Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
currybum said:
NASA has a list of the scientific organisations that agree...
There may be an official statement somewhere but their members don't agree. A small number of activists on committees agree and get to word and then publish the statement. It's not the same thing...and distinguished members of those organisations resign as a result of the shameful politics gathering around junkscience.Even NASA people don't agree with NASA i.e. the activists like Hansen who claim to speak for others but don't. Consensus is a dead-end loser of a route in this context it would be better to stick to pointing to corrupted data and events with no established causality to human activity
Search online for the terms in italics:
Prof Ivar Giaever has resigned from the American Physical Society.
(The society, which has 48,000 members, has adopted a policy statement which states: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring." But Prof Giaever, who shared the 1973 Nobel award for Physics, said: "Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.")
Prof Hal Lewis resigns from The American Physical Society.
("In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none.
Nobel-winning Physicist who Once Backed Obama: Prez ‘dead wrong’ on Global Warming
Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance as Engineers, Scientists, Astronauts ask NASA Administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models.
Ex-NASA Scientists Conclude No Imminent Threat from Man-Made CO2
Hansen's boss at NASA Dr Theon says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’.
Theon: "Climate models are ‘Useless’"
There's plenty more if you want to look for it.
Politics, not science, is the name of the game here.
johnxjsc1985 said:
One of the things I am confused about is rising sea levels. I live alongside an Estuary 25yards from it. We have kept records on a post noting notable high tides for about 15 years there is no evidence of "rising" seas levels if anything tides seem lower now than 15 years ago they are certainly not higher.
What we have noticed is the increase in wind over the last 6 or 7 years throughout the summer and the warmer wetter winters.
I don't know which Estuary you live alongside but the Humber Estuary is becoming more unpredictable over the years.Couple of years ago a tidal surge plus high tide caused a big scare.The tidal barrier to protect the town had a few inches spare before major flooding would have occurred.Winters have become wetter and windy I agree.Maybe we all are like lemmings and leave it until it's to late I don't know.What we have noticed is the increase in wind over the last 6 or 7 years throughout the summer and the warmer wetter winters.
hidetheelephants said:
don4l said:
durbster said:
This is very amusing. Watching you lot get rabid about the Paris summit is far more entertaining than the coverage itself.
Don't you know that this summit is our last chance to save the planet?
In 2009 we only had fifty days, now we only have 10.
es uttered any ridiculous deadlines yet? Each of these bunfights usually produces at least one willing hostage to fortune; it's the kind of thing that deserves to be assembled into a youtube mash-up, an endless stream of self-important gufftraps predicting the end of the world in x days/weeks/years if we don't save the polar bear/pay more tax/drive less/produce fewer rugrats/vote for them/erect more windmills.Should be of interest to the NASA Gospel Choir, and others as well.
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington,
D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate.
We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself. For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir.,
44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22
years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center,
24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir.,
34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40
years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33
years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28
years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48
years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van
Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington,
D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements. As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate.
We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself. For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir.,
44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22
years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center,
24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir.,
34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40
years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33
years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28
years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48
years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van
Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
Weary of internet morons said:
OT
But, what ever happened to Guam? The poster that is, not a soon to be torched and submerged island?
I thought the island was about to capsize. At least that was the worry US Representative Hank Johnson expressed when talking to the commander of US Pacific command.But, what ever happened to Guam? The poster that is, not a soon to be torched and submerged island?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg
Foppo said:
I don't know which Estuary you live alongside but the Humber Estuary is becoming more unpredictable over the years.Couple of years ago a tidal surge plus high tide caused a big scare.The tidal barrier to protect the town had a few inches spare before major flooding would have occurred.Winters have become wetter and windy I agree.Maybe we all are like lemmings and leave it until it's to late I don't know.
Funny that. I live on the Humber estuary and the surge, despite being 2ft above the '53 'event' merely nibbled at the bank where I am. But then, the coast is accreting where I am.rovermorris999 said:
currybum said:
Personally...what evidence would it take for you to hold your hands up and say that you are wrong?
Gosh. Another 'on the fence'. I think we've been here before.
Any scientist worthy of the name would be very interested in seeing a visible causal human signal in some credible and non-tortured global climate data relating to energy or temperature.
Not that the tortured data has as yet shown anything.
With such a signal, there would be no need for "belief" and everyone could agree...would agree. It would be as silly to fail to see a visible causal human signal as it currently is for believers to claim with a straight face that they can see an invisible signal or, only slightly better, believe somebody else who says they've seen it.
"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'."
IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8.6
Don't hold your breath, currybum.
IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8.6
Don't hold your breath, currybum.
currybum said:
NASA has a list of the scientific organisations that agree, I suspect neither of us have the skills to robustly refute the evidence they make that assessment on....otherwise I would be making millions working for an oil company ;-)
I'm sure you have a thousand reasons why they are wrong...but I can't assess them all, so for the time being I'll go with NASA and their list over the consensus of a sub forum of a motoring website.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
When I think I 'believe' something is true, I like to test myself as to what evidence would convince me that I'm wrong....As its not a dogmatic subject for me, I know the bar I have set for changing my mind..and its not all that high.
THat page agrees that 'Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming'. The climate changes, it gets warmer, it gets colder. I've just finished a book where the first third of it was about the Younger Dryas period, the fairly rapid warming and then cooling.I'm sure you have a thousand reasons why they are wrong...but I can't assess them all, so for the time being I'll go with NASA and their list over the consensus of a sub forum of a motoring website.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
When I think I 'believe' something is true, I like to test myself as to what evidence would convince me that I'm wrong....As its not a dogmatic subject for me, I know the bar I have set for changing my mind..and its not all that high.
currybum said:
23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another. So about 1000 years of experience in areas not related to climate science.
Being an expert in one subject does not make you an expert in others... Just look at Ben Carson.
The degrees behind the roles are...Being an expert in one subject does not make you an expert in others... Just look at Ben Carson.
Until governments started paying out huge sums in research grants there wasn't a 'climate science' degree available anywhere. Science managed very well for centuries and climate has been changing for billions of years. Your preoccupation with a label, in reality, has no substance.
AIP said:
In the 1960s and '70s, worries about climate change arose and began to push the diverse fields into contact.
Those diverse fields are those you conveniently disparage in your post.
Climate science studies rely on a sound knowledge of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, meteorology, maths, stats and so on, individuals with qualifications in those areas are more than able to comment. How can people accept the words of Stern, Gore et al and question others...faith moves in mysterious ways...but we should take nobody's word for it.
In fact, given the proselytising nature of climate 'science' it's a distinct advantage. Those going down the climate route these days too often display a woeful lack of grip in terms of basic science and statistics at an appropriate level.
currybum said:
23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another. So about 1000 years of experience in areas not related to climate science.
Being an expert in one subject does not make you an expert in others... Just look at Ben Carson.
Climate change is not all climate science. A lot of it is data gathering, analysis and mathematics, areas in which many/most of the NASA signatories are perfectly qualifies to evaluate. And you’ve ignored my previous post. Any chance of a riposte to that?Being an expert in one subject does not make you an expert in others... Just look at Ben Carson.
Foppo said:
I don't know which Estuary you live alongside but the Humber Estuary is becoming more unpredictable over the years.Couple of years ago a tidal surge plus high tide caused a big scare.The tidal barrier to protect the town had a few inches spare before major flooding would have occurred.Winters have become wetter and windy I agree.Maybe we all are like lemmings and leave it until it's to late I don't know.
Such pointless anecdotal claptrap just proves how chicken littles like you are determined to delude yourselves that there is a climate change problem, for a start, the sea level has not risen by any amount that would cause such an event to be significantly more likely, and for seconds, significantly higher surges have occurred in the past that would have swamped said defences and have cost vast loss of life.It's got nothing to do with CO2 or imaginary climate change, it's got everything to do with chance weather events and combinations of circumstances that have and will always happen regardless of anything man does.
robinessex said:
currybum said:
23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another. So about 1000 years of experience in areas not related to climate science.
Being an expert in one subject does not make you an expert in others... Just look at Ben Carson.
Climate change is not all climate science. A lot of it is data gathering, analysis and mathematics, areas in which many/most of the NASA signatories are perfectly qualifies to evaluate. And you’ve ignored my previous post. Any chance of a riposte to that?Being an expert in one subject does not make you an expert in others... Just look at Ben Carson.
Railway engineering and a proclivity for sexual harassment are obviously related to climate change somehow, I just can't quite see it at the moment.
turbobloke said:
"whatever happened to Guam?"
Spending more time with his family, business interests and indulging sundry peccadilloes.
But clearly not forgotten
Thanks for that. I suddenly realised that I'd not seen him post anywhere for a while and worried he might be banned or that his business might have been hit by activists targeting him for expressing the heresy, I know they do work that way, so and been forced to retreat.Spending more time with his family, business interests and indulging sundry peccadilloes.
But clearly not forgotten
Weary of internet morons said:
turbobloke said:
"whatever happened to Guam?"
Spending more time with his family, business interests and indulging sundry peccadilloes.
But clearly not forgotten
Thanks for that. I suddenly realised that I'd not seen him post anywhere for a while and worried he might be banned or that his business might have been hit by activists targeting him for expressing the heresy, I know they do work that way, so and been forced to retreat.Spending more time with his family, business interests and indulging sundry peccadilloes.
But clearly not forgotten
Edited by chris watton on Monday 30th November 18:57
Mr GrimNasty said:
Foppo said:
I don't know which Estuary you live alongside but the Humber Estuary is becoming more unpredictable over the years.Couple of years ago a tidal surge plus high tide caused a big scare.The tidal barrier to protect the town had a few inches spare before major flooding would have occurred.Winters have become wetter and windy I agree.Maybe we all are like lemmings and leave it until it's to late I don't know.
Such pointless anecdotal claptrap just proves how chicken littles like you are determined to delude yourselves that there is a climate change problem, for a start, the sea level has not risen by any amount that would cause such an event to be significantly more likely, and for seconds, significantly higher surges have occurred in the past that would have swamped said defences and have cost vast loss of life.It's got nothing to do with CO2 or imaginary climate change, it's got everything to do with chance weather events and combinations of circumstances that have and will always happen regardless of anything man does.
To take a better example than a fraction of a mm of global sea level causing Cleethorpes to become the new Atlantis, consider the Great Storm of 1703, within a period of global cooling 1645-1715 known as the Little Ice Age. A couple of sources found from a quick online search describe aspects of this longlasting and deadly storm. One relating to the Humber Estuary is snipped below.
"As far as the Humber Estuary the storm was very severe; we hear of many ships anchored near its mouth being blown to sea, some of which in all likelihood came to grief in the open."
Between 8,000 and 15,000 lives were lost overall...a comparison with today, taking into account population and sites of habitation, makes 1703 the equivalent of of 100,000 people dying in a single day and night. The industrial revolution is generally taken as 1780-1850.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff