs, Styrofoam, et al - industries and countries have made major, sometimes expensive, changes (paper to Styrofoam for example) changes, only to have the 'truth' be overturned by later studies that contradict the original findings. That kind of muddling through is natural to science - no study is perfect nor can they be - and new discoveries can change the picture of old conclusions. But the effect in having it happen so often in the public square is to erode trust in 'experts'.

          That's not altogether bad - people need to take information with a big grain of salt and our education system isn't designed to teach the critical thinking skills necessary. But I think the bad side is part of what you're attributing to religion specifically - people sour on 'science' and begin to mistrust it. Creationists may be highly vocal but they aren't alone in their mistrust of 'science'.

          From my own field, it's fun at this point - people actually have a high trust in scieticism - but not so much in science. They get that applied sciences have done tremendous things - and are very much modernists in that respect - but they have been burned too many times to accept every pronouncement from on high. The result is that the push back usually comes when they are affected - as long as global warming, eating eggs, getting their Big Mac in a Styrofoam box, et al doesn't put them out of work or directly affect their lives, they'll accept it without much consideration. The instant they think it affects them, that will not be true. That's when the social science blend of psych, sociology, poli sci and a bit of anthropology start to play out in some weird and interesting ways.

          Originally posted by OMM
          To your second point: absolutely. That happens way too often. And on ALL sides. The environmentalist that just likes the outdoors and believes in 'the cause'. The YEC that thinks AIG proves the Bible is miraculous and that if those silly atheists would just read their webpage they'd suddenly know they were wrong. These are the guys, in my experience, that do the majority of the name calling.

          Jim
          We tend to notice name calling more when it's directed at us than at our opponents - I'm very guilty of this and I know it happens. In reality, if we measured it, I suspect the rate(s) would mostly likely vary by issue - and probably the medians will be remarkably similar if measured for the majority of issues. People are reflexively defensive - which oddly enough, spurs a lot of the name calling in the first place.




          *The quotes are deliberate because peer review doesn't protect any field, natural or social, of science perfectly from a form of bandwagon effect - crappy studies getting green lighted because they follow the narrative conclusion does happen in all fields. I've tossed dozens of studies that supported what I believed true because the methodology was total crap - and I've seen just as many that support positions I don't accept. We had major issues with this in the teeth of the HIV crisis - and very similar politics - that frankly, didn't serve the population all that well. I'm more familiar with that from my professional career - the bigger problem is from the nutritional sciences - "eggs bad, eggs bad, oh wait, eggs good, no, eggs bad" - the combination of information overkill (who has time to read every study that comes out? No one I know manages that in their OWN field, let alone every study that can affect daily life or political decisions) and discredited authority leads very naturally to a high degree of skepticism of 'experts' in general and scientists in particular. Saccharine, Red Dye Number Two (deadly M&Ms!!! -yes, I'm old), whole milk, eggs and a host of other foods ping ponged back and forth as 'good' or 'bad' erodes public trust. Studies that are little more than grant applications in disguise further complicate the problem and make it that much harder to get people to trust the valid studies that are done.
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            I'm going to paraphrase someone (i can't remember who, it's been a while): we live in a society where most people would be embarrassed to admit they've never read Shakespeare, but have no problems saying they hate math or know nothing about quantum mechanics.

            In some ways, i think it's a very long-term hangover from the formation of our higher education institutions in the 1700s, when learning the Greeks and Romans (who never had science) became the baseline for what was considered education.
            Romans had sciences - they were strong engineers. They didn't have the modern science model of hypothesis/theory or the experimental models we use but that doesn't mean they didn't have science at all. You (general) can't do great engineering without an understanding of physics and in the case of the Romans, rudimentary chemistry.

            The 'pre-moderns' were all cave men' idea (no, I do not think that was what you were saying - but it is a logical offshoot) is patently false. Chemistry began its development in the Medieval period but it existed well before that - they may not have known precisely why using X did Y if you combined it with Z first but they certainly did use a variety of chemical reactions - Romans even had a form of underwater cement. A classical education isn't antithetical to science - all early scientists who weren't self taught were taught classically. That was true until probably the early half of the 20th Century.

            I think the real culprit is modern education methodology itself. This trend started as education became more of a 'modern' profession. They started applying science to education - with hysterically bad results. My father was born in 1904 and educated through the 8th grade. His reading was never as good as it should have been. He was extremely intelligent but had been taught to read by shape, not by phonetics. Reading difficulties can be traced in a number of phonetic theories of teaching as well - and if you think they messed that up, you shold see what they did to math. The increasing number of students put pressure on the fledging systems of mass education as well, Some things, like memorization of tables, were beneficial; others, like having to do every step of a problem in a specific form, not so much. Kids that could get the right naswers or who could do the short cut but not the long form, were penalized - and the idea that 'math is too hard' gets legs.
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              Romans had sciences - they were strong engineers. They didn't have the modern science model of hypothesis/theory or the experimental models we use but that doesn't mean they didn't have science at all. You (general) can't do great engineering without an understanding of physics and in the case of the Romans, rudimentary chemistry.
              I'm going to have to disagree with this for a number of reasons. The simplest is that engineering isn't science. You can do impressive engineering with just a combination of an intuitive understanding of materials and forces plus trial and error. You don't need an actual scientific understanding for it to work. Pre-science, pre-math societies managed to build boats capable of ocean voyage (see especially the Polynesians, who had a number of distinct designs). Science obviously helps engineers immensely, and the two have grown inseparable over the last century. But that wasn't the case during Roman times.

              The Romans mostly had a mix of these intuitive understandings and an Aristotelean "let's reason things out from first principles" attitude. Both of these, as history has shown, can lead to really, really poor understandings of things - misunderstandings that were never cleared up until we actually developed science.

              The last argument i'd make is that historians of science have actually done careful studies, looking for evidence of the precursors of science in the Greek and Roman worlds. The closest thing appears to be Archimedes, but even he's pretty tenuous.

              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              I think the real culprit is modern education methodology itself. This trend started as education became more of a 'modern' profession. They started applying science to education - with hysterically bad results..
              Having talked with someone who tries to apply scientific knowledge to education, the biggest issue he pointed out was that it's impossible to change just one thing from year to year and see how that affects the students. Let's say you see something about human neuroscience that you think could be applied in the classroom, so you make some changes to your lesson plan. Those changes end up mixed in with dictates from the state and local school boards, best practice changes from the teachers' professional organizations, and a few ideas you picked up during continuing education workshops. How do you isolate the effect of any one change to see if it makes a difference? How do you track kids to see how it influenced their further education?

              I don't envy those people who try to study these things.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                I'm going to have to disagree with this for a number of reasons. The simplest is that engineering isn't science. You can do impressive engineering with just a combination of an intuitive understanding of materials and forces plus trial and error. You don't need an actual scientific understanding for it to work. Pre-science, pre-math societies managed to build boats capable of ocean voyage (see especially the Polynesians, who had a number of distinct designs). Science obviously helps engineers immensely, and the two have grown inseparable over the last century. But that wasn't the case during Roman times.

                The Romans mostly had a mix of these intuitive understandings and an Aristotelean "let's reason things out from first principles" attitude. Both of these, as history has shown, can lead to really, really poor understandings of things - misunderstandings that were never cleared up until we actually developed science.

                The last argument i'd make is that historians of science have actually done careful studies, looking for evidence of the precursors of science in the Greek and Roman worlds. The closest thing appears to be Archimedes, but even he's pretty tenuous.
                Sure, if you are looking for modern sciesnce, you won't find it. If you are looking for its rudiments, they are there.

                And I differ that engineering isn't a science at all - especially as it develops. The case could be made of modern science, of course, but you don't build an aqueduct without fluid dynamics.

                Having talked with someone who tries to apply scientific knowledge to education, the biggest issue he pointed out was that it's impossible to change just one thing from year to year and see how that affects the students. Let's say you see something about human neuroscience that you think could be applied in the classroom, so you make some changes to your lesson plan. Those changes end up mixed in with dictates from the state and local school boards, best practice changes from the teachers' professional organizations, and a few ideas you picked up during continuing education workshops. How do you isolate the effect of any one change to see if it makes a difference? How do you track kids to see how it influenced their further education?

                I don't envy those people who try to study these things.
                I don't disagree - but I still think using the classroom as a test tube, especially in the early 20th, has created more of the problem than classical education did.
                "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                My Personal Blog

                My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                Quill Sword

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  Sure, if you are looking for modern sciesnce, you won't find it. If you are looking for its rudiments, they are there.
                  Well, my point is that the rudiments that the Romans had don't produce accurate results, and aren't especially scientific. So if your education focuses on, say, studying Aristotle, then you're not going to come away from that education with a good understanding of science.
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    Well, my point is that the rudiments that the Romans had don't produce accurate results, and aren't especially scientific. So if your education focuses on, say, studying Aristotle, then you're not going to come away from that education with a good understanding of science.
                    Granted, but it worked anyway. Teh classical period of education also saw the beginning of modern science.

                    The current issues with kids that don't like math and science have little to do with education in the 1700's and a lot to do with unsuccessful innovations in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries - and a modern warehouse system does not help.
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      Granted, but it worked anyway. Teh classical period of education also saw the beginning of modern science.

                      The current issues with kids that don't like math and science have little to do with education in the 1700's and a lot to do with unsuccessful innovations in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries - and a modern warehouse system does not help.
                      I think, in retrospect, i wasn't clear in my initial argument. My idea was not that the education system of the time influenced science education today, but that it influenced the cultural environment, setting the stage for one where you could be considered culturally literate without knowing any science (even as science became one of the biggest influences on culture). So i wasn't actually focusing on the current education system at all.

                      Unfortunately, i stopped paying attention to the bigger picture when i responded to your post.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                        I think, in retrospect, i wasn't clear in my initial argument. My idea was not that the education system of the time influenced science education today, but that it influenced the cultural environment, setting the stage for one where you could be considered culturally literate without knowing any science (even as science became one of the biggest influences on culture). So i wasn't actually focusing on the current education system at all.

                        Unfortunately, i stopped paying attention to the bigger picture when i responded to your post.
                        Ah, okay.

                        I admit, now I'm a bit unsure what exactly you mean here. Science is taught at almost all levels of education - it's impossible to get through the US system without any science at all. I kinda get what you're saying - even agree in part - but you don't usually use a lot of hyperbole so I'm not sure if you mean degree or literally none.

                        I'm not even sure it would be fully true for a classical education in all but the earliest periods.

                        Or maybe I'm just over reading here...
                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Quill Sword

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          Ah, okay.

                          I admit, now I'm a bit unsure what exactly you mean here. Science is taught at almost all levels of education - it's impossible to get through the US system without any science at all. I kinda get what you're saying - even agree in part - but you don't usually use a lot of hyperbole so I'm not sure if you mean degree or literally none.

                          I'm not even sure it would be fully true for a classical education in all but the earliest periods.

                          Or maybe I'm just over reading here...
                          Let me try again:

                          My argument is that part of the reason we don't do a good job with science education is that we as a culture are very accepting of scientific illiteracy. That's the Shakespeare vs. quantum mechanics part of things.

                          I'd suggest it might go back a couple of centuries, to where being well-read and educated meant knowing the Greek and Roman classics, but didn't include knowledge of the natural world. That was reflected in the education system of the time, and (to some extent) persists today, though mostly at the college level.

                          Any impact on primary education is indirect, in the sense that we accept scientific illiteracy, and don't try as hard as we should to fix the education system.
                          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            Let me try again:

                            My argument is that part of the reason we don't do a good job with science education is that we as a culture are very accepting of scientific illiteracy. That's the Shakespeare vs. quantum mechanics part of things.

                            I'd suggest it might go back a couple of centuries, to where being well-read and educated meant knowing the Greek and Roman classics, but didn't include knowledge of the natural world. That was reflected in the education system of the time, and (to some extent) persists today, though mostly at the college level.

                            Any impact on primary education is indirect, in the sense that we accept scientific illiteracy, and don't try as hard as we should to fix the education system.
                            Not only are we accepting of scientific illiteracy, we can be out and out hostile to scientific or mathematical competance. We value great sports stars over great physicists or mathematicians. The smart young man or women that might one day make some great scientific discovery is routinely mocked and berated through the primary and secondary schooling unless they also happen to possess above average looks and athletic skills.

                            Jim
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The Arctic is running above freezing this winter.


                              Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/weather/arctic-temperatures-record-high-intl/index.html



                              (CNN)Winter is still in full swing in the North Pole, but temperatures this week have been downright summerlike in the Arctic.

                              Although it is shrouded in the darkness of a 24-hour polar night, temperatures in the Arctic have soared well above freezing this week, marking the hottest temperatures recorded in the region during winter, according to scientists from the Danish Meteorological Institute.
                              Calculations from Cape Morris Jessup, the world's northernmost land-based weather station, show that temperatures from February in eastern Greenland and the central Arctic are averaging about 15°C (27°F) warmer than seasonal norms.
                              And although the Arctic has seen temperatures climbing for decades, the past few years have seen the most extreme changes, according to Martin Stendel, a climate scientist at DMI. For the past 20 years, temperatures above freezing in February have only been recorded three times -- first in 2011, then in 2017 and now.
                              "For years, absolute values of temperatures have become higher and higher, but if you look a couple years back it's not so interesting whether the temperatures were minus 10 degrees C or minus 5 degrees C because the temperature was still well below zero," Stendel said.

                              But this month's unusual rises are interesting -- and unprecedented -- and have continued for a record nine days in a row.

                              © Copyright Original Source

                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                The Arctic is running above freezing this winter.


                                Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/weather/arctic-temperatures-record-high-intl/index.html



                                (CNN)Winter is still in full swing in the North Pole, but temperatures this week have been downright summerlike in the Arctic.

                                Although it is shrouded in the darkness of a 24-hour polar night, temperatures in the Arctic have soared well above freezing this week, marking the hottest temperatures recorded in the region during winter, according to scientists from the Danish Meteorological Institute.
                                Calculations from Cape Morris Jessup, the world's northernmost land-based weather station, show that temperatures from February in eastern Greenland and the central Arctic are averaging about 15°C (27°F) warmer than seasonal norms.
                                And although the Arctic has seen temperatures climbing for decades, the past few years have seen the most extreme changes, according to Martin Stendel, a climate scientist at DMI. For the past 20 years, temperatures above freezing in February have only been recorded three times -- first in 2011, then in 2017 and now.
                                "For years, absolute values of temperatures have become higher and higher, but if you look a couple years back it's not so interesting whether the temperatures were minus 10 degrees C or minus 5 degrees C because the temperature was still well below zero," Stendel said.

                                But this month's unusual rises are interesting -- and unprecedented -- and have continued for a record nine days in a row.

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                It is becoming laughable to pretend the world is not warming ... and warming significantly.

                                Jim
                                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X