Jump to content


Photo

Global Climate Change


  • Please log in to reply
120 replies to this topic

#21 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,362 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 18 April 2017 - 05:09 PM

Of course, there are some very intelligent people confronting the panic of Global Warming alarmism. Trump is hardly alone there. Here's a paper by a physics professor Mike Van Biezen way back in December 2015:

http://www.dailywire...mike-van-biezen
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#22 queenbee1

queenbee1

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,084 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 18 April 2017 - 06:59 PM

It seems like when I debate this issue it is like religion. Science is not religion and religion is not science. The guy who writes this article seems to have credentials, but again is this science and what is opinion? Government leaders (excluding Trump), 95% of Climate scientists agree, NASA, NOAA the list goes on and on and then I see the story above and he says nope it's not happening.

 

"When I present my material during presentations at local colleges, these are the charts that have some of the greatest impact in affecting the opinion of the students, especially when they realize that there is a concerted effort to misrepresent what is actually happening." A concerted effort to misrepresent. That is a strong charge to make based on what? What is the motive to misrepresent climate change?

 

Even the Pentagon sees reason for concern and still the Trumpets of the world continue to deny science. Most people don't even understand what CO2 emissions does in relation to our fragile atmosphere. If you look hard enough you will find some guy like this who lays out a plausible theory. So is climate change real? Is God real?

 

Maybe theists think God will just step in and blow all the carbon emissions away. Being dependent on oil, natural gas and coal makes no sense at all. No one needs to go into a coal mine anymore, frack natural gas with clean water and cars don't need to run on gas at all. All our power can come from the sun and wind, but why not just blow up a mountain instead?

 

There is simply no justification is burning fossil fuels anymore. Denmark gets all on it's power from wind. Maybe we should spend our resources more wisely like the Danes. Do you think at below sea level that The Netherlands believes that climate change is not happening?

 

The only reason we don't wean ourselves off is not Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever you want to call it. The reason is greed. The fossil fuel industry owns this place. They own all the politicians and we cannot do a damn thing about it. Does that article address the fact the wildlife is losing ground? Not one mention in this article of the fact that we need the rain forests just as much as the animals that live there. Screw the animals and especially the Polar Bears. Let them drink Coke. This is our planet and we will do what ever we want to it. The Donald is ready to start a nuclear war so all of this may be a moot conversation soon. How much CO2 would you imagine was created when he sent 59 cruise missiles to Iraq, er I mean Syria and how about the MOAB that he used in Afghanistan? How many innocent people died to kill a few terrorists?Do they pick up the body pieces and claim this one is a terrorist and this one is collateral damage? Was it another Mission Accomplished? Hoorah!

 

http://www.noaanews....cent-years.html


Edited by queenbee1, 18 April 2017 - 07:05 PM.


#23 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,362 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 18 April 2017 - 08:25 PM

Hi queenbee1. You're right about the subject of the environment being a religion. For some it almost is. Where I live about 7 years ago they started charging us $130 per month on our commercial water bill to fund studies on stormwater runoff. They actually call the this charge the stormwater runoff fees. When I called about it too my local utility company they told me it was handed down to them by IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management) who had it handed down to them by the Federal EPA. Would it ever end? Nope. The studies will go on forever. Now most residential customers only pay $3-$4 a month for this fee and they just let it go. But as you can imagine it amounts to a lot of money all to protect the environment.

Give me a break.
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#24 queenbee1

queenbee1

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,084 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:08 PM

The whole point is to change behavior Gary not tax people. Indiana just missed the point. So what do we do? Well The Donald is shuttering the EPA. Maybe it needs to go away. He also promise HUGE spending on infrastructure. Now where is that money going to come from? Orlando has changed. Instead of spreading out we are building up and it's really not that important of an issue for you and I. It is important for future generations and the animals it is displacing. They will never clean up the gulf of Mexico due to the Horizon blowing up. Greed was what caused it. BP and all the others should not be building more offshore drilling. They should be buying old coal fire plants and converting them to solar and wind that don't require fossil fuel.

 

We need to take the incentives out of fossil fuels, not tax people for rainwater studies. I know that I water my yard with city water and it is very expensive. The water is not so expensive as the city sewer charges on top on that. Like I said we haven't had any rain in over a month and none in sight. This is very unusual weather.

 

I am talking about Solar and Wind replacing Oil and Coal as well as electric cars that would come down in price if they were made by GM, Chrysler and Ford and the government said electric cars will be mandatory in 2025. Just think no more gas station that leech gasoline into our drinking water. Just phase all this in and be sensible about it. The Congress doesn't seem to want to be sensible about anything.

 

We don't need to make the House of Saud rich on American money. They are the main exporters of Wahabism which I consider deplorable. The world needs more free speech and freedom of the press. Less morons getting their news on Facebook which is who generate all the fake news. Not ABC, NBC and CBS. 

Fox and MSNBC are nothing more than propaganda arms of the Right and Left.


Edited by queenbee1, 18 April 2017 - 09:31 PM.


#25 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,362 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:26 PM

In my global warming debunking article the fellow tells about how there was a global cooling in place from 1940 to 1980. So when they compare numbers from today to these colder times, they are in effect comparing, as he says, summer temps now with something like spring temps from the 1980's. The early years of the 1980's were the coldest on record for some places, he states, with 1983 officially the coldest year of them all. What we should compare to are the warmer decades just prior to WWII. We are on a par with those, he states.

One has to ask, as the man writes, why when the automobile was growing massively in popularity during the 40's to the 80's did there exist a huge global cooling? There was obviously a great increase in man-made emissions and the like at this time. But no global warming?

As far as the money aspect goes of fossil fuels, you're probably dead on. There's no incentive for the companies to change away from them, which might not be a bad thing I'll agree, despite the fact I would deny their culpability in causing any global warming.

The point I want to make about all this environmental stuff is that today we are living under advice opposite of FDR. In his time we were told to have no fear. Nowadays the General command is to fear constantly. Do you remember just a few years ago when they began the color warning system after 9/11? For a while people were really concerned with that--is today orange or red orange? OMG! It's RED today! Fear with everything that's in you!

Well, I don't think the average guy's going to benefit by shaking in his boots all day. Why do they want us to fear everything? Anthrax, Swine Flu, TSars, Lyme Disease, West Nile Virus, AIDS. It's a regularly changing item atop The fear charts, just like the regularly changing world's boogeyman. General Noriega, The Ayatollah, Khadfy, Saddam, Al Quaeda, the Taliban, now Isis. Do they like watching us tremble at their command?
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#26 queenbee1

queenbee1

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,084 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:55 PM

Fear sells. That is why I try and live in a bubble. This is impossible since I am a big fan of The Daily Show not for information, but for entertainment. I listen to the news on NPR. Other than that as time goes by the more things stay the same. The reason I voted for Hillary Clinton is I believed she was competent. I didn't vote for Trump because he instilled fear in me. I am still afraid and he is not making me feel safer.



#27 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,001 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 April 2017 - 10:15 PM

The article is interesting but one need to explain what is "global warming" with words that are not only scientific otherwise most of the people would not understand them. First of all it is important to rely on facts, and facts are following:

1) the sun is irradiating the earth since the creation of our solar system about 4.5 bio years ago. With this radiation the sun is transmitting energy to the earth. When the sun radiation reach the earth about 30% is reflected to space but about 70% is absorbed (from which 20% is absorbed by the atmosphere and 50% by the surface of the earth, this is why the temperature at the surface of the earth is higher on average than in the high atmosphere). Now since more energy from the sun is absorbed by the earth than the portion that is reflected to space it means this energy is accumulating over time and the overall average temperature of the earth is increasing naturally. Now this does not mean there cannot be fluctuations over time. Now we observe for example that the glaciers are reducing since the last ice age that ended about 12000 years ago but before that there have been several glaciation periods. SO periods with colder average temperature were followed by periods with higher average temperature, these flucutations are not new and are natural.

2) Greenhouse effect is scientifically proven. Several gases of the atmosphere have this property to absorb radiations and therefore become hotter. Among the most important radiation absorbers in the atmosphere we can find water vapor (clouds) which contribute for 60% of the total greenhouse effect, CO2 which contributes for 26%, ozone for 8% and methane and other gases for 6%. But it has also to be considered that clouds, due to the fact that they are not transparent do also filtrate the radiations from the sun and block some from reaching the surface of the earth (this is called albedo effect which is overall more important than greenhouse effect and on average overall the clouds are cooling the average temperature of the earth). So at same time when CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere it increases the overall average temperature but this increase of temperature makes more melting of glacier which is releasing more water in the atmosphere which at its turn will globally contribute more to cooling of the atmosphere. So one effect is also compensated by another one. That's one of the reason fluctuations occur over time.

3) Human activity definitely has an impact on increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. On one side by burning oil or natural gas into CO2 to produce energy and on the other side by deforestation (as trees transform CO2 into O2 when human reduces the number of trees he reduces the consumption of CO2 which is then accumulating in the atmosphere). This increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is verified and also confirmed by the author of the article.

4) The increase of temperature observed in the last 40 years is real and measured but the author of the article is correct that there is no sufficient scientific correlation between this phenomenon and the increase of CO2 itself. Nevertheless fact is that human activity is disturbing the overall atmosphere composition. What people are more afraid of is of a possible runaway greehouse effect, something that would start and amplify like a snowball and that could not be reversed. For example if the average temperature of the ocean increases to much the methane captured in the depth of the seas could possible get released into the atmosphere and increase much more the greenhouse effect (as comparison each molecule of methane released in the atmosphere is generating a greenhouse effect 12x stronger than a molecule of CO2

 

so no reason to panic but no reason to believe everything is under control. A variation of only 1 degree of the overall temperature can have huge consequences.


  • The Prof and queenbee1 like this

If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#28 queenbee1

queenbee1

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,084 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 19 April 2017 - 04:43 AM

Daniel what a great comment. Here is my simplified version. We all live in a spacesuit called Earth. Puncture it (open a big enough hole in the ozone) and we all die. Fill it with things we cannot breathe and we all die.


  • Lonello likes this

#29 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,362 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 19 April 2017 - 05:02 AM

Napoleon 1er, my friend, let me comment on a tangent up front that the age of the universe cannot be factually said to be any certain age beyond what human record can verify. Whether that be 6,000, 6,000,000, or 4.5 billion, there's no testable verification possible for any claim. No view can be proven. Therefore, all claims for the age of the earth are beliefs more than facts. We just don't know.

Moving on, if you're right about your percentages, and if the earth has 50% solar energy being absorbed daily while only 30% is dissipated daily, then the greenhouse effect as you have discussed would have fried us all a long time ago. 20% extra buildup daily is no small difference. And if this is what has been happening naturally, according to what you say above, and since the beginning of time daily, what can man possibly add to that kind of impact?

Also, there's not much consistent in this global warming thing if it's been on "pause" as they say, for 20 years, and for four decades from the 40's to the 80's we actually had global cooling.

Plus, doesn't your statement "this is why the temperature at the surface of the earth is higher on average than in the high atmosphere" forget the thermosphere that starts just over 50 miles up? There the temperature is reportedly a metal melting 3,500 to 4,500 degrees F. It would seem most of the heat on the earth doesn't stay close to the surface, but rather goes up that high into the atmosphere, the thermosphere.
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#30 Lonello

Lonello

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,973 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 19 April 2017 - 09:59 AM

Gary, your Mike is a fraud. He brings our institute for data so he's obviously of Dutch heritage. But the KNMI wants no part of his conclusions. None. Zero. Bad interpretations of good data. It's fake news. Here are some real, fresh, data:

 

 

C9wEkj_WAAA0_kf.jpg

 

This one is causing why we have the weirdest weather in history. Hot with Christmas. Cold now with Easter. Has been since the picture above and to do with the melting ice-caps. It's indeed getting worse.


Lo

#31 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,001 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 19 April 2017 - 10:55 PM

Napoleon 1er, my friend, let me comment on a tangent up front that the age of the universe cannot be factually said to be any certain age beyond what human record can verify. Whether that be 6,000, 6,000,000, or 4.5 billion, there's no testable verification possible for any claim. No view can be proven. Therefore, all claims for the age of the earth are beliefs more than facts. We just don't know. No Gary, as we discussed in another topic already the Argon/Potassium40 datation system is good for datation of very old rocks as its half life period is of 1.25 Bio years. This method is scientifically sufficient to date the origin of the earth at around 4.5 Bio years (note that even with an error as big as 100 million years this datation system is sufficiently correct in its estimation.

Moving on, if you're right about your percentages, and if the earth has 50% solar energy being absorbed daily while only 30% is dissipated daily, then the greenhouse effect as you have discussed would have fried us all a long time ago. 20% extra buildup daily is no small difference. And if this is what has been happening naturally, according to what you say above, and since the beginning of time daily, what can man possibly add to that kind of impact? Man can probably do nothing against what is natural, in any case there will an end to human life on earth one day, science says it will occur due to some to strong climate change possibly influenced by human activity (but most probably to a lesser extend) or because of a collision with a big meteorite

Also, there's not much consistent in this global warming thing if it's been on "pause" as they say, for 20 years, and for four decades from the 40's to the 80's we actually had global cooling. As I said above fluctuations are normal a period of glaciation is followed by a period of glacier-melting

Plus, doesn't your statement "this is why the temperature at the surface of the earth is higher on average than in the high atmosphere" forget the thermosphere that starts just over 50 miles up? There the temperature is reportedly a metal melting 3,500 to 4,500 degrees F. It would seem most of the heat on the earth doesn't stay close to the surface, but rather goes up that high into the atmosphere, the thermosphere. Yes you are right in the thermosphere (= ~95 km above the surface of the earth) the temperature can reach 300-1600 degree celsius (about what you say in Fahrenheit) because there the oxygen O2 is in direct contact with the radiations of the strongest UVs of the sun which are provocating the scission of the molecular oxygen O2 into 2 atoms of oxygen and this reaction is exothermic. But note that due to the rareification of the oxygen at that altitude if you were there with your skin exposed you would not perceive a temperature higher than 25 degrees celsius (about 77 fahrenheit). But at lower altitudes (atmosphere) the major part of the strong UVs have been absorbed already and greenhouse effect is predominant.


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#32 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,362 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 20 April 2017 - 06:05 AM

Well, Napoleon 1er, Potassium/Argon dating is not accurate. And I'm not talking a mere 100,000 years. There's millions of years of errors all the time. If P/A says that something is 4 billion years old, there's no way of checking that assertion shy of using another flawed pair of elements that are similarly analyzed. The famous anomalies about how these methods can date one part of a rock formation to be millions of years different from another one only feet away, or the readings that show igneous rock to be billions of years old that someone actually did witness as lava not long before. You can believe in something that you can't test or verify if you want, Napoleon 1er, but I submit to you that these types of numerous examples make any belief in P/A dating (or carbon 14/12 or any other kind dating) completely untenable.

The fear of the earth being struck by a giant meteor out there is blown out of all proportion sometimes. The earth is in God's hands and it will end when it ends. There's no sense in worrying about it.

Now, I must confess something. I absolutely do not understand how this rarifaction of the air at great height can simultaneously be 4,500 °F while feeling like 75 °F. I've heard this before but it's not high on the intuitive scale for me at the moment.
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#33 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,001 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 April 2017 - 06:05 PM


Now, I must confess something. I absolutely do not understand how this rarifaction of the air at great height can simultaneously be 4,500 °F while feeling like 75 °F. I've heard this before but it's not high on the intuitive scale for me at the moment.

Imagine the the air rareification menas that the vacuum between 2 molecules is increasing, so maybe the distance between 2 molecules of O2 could be much bigger than it is in the atmosphere. The pressure over there in the thermosphere is also much lower than in the atmosphere and closer to vacuum. So if the temperature of a molecule of O2 that is cracking into 2 O is about 4000 F the temperature between 2 molecules remain very cold, so on average the "perceived" temperature by a continuous body (your skin) is about 75 F.  Like if you add a gallon of hot water (100 F) to 100 gallons of cold water (32 F), at  the end the resulting average temperature is hoter than the cold gallons but cooler than the hot gallon.


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#34 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,362 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 20 April 2017 - 06:15 PM

Dan, I don't know. The difference in the thermosphere is more than 100 degrees. It's thousands. If one is in that kind of environment, how could he escape being burned alive? That you have one very hot thing and one very cold thing doesn't really mean you can average the temperatures between the two, does it? If there's any 4,500 degrees going on up there, wouldn't human skin would get scalded in the process of the mixing? It's just too big a discrepancy between the temps, it seems to me.
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#35 queenbee1

queenbee1

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,084 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 20 April 2017 - 07:22 PM

It was a calm day. Few people noticed what was coming. Then they were all gone. An entire civilization and all recorded history vanished in the flash of a gigantic solar flare. The Earth as they had known it was toast. None of it mattered anymore as there was no one to bear witness to the wonderful and horrific things mankind did to each other over the eons. What used to be filled with life was now just a cold dead rock floating in the universe. Just then an alien craft appeared scanning for life. "Move along, there's nothing to see here."

 

Lo do I get any Eternal Optimist points for that story?


Edited by queenbee1, 20 April 2017 - 07:22 PM.

  • Lonello likes this

#36 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,001 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 20 April 2017 - 08:07 PM

Dan, I don't know. The difference in the thermosphere is more than 100 degrees. It's thousands. If one is in that kind of environment, how could he escape being burned alive? That you have one very hot thing and one very cold thing doesn't really mean you can average the temperatures between the two, does it? If there's any 4,500 degrees going on up there, wouldn't human skin would get scalded in the process of the mixing? It's just too big a discrepancy between the temps, it seems to me.

of course if you would be there with your skin exposed it would get burned by the strong UVs. The image was just to illustrate the "perceived" temperature vs the real temperature. Instead of the skin let's imagine a thermometer that would resit UV and work under low pressure close to vacuum. This thermometer would measure an average temperature in that zone of about 75 F


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#37 Lonello

Lonello

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,973 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 21 April 2017 - 08:51 AM

Few people noticed what was coming. 

Just the 1% voting Jill :D  :lol:  :unsure:  :wacko:  :blink:

 

And here's what I said about the ice caps melting:

 

C91pEOAW0AAlL-G.jpg

 

@RT_com  20 apr.
Meer

PHOTOS: Enormous #iceberg crawls right up to Canadian coast awing locals and visitors https://on.rt.com/89b5  #Newfoundland


Lo

#38 queenbee1

queenbee1

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,084 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 21 April 2017 - 06:55 PM

There is justice in the world as Bill O'Reilly was fired. I guess after setting so many sexual harassment suits 21st Century Fox had had enough. Maybe his demographics really were dying off and his ratings were plummeting. The fact that he got away with it for so long was because his boss Roger Ailes was just as bad, but Trump show that same behavior and it can be so ignored, that you can become the POTUS. I can just see the Board of Directors reading a bean counter's report that measured settling lawsuits vs keeping O'Reilly said he had to go.

 

Here's a 4 minute video (due to lack of attention span) that I am posting from a PBS interview. The same PBS that Trump wants to pulled the funding from and now will be completely dependent on fund drives and private donations. I can't imagine anyone other than Trump and his Trumpets thinking that PBS is not a worthy way for government to spend tax dollars. I love PBS and it shows are the only real news on radio. I donate to them every year. 

“The cost of public broadcasting is small,” Kerger continued, “only $1.35 per citizen per year, and the benefits are tangible: increasing school readiness for kids 2-8, support for teachers and homeschoolers, lifelong learning, public safety communications and civil discourse.”

PBS’s response came as Trump proposed ending all federal funding for public broadcasting, as Deadline first reported here. The move signals the gravest threat to the existence of PBS and NPR in a long history of political antagonism toward the organizations.

Patricia Harrison, CEO for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said Trump’s devastating budget cuts would lead to the “collapse of the public media system itself and the end of this essential national service. “The CPB receives approximately $450 million annually from the federal government, then distributes grants to local TV and radio stations and producers.

Again no one is talking about the animals who are losing their natural habitat to climate change and that's a fact jack. She discusses this issue in the interview. I know four minutes is almost too much time to ask. I am sure I can find even more convincing ones like Bill Nye on National Geographics a real leftist organization ( :lol: ) and Neil Degrasse Tyson another four minute video I believe was clipped from the remake of the series Cosmos. Another propaganda film that the world was not created 6000 years ago." We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control. Teachers leave those kids alone. All in all it was all just bricks in the wall.

 

So my dear friends you have a better chance of converting me to Christianity than for me to be a climate change denier. One of the worst is in the White House.

 

https://youtu.be/7lCmwWiXEzY


Edited by queenbee1, 21 April 2017 - 06:57 PM.


#39 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,362 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 21 April 2017 - 10:42 PM

Climate changes all the time, queenbee1. It's the assertion that man is the direct cause of that which is contentious. As I pointed out previously, there was a huge 40 year period of global cooling from 1940 to 1980, in a period when man-made emissions and CO2 were clearly on the rise. Heck, before 1980 we all used to use aerosol deodorants. Remember those? That's been a massive change in society that everyone has forgotten.
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#40 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,362 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 21 April 2017 - 10:47 PM

Isn't it interesting that that global cooling period matched exactly the lifetime of one of our favorite artists, queenbee1? John Lennon, the #9 Dream guy, was born on October 9th, 1940 and died on December 9th (Liverpool time) in 1980.
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users