Posted by Tina
Sanctimonious opinions of leftists glo-warming advocates derive from articles like “Climate science: Why the world won’t listen,” by psychologist Adam Corner, New Science Magazine which begins:
WHEN scholars of the future write the history of climate change, they may look to early 2008 as a pivotal moment. Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth was bringing the science to the masses. The economist Nicholas Stern had made the financial case for tackling the problem sooner rather than later. And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had just issued its most unequivocal report yet on the link between human activity and climatic change. (emphasis mine)
Mr. Corner’s premise: “When it comes to climate change, facts don’t speak for themselves. Communicators need to find better ways to connect.”
Smooth.
This is how the leftist glo-warmer thinks. When confronted with growing strength in the opposition they shift the focus of their attack. They begin by declaring they have the facts…all of them. This establishes, at least in their minds, that they are right…ending all further discussion. They proceed to a new level of manipulation…in this case, appealing to dissenters (maliciously labeled “deniers”) based in things they care about.
Let’s see…the conspirators who began by issuing falsehoods, scaring the daylights out of people, indoctrinating children, confiscating big piles of cash through taxation and carbon trading schemes, destroying industry and the middle class through punishing regulation, and creating an atmosphere of “crisis dependency thinking” in the masses now want to take a friendly (condescending) approach by appealing to the concerns of their detractors?
Mmmm….
Upon what possible standard of ethics do they believe they have a right to stand that anyone should even begin to want to engage them on the topic of man caused global warming?
Here is the lesson. The indoctrinated Marxist never gives up. His need for the power and control to establish a brave new (safe) world with him calling the shots overwhelms all else. The corresponding opportunity to cash in is the reward he offers himself for his undying devotion to the “worth” cause.
The solution for freedom loving seekers of truth, dedicated and supportive of honesty in science and journalism is to thoroughly discredit and defeat the radicals by the continuous exposure of charlatans dedicated to the hoax perpetrated by glo-warming leader Al Gore and his cadre of activist scientists, opportunists, and politicians.
Point of fact: A British court found that Al Gore’s film was bringing indoctrination to the masses, in particular to school children, and ordered a “corrected guidance note” be sent to all British secondary schools “making clear the mainstream scientific position” on “nine errors” in the film. There were actually many more errors offered to the court for consideration but the court stated it did not have the time to address all of them and settled on nine.
The initial cookie baked into the MMGW scheme began to crumble! Al Gore’s film is shown to be nothing more than a leftist propaganda vehicle!
Despite this revelation Al Gores Inconvenient Truth remains a pillar of the Glo-warming cause. Those now screaming “science denier” are themselves science manipulators, fabricators, opportunists and hangers-on.
According to the above linked report by Christopher Monckton from the Science and Public Policy Institute, Al Gore Spokeswoman Kalee Kreider attempted to explain away the judge’s ruling, making several inaccurate statements in the process. In typical leftist fashion she also found it necessary to demean the parent that had the gall to question Gores movie and what school children, including his own children, were being taught:
Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.
Next, Ms. Kreider makes some unjustifiable ad hominem attacks on Mr. Stewart Dimmock, the lorry driver, school governor and father of two school-age children who was the plaintiff in the case. This memorandum, however, will eschew any ad hominem response, and will concentrate exclusively on the 35 scientific inaccuracies and exaggerations in Gore’s movie. (see report)
Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.” However, the single web-page entitled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.
At this point it might be interesting to note that Paramount, the distributor of “An Inconvenient Truth”, warns in its synopsis:
“If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.”
Six years later and we have seen extreme weather but it has not been weather “beyond anything we have ever experienced” as the scare mongering Paramount executives and Al Gores movie suggest.
Clearly projected outcomes, supposedly based on settled science, are based on big fat fibs. The science, as stated by Al Gore and others, is not settled opinion but instead extremist blather with a bit of science thrown in for appearance sake. Many of the conclusions that have been drawn, and drawn as if they represent a final exact truth, represent a series of predictions based on a few assumptions and imagined scenarios. These aren’t scientists in the traditional sense; they are, as someone said, more like fortune tellers…and their predictions have been wrong again and again.
Major flaws have been exposed but glo-warming activists would rather die than admit to their importance.
Here’s the bottom line for freedom loving citizens: The need for drastic, harmful legislation has been exaggerated and must be resisted!
Al Gore, through his movie…the writers of the IPCC through their (disputed) report…and leftist politicians and activists through their constant harmful legislation and bloviating have engaged in this world-wide hoax for purposes of political power, redistribution, and manipulation. As Christopher Monckton of Benchley wrote in the above linked report:
“All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors…could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.
Readers interested in Monckton’s opinions might also enjoy Lord Monckton’s summary of Climategate and its issues by Anthony Watts:
The whistleblower deep in the basement of one of the ugly, modern tower-blocks of the dismal, windswept University of East Anglia could scarcely have timed it better.
In less than three weeks, the world’s governing class – its classe politique – would meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world’s wealthier nations for its own enrichment: in short, to bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide, at the stroke of a pen, on the pretext of addressing what is now known to be the non-problem of manmade “global warming”.
And they pretend such innocence, such worthiness of purpose…such heartfelt concern for their fellow man.
Those of us who are tired of being manipulated and lied to by these power and money grubbing radicals must remain strong in our demands. Let us make clear our intention to uplift only those scientists, journalists, politicians and activists that operate with the intention of seeking sound scientific determination and who are committed to reporting findings with clarity, honor and integrity. Let us be mindful of those who value freedom as we do and welcome open scrutiny, disagreement, struggle, caution, risk taking, and discovery. These are the methods and values that will lead to true understanding and solutions that work for everyone.
It is my contention that “when scholars of the future write the history of climate change”…they will undoubtedly sort through piles of…pardon the expression…alarmist bulls*#t and conclude that although humans of the time were sensitive to their environment, and dedicated to conservation and preservation of the beautiful world in which they lived, they were also ultimately wise enough to expose charlatan scientists and reject unfair and unfounded taxation, regulation, and schemes for world dominance hatched by unscrupulous politicians, scientists, and journalists. They will find that the majority of the people were responsibly skeptical, curious, and willing to question outlandish declarations made by the posers and hucksters of their time. They will find that the people were ultimately confident and determined to counter the emotionally duped, the indoctrinated, and most specifically, the charlatans and activists who rallied to disallow opposing opinion. They will report that during this period the people stood resolute against a depraved scheme to deprive the world of freedom, industry, and a thriving middle class. Historians will find that in the end…the truth will out.
Tina: “Upon what possible standard of ethics do they believe they have a right to stand that anyone should even begin to want to engage them on the topic of man caused global warming?”
One could ask you the exact same question.
Last week, you cited an article that misrepresented a survey, falsely claiming that it found a “majority of scientists” questioned the view that AGW presents a significant threat.
In actuality, the survey only polled geoscientists and engineers working in the oil industry in Alberta, Canada, and the researchers were very clear both in their initial report and subsequent statements that the survey was not intended to be representative of the “majority of scientists,” and in fact could not possible be given the sample group.
Furthermore, the majority of scientists polled in that specific group did agree that some AGW was occurring, but they disagreed about the extent.
Repeated requests for you to acknowledge this error have been completely ignored by you. And this is not the first time you have misrepresented scientific studies.
So, tell me: given your misrepresentation of scientific studies, and your lack of any acknowledgment of such misrepresentations even when presented with incontrovertible proof, upon what possible standard of ethics do you believe you have a right to stand that anyone should even begin to want to engage you on the topic of man caused global warming?
Maybe you’re right, and we shouldn’t trust so-called “alarmists.” But maybe we shouldn’t trust you either.
I’ve never seen “An Inconvenient Truth” and don’t have any interest in doing so. Al Gore is not a scientist, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the film contains errors. That’s why I try to get my information from actual scientific studies, not second-hand, popular sources. My beliefs are based on the overwhelming evidence of 97% of climate scientists, not the words of a politician.
But you’re telling us not to trust Al Gore while promoting “Lord” Christopher Monckton? You do know he’s not a real Lord, and that the actual House of Lords has asked him to stop using that title? He’s also falsely claimed to have won a Nobel Prize, and once impersonated a delegate from Myanmar at a conference on global warming.
Oh, and he’s a birther who has claimed that the odds of Obama’s birth certificate being real are “1 in 62.5 quintillion.”
So please, Tina. If you’re going to insult the credibility of others, you owe it to yourself to make sure your own sources are credible first. Take the log out of your own eye.
“Let us make clear our intention to uplift only those scientists, journalists, politicians and activists that operate with the intention of seeking sound scientific determination and who are committed to reporting findings with clarity, honor and integrity.”
Obviously, you have no such intention; if you did, you would not cite proven liars such as Christopher Monckton! You are completely sabotaging your own attempts to gain the moral high ground in this post, and proving that your stated intention to rely only on sound science and honest truth-seekers is a complete ruse.
Chris you have made a lot of assumptions about me one of which is that my “lack of any acknowledgment of such misrepresentations” has anything to do with the information posted. As I just wrote in other comments my reaction has more to do with your S%##y, rude attitude. I also wrote in comments that you could have been content to simply point out the error and let it go. Your attitude did not invite even the slightest measure of curiosity in me to research the article myself to determine its accuracy…you, my friend, are fabulous at shutting down dialogue. I have yet to get the payoff for you given the free speech you are afforded here.
“But maybe we shouldn’t trust you either.”
I have not asked you to trust me. This blog is a forum for discussion and opinion on matters political and social. Everyone gets a shot. What is the problem? What is it you think you have to protect that others cannot protect for themselves?
“But you’re telling us not to trust Al Gore while promoting “Lord” Christopher Monckton?”
I invited you to consider the ruling of the court and the ridiculous statements made by Al Gores spokesman. I did not ask you to make a jusgement about Monckton in any way…you did that on yiour own.
I don’t expect anyone to believe anything I post and I certainly have no intentions to shove what I think down anyone’s throat which I have made clear on numerous occasions.
Monckton is “discredited” by opposition voices…imagine that happening in politics!
There are numerous instances of people of all political stripes being dismissed as “discredited”. I could throw that garbage argument your way but I think it is a stupid waste of time. Monckton, like his critics, is entitled to his opinions…as is the likes of Al Gore. I reserve the right to comment and expose what I believe are disputed opinions.
Regarding your accusation that I was asking you to believe Monckton this is the only thing I said and it was at best encouragement to consider his thoughts: “Readers interested in Monckton’s opinions…”
“You are completely sabotaging your own attempts to gain the moral high ground in this post, and proving that your stated intention to rely only on sound science and honest truth-seekers is a complete ruse.”
Thanks for sharing Chris.
Post Scripts is a venue that when used properly could be of benefit to all, but recently(possibly from the beginning)he seems bent on self imposed banishment (if not from the beginning) that is not how Chris seems to view it. Actually Chris has reminded me of this fable:
One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.
Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.
“Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?”
“Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly.
“Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!”
Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. “What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!”
“This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!”
“Alright then…how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?” said the frog.
“Ahh…,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!”
So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog’s back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog’s soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.
Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
“You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?”
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drowning frog’s back.
“I could not help myself. Self destruction – “Its my Nature”
Anthoney Watts has posted a letter he sent to The Honorable John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State. It is worth a read for those who are interested in who funds and writes the IPCC Report or in how those climate models create flawed predictions.
Tina: “As I just wrote in other comments my reaction has more to do with your S%##y, rude attitude.”
And as I wrote, that’s no excuse. You are literally saying you don’t have to be honest because the person asking you to do so is being mean. Maybe we just have different priorities; I think being honest is more important than being polite.
“Your attitude did not invite even the slightest measure of curiosity in me to research the article myself to determine its accuracy…”
But the thing is, you should already have that curiosity. If you have the passion to run a blog and express your opinions, don’t you think you have an ethical duty to couple that passion with genuine intellectual curiosity? Especially when this entire post is about you haranguing those who you think don’t have all the facts, who are following dishonest politicians…you are basically insulting the intellectual curiosity of others while admitting you possess little of your own. That’s unfair.
“I have yet to get the payoff for you given the free speech you are afforded here.”
The payoff is the truth, however impolitely expressed or grudgingly received. If you don’t want to hear it, you don’t have to accept my comments.
“I invited you to consider the ruling of the court and the ridiculous statements made by Al Gores spokesman. I did not ask you to make a jusgement about Monckton in any way…you did that on yiour own.”
OK, but you did say:
“Let us make clear our intention to uplift only those scientists, journalists, politicians and activists that operate with the intention of seeking sound scientific determination and who are committed to reporting findings with clarity, honor and integrity.”
You cited Monckton as if he was a reliable source. If that’s not “uplifting” someone, then I honestly don’t know what you mean by the above. Do you believe that Monckton is one of the scientists who fits that description? If not, then who are you talking about, and what would you do to “uplift” them?
“Monckton is “discredited” by opposition voices…imagine that happening in politics!”
No, he’s discredited by his own actions. Do you not think impersonating a delegate and lying about one’s credentials is enough to discredit someone, especially if they are constantly accusing the other side of being liars? Why?
“There are numerous instances of people of all political stripes being dismissed as “discredited”.”
Note that I never even said Monckton had been discredited in my earlier comment. I just accurately described Monckton’s behavior, and you, as a fellow sane human being, recognized that behavior as ridiculous. Again, his own actions are enough to show you he has been discredited.
“I could throw that garbage argument your way but I think it is a stupid waste of time. Monckton, like his critics, is entitled to his opinions…”
Is he entitled to impersonate a public figure at a global warming conference?
Also, you didn’t answer the question you asked of others: what ethical standard do you hold that makes you think people should want to engage you on the issue of global warming?
Chris,
Where is your argument. All you do is selectively edit and apply spin. I read both your post and Tina’s. Yours holds no weight! It sounds like you are trying to convince yourself!
Common Sense: I have to admit Tina always has the winning hand.
More Common Sense, my argument is that if you are going to question the credibility, honesty and ethical standards of others, you should display some of your own. The behavior I have pointed out is not honest or ethical. I have not “spun” any of it, I have laid out the facts accurately.
Chris: “And as I wrote, that’s no excuse…”
It wasn’t meant as one.
“You are literally saying you don’t have to be honest because the person asking you to do so is being mean.”
No, that is not what I’m saying.
“Maybe we just have different priorities; I think being honest is more important than being polite.”
Do you now? Could have fooled me. You continue to lend near full support to people who constantly lie to the public at large, have engaged in the personal destruction of opponents. That’s a pretty sad indictment about the importance of honesty with you.
Given that I don’t see where your values have much to do with what has gone on here…or that they rise above mine.
“But the thing is, you should already have that curiosity.”
You give me a full time job and a fat salary and I’m in…I will research till my eyes cross. (And I will still make errors but I will not be spending much time relating on blogs with friends ’cause I won’t have time for that.)
“…don’t you think you have an ethical duty to couple that passion with genuine intellectual curiosity?”
I think I do that Chris. I just don’t like playing a flipper flapping seal in your circus.
“don’t you think you have an ethical duty to couple that passion with genuine intellectual curiosity?”
Chris…this isn’t brain surgery. You pointed out what you thought was an error…why is that not enough? Anyone reading can decide for himself, do is own research…satisfy his own curiosity if he is curious or let it drop if it bores him.
“…you are basically insulting the intellectual curiosity of others while admitting you possess little of your own.”
Oh please. I think the bulk of what I have written here will stand as testament to my sense of curiosity, intellectual or otherwise. As a citizen it is my duty to criticize when what I see seems objectionable or wrong. It’s not like I am the lone source in this internet world. I have never claimed to be an authority or tried to pass myself off as superior. More importantly…I am not proposing taxation or regulation. I am not in a position of power over others. We come here as equals in a discussion forum. Your sense of proportion and your expectations of perfection seem a little out of whack to me.
“Do you believe that Monckton is one of the scientists who fits that description? If not, then who are you talking about, and what would you do to “uplift” them?”
A. Monckton was not the focus of the information.
B. Monckton is not a scientist; he was educated when it really meant something and is described as “businessman, newspaper editor, inventor, classical architect, trained orator and “high priest” of climate skepticism, prevented several government-level scientific frauds while serving as a Downing Street domestic and science policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher, saving British taxpayers billions. In 1986 he was the first to advise the Prime Minister that “global warming” caused by CO2 should be investigated. Two years later she set up the Hadley Center.”
C. Monckton could be described as a person of curious intellect.
D. Perhaps at least some of those who have discredited him are not.
E. The Judge obviously found the information presented in court well researched and compelling.
“The payoff is the truth, however impolitely expressed or grudgingly received. If you don’t want to hear it, you don’t have to accept my comments.”
Ahhh but we do…which pretty much rips your accusation that we don’t care about truth to shreds. Have you noticed in any of this discourse that you sometimes present yourself up as the absolute authority? No one else does that.
” Do you not think impersonating a delegate and lying about one’s credentials is enough to discredit someone, especially if they are constantly accusing the other side of being liars? ”
Did you read that on the internet? Is it the consensus opinion of GW advocates. How intellectually curious have you been to research what others, outside that bubble, think of this man?
Consider:
This issue is in dispute and the politics have serious implecations and consequences to consider. I’ve watched the politics unfold for several decades and I don’t like the direction it has taken. Has any of that occurred to you? Do you care that we get this right? Are you intellectually curious enough to just consider…that is all I have asked of anyone…what the opposing side has to say.
I have to say it disturbs me greatly that the GW side do not take seriously the opinions of highly credentialed scientists in the field that disagree with the consensus opinion. It also disturbs me that politians are piggy backing on questioned conclusions while implementing extremely punishing taxation and regulation. It is helping to destroy the middle class by destroying the economy in Europe…and we have begun the same process here.
I am comfortable to stand where I stand.
“I just accurately described Monckton’s behavior, and you, as a fellow sane human being, recognized that behavior as ridiculous.”
Please provide a quote…I find nothing in my comments that addresses his “behavior” as described by you as ridiculous. I realize m eyes are older than yours.
“Is he entitled to impersonate a public figure at a global warming conference? ”
I know nothing about this; I certainly didn’t witness it and I don’t know that I could trust what others have said about him. for all I know he’s “having it on” with people. He’s apparently got a good sense of humor:
Here is the view from the other side:
“…what ethical standard do you hold that makes you think people should want to engage you on the issue of global warming?”
The Ten Commandments and the wisdom of the Bible have always been the main foundational standard for me.
I will allow that I fail to meet the highest expectations of that standard but I am certain others will also, therefore I try to be humble and forgiving.
I don’t lie or present material that is false purposely. I have great faith in others to sift through the vast amounts of information we are all exposed to on a regular basis, including what they might read here, and through their own abilities reach conclusions based on what makes sense to them. That is all any of us can do.
The value you have to this blog Chris is that you have a decided world view that contrasts with most of us here. That puts you in the hot seat position. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our differences but I stop having fun when you become so serious and combative that the meat of the discussion is swamped by all of this extraneous stuff…bog trash..noise.
I hope this satisfies whatever it is you are trying so damned hard to get.
[url=http://soccernewbalance.mddpharma.com]new balance m1400[/url]
,ビジネス ハンドバッグ; 保存前への入力の心の滞在することをお勧めします。小さい人のためかなりトートバッグだけではないスタンド アウト時に。この罰金とそれ以上の年齢のより成熟したハンドバッグは最終的にあなたの会社を装飾します。白、白いブラウン オフ カーキ色またはアニスの色とより控え目な色も使用されているここで。地質まま同じの横にある偉大な番号を変更気候のいくつかの他の重要な側面を意味します。今それにもかかわらず、それと呼ばれる化石の砂漠に滞在していない恐怖燃焼沿岸砂漠を作る後すぐに畏敬の念感激します。
[url=http://soccernewbalance.venuelicensing.com]マーキュリアルヴェイパー9[/url]
料金偽デザイナー ハンドバッグは危険な小さな businessThere が決してされて疑問どのようにカスタム バッグのための市場は大きい。意外と大きな金額を含むドルを払われて毎年画像の一部を一意に今日参加している人々 によって提供されます。手隠しステッチを介してステッチし、生地の接着剤を使用してあなたの挿入のためにマジック テープを接続します。これは出に泡を保持します。ロロ · ピアーナは、7 の 30 のモデルのため、男性のファッション。79 位を開くと、密接にエルメネジルド ・ ゼニアと対になって （7。32)、ジョルジオ ・ アルマーニ、(6。94)。29 メンズ ブランド評価それぞれボッテガ ・ ヴェネタ （7。83)、チェザーレ ・ Piaciotti （7。77） サルヴァトーレ ・ フェラガモだけでなく、（7。64)。今日でははるかに多くのエキゾチックなバリエーション レザー フォームの数非常にデザイナーや入浴を供給で広く使用されます。
, [url=http://soccernewbalance.mpacesl.com]new balance[/url]
[url=http://soccernewbalance.comecelebratewithus.com]newbalance スニーカー[/url]
,今、私が提示する必要がありますあなたは多くの写真あなたに話しましょう個人アリス合計衣服を向上させる方法初演。所有している、最高の特徴は可能性がその防水要素です。天気誤動作の任意のタイプすべてのメッセンジャー蘇る、ベストの選択それ彼ら提供袋は水を通さないを考慮しました。2. 個人趣味することができます。ハンサム、また自己陶酔と呼ばれる、Magnotta、自然 hasblack ブローとピンクの目のためにさらに変わった彼の名前たくさん usedseveral エイリアス彼は作成について提供する提案について 2009年投稿 tovanish 達成ことはありません。どのようにスリリングなレクリエーションの開始ですか？クリエイティブ レクリエーションから来た 2002年見直しファッションを提供するロサンゼルス、カリフォルニア州。
, [url=http://tvgame.mddpharma.com]ニンテンドー3DS[/url]
もたらす自分に入れ墨は、偉大なルイヴィトンのハンドバッグについては誰か彼を越える必要がありますまたは彼女の入れ墨の形質、赤ちゃん学校、または他の満足歓迎を維持します。戦いでアッパー アームの入れ墨には、肩の入れ墨問題のある科目、または白い印を戻すようなものから離れて滞在する波を時間中のリンバーに袖のストレッチを着用する必要はありません、彼らはあなたが行く必要はありませんトップレス表示されます彼らがやっているものを表示するオフ。それですか？非常に小さな汚い推薦をその利益を覚えていることが重要です。娯楽ビジネスで滞在する利益を作る必要があります。あなたの特性を取得します。
, [url=http://tvgame.venuelicensing.com]ニンテンドー3DS本体[/url]
,