Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

The Official AGW skeptics thread

Recs

36

January 25, 2010 – Comments (34)

I want a blog on CAPS where I can easily reference and find all of the many blogs written recently regarding Climategate and AGW skepticism in general.  Like a good individualist, I'm going to go ahead and do that myself right now. 

This is really a hat tip to ChrisGraley, nzsvz9IIcx, and the many CAPS members who have come forward to present skeptical analysis of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, have commented on my blogs or ChrisGraley's.  Recently, I've wanted to reference pieces of information here and there for discussion with friends and co-workers, most of whom have only vaguely been introduced to the vast amount of information contradicting AGW theory and exposing rampant dishonesty and corruption in the IPCC/AGW process.  Centralizing all that info seemed a good idea.  So let's give it a shot.  If you can work your way through all of these posts and comments, you'd be..... old by the time you're done.  But they are a great source of information and I hope you find them useful.

Global Warming: Are 31,000 Skeptical Scientists Wrong? by Goldminingxpert

I'm starting with this one for a couple of reasons. First, it's the first time I started looking at AGW theory with personal skepticism.  Second, after placing in context the recent revelations against the IPCC and its crew of merry bunglers, the comments section of Goldminingxpert's blog is quite hilarious.  Take for example:

If you want to know if global warming is good science, look at the actual research being published on it, where that research is published and how strongly reviewed it is. - rofgile

LOL, now that's funny!

We Can't Stop Global Warming by Goldminingxpert 

The third article of a three part presentation by GMX.  Like his previous ones, the comments section provids a good laugh (that's a running theme it turns out.)

Why Cap and Trade is Good for Everyone!!! by ChrisGraley

An introduction to the humorous implications of AGW illogic.

My 4th Grade Level Science Class on Global Warming by ChrisGraley

Chock full of great information, more than I could have handled in the 4th grade.... or the 12th grade for that matter.

60 years and 0.5 deg C how and how data and public perception can be manipulated! by ChrisGraley

Chris takes a closer look at tree ring data and satellite readings. Ugh, he doesn't like what he finds.

30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says by ChrisGraley

I have an idea. Maybe the planet will warm, then cool, then warm a little, then cool some more, and then do something else.  Problem is, there's no money in researching that theory.

Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims by whereaminow

My first foray into the AGW debate. Ah, the nostalgia! 

Hacked AGW Scientists Emails Paint Ugly Picture by whereaminow

Introducing Climategate to the Fool community.  It's a been a wild ride ever since (unless you are an AGW supporter.  Burying your head in the sand isn't fun at all.)

The Inconvenient Emails by whereaminow

A closer look at the CRU emails and a skeptical scientist's response.

The Inconvenient Leak by whereaminow

Climategate evolves.  Was it an inside job?  Did a disgruntled programmer named Harry help the Ruskies get inside?  We may never know.

The $22.6 Million Dollar Scientist and a Scandal in New Zealand by whereaminow

Turns out one of our leading AGW scientists makes quite a killing researching this farce.  I wonder if this little socialist wannabe uses the Labor Theory of Value to calculate how much his flunkies should be paid for their cut of the loot?

Meet Harry the Programmer by whereaminow

Harry, our hero, has a problem.  He needs to make these climate change models workable.  Trouble is, he's in a little over his head.

HIde the Decline Put in Context by Steven McIntrye

Hockey Stick debunker extraordinaire Steven McIntyre responds to critics claiming that "hide the decline" is a phrase taken out of context.  Steve obliges, putting it back in context, only to find out it paints an even worse picture for the AGW theorists.

Aviation pioneer and master engineer Burt Rutan on Global Warming

Burt Rutan, the second most celebrated aviation engineer behind Hugo Junkers, is bored.  So he spends the summer analyzing various aspects of AGW theory.  Then he gives a 60 minute video presentation debunking just about every piece of nonsense he came across. Poor quality videos.  Fantastic quality presentation.

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

Hot off the presses.  What do you get when you mix a megalomaniacal environmentalist, a Nobel prize committee, and the IPCC?  Two words: peer review.  This story is classic.

Save the planet and pass the Kool-Aid by Lienbuster

Lienbuster breaks the Himalayan glacier fiasco to the Fool community.

So this is the start of a collection of Global Warming skepticism.  I hope you'll add any that I've missed to the comments section and continue to do so in the future.

Thanks,

David in Qatar

34 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 25, 2010 at 7:02 AM, whereaminow (22.06) wrote:

Here are two videos of Rajendra Pachauri using the Himalayan glacier melt story as a primary talking point in April 2009:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcChvfDiFPw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYHgyrmXK3Y

Here is an article about how Rajendra Pachauri “signed a memorandum of understanding to study, preserve and safeguard the Himalayan glaciers under the National Mission of Sustaining the Himalayan Eco-system.” on behalf of TERI in April 2009:
http://www.thehindu.com/2009/04/09/stories/2009040950490200.htm

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#2) On January 25, 2010 at 8:14 AM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

Great idea David!

Report this comment
#3) On January 25, 2010 at 8:48 AM, cthomas1017 (96.83) wrote:

Frankly, I think the thread should be renamed, "The Official ACS proponents thread".   Given that the so-called scientists have demonstrated themselves to be frauds beyond any shadow of a doubt, they should be officially termed, Antropogenic Climate Stability skeptics.

On a side note, 'Avatar' was a brilliant movie advocating ACS.  To paraphrase one statement from the movie, "The purpose of mother earth (or in my terms, God) is to maintain the balance of life."  Speaking as one of the most ecologically practicing individuals today, we must admit that the ACS skeptics are not ecology centric, but they are ecology narcissi-tics - that is, they view the "survival of the earth" through the prism of "survival of themselves".  They are in denial that even if the temperature of the earth were raised by 20F degrees on average, the planet and life on this planet would survive.  Albeit, life would be completely different and human-kind would likely be extinguished (or close to).  But the earth would survive.  It would cleanse itself and thriving life would return to our planet.

It is understandable that an ACS skeptic cannot understand this concept because they are so self absorbed that they find it almost impossible to comprehend a world where they are not the center.  Sad, but those of us in the ACS movement will continue to point out the beauty of our world that transcends man and our small role in our planet's evolution.

Have a beautiful day in this wonderful world in which we are blessed! :) 

Report this comment
#4) On January 25, 2010 at 9:39 AM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

Add another AGW sceptic. I remember when the accepted wisdom was that another ice age was coming and there was nothing we could do about it.

Report this comment
#5) On January 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

It might be to restrictive to simply dismiss all of the related energy research. Even though Global Warming research is inadequate and not conclusive, alternatives to carbon fuels is a very good idea.

Declaring CO2 toxic was a tipping-point of foolishness yet there's a lot more then CO2 pouring out of the fossil fuel smoke stacks.

The problem is the nits pegged pollution to Global Warming.

I like your idea, I'll post some links later today. 

Report this comment
#6) On January 25, 2010 at 10:41 AM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

This blog is a good related read when you get a few whereaminow.

Moving Right Along -- devoish's blog related to solar energy 

Report this comment
#7) On January 25, 2010 at 2:07 PM, turdburglar (42.53) wrote:

Here's my theory:

Man-made global warming used to be a huge problem, but all of the work done by good governments and green people stopped it dead in its tracks.  As a matter of fact, they got so green that the planet has started to cool in the last decade or so.  

So while I can't take credit for stopping global warming, you can thank me any my Republican friends for helping to prevent an ice age.  

I hate cold almost as much as I hate liberals.

Report this comment
#8) On January 25, 2010 at 2:31 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

For anyone who decides to "try" to understand information available on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) site or one of the science blogs related to GHG or GWP research data.

IPCC Abbreviations

4-R or AR4 = Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007)

AFOLU = Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

CA  = Contributing Author

CBD = Convention on Biological Diversity

CCGT = combined cycle gas turbine

CLA = Co-ordinating Lead Author

COP = Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC

DC = Developing Country

EIT = Country with Economy in Transition

F&B Division = Finance and Budget Division of the WMO

FAO =  Food and Agriculture Organization

FOIA = Freedom of Information Act 

GHG = greenhouse gas

GPG-LULUCF = Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (IPCC, 2003)

GPG2000 = Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2000)

GWP = Global Warming Potential

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPPU = Industrial Processes and Product Use

LA = Lead Author

LUCF = Land-Use Change and Forestry

LULUCF = Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry

NGGIP = National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme of the IPCC

RE = Review Editor

SAR = Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1995)

SBI = Subsidiary Body for Implementation of the COP

SBST = A Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice of the COP

SD = Sustainable Development

SFR = Swiss Franc

SPM = Summary for Policymakers

SR = Special Report of the IPCC

TAR = Third Assessment Report (IPCC, 2001)

TF = Task Force of the IPCC

TFB = Bureau of the TFI

TFI = Task Force on Inventories for NGGIP

TGCIA = Task Group on Climate Scenarios for Impact Assessments of the IPCC

TOC = Table of Contents

TOR = Terms of Reference

TP = Technical Paper of the IPCC

TS = Technical Summary

UN = United Nations Organization

UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme -- http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=43

UNFCCC = UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

WG = Working Group of the IPCC

WMO = World Meteorological Organization

 

PNUE: Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnement 

http://www.unep.org/billiontreecampaign/FRENCH/

 

GWPF:  Global Warming Policy Foundation -- http://www.thegwpf.org/

CRU: Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

UEA: University of East Anglia

 

grey literature = material not published in a peer-reviewed journal

 

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified -- Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUoPiTkG

Report this comment
#9) On January 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM, USNHR (33.15) wrote:

#8)

 That is almost as bad as the military with acronyms.

Report this comment
#10) On January 25, 2010 at 4:07 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

whereaminow,

I'm so guilty of what I'm about to describe but if you are in a dialogue with "friends and co-workers" over the topics it should probably start with "limited attention span".

Since the oil issues of the 1970's, the DOE has been charged with the task of freeing us from fossil fuels with alternatives (taxpayer grants).

Based on what I've seen, they did their job extremely well!

These issues aren't new yet they haven't been covered well over the decades to keep the kids focused on important day to day issues and long term benefits. Government and the media have failed us in this regard.

The question now isn't to claim this as a new task or tax the stuffing out of the world -- its an opportunity to implement a prize from research that's been on-going since the '70s (taxpayer dollars).

Forget Global Warming, its a scam along with the Carbon Tax and Cap & Trade scams that have already turned to fraud in Europe.

But this is a HUGE opportunity if we can get the "wankers" in government to realize we are informed and need a better benefit from our 40 year investment.

If they aren't currently capable, we'll find new "Statesmen" who are!!! 

: )

Global Warming is dead but the issues aren't. 

Report this comment
#11) On January 25, 2010 at 4:13 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

I agree USNHR its absurd and most of the online news uses the terms in shorthand which further limits public understanding.

Report this comment
#12) On January 25, 2010 at 5:22 PM, FleaBagger (29.75) wrote:

Where's devoish?

Report this comment
#13) On January 25, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Option1307 (29.70) wrote:

Where's devoish?

To be fair and make this a complete collection, maybe you want to add a few of his posts. I know you adamantly disagree with his stance on AGW, but knowing the oppositons' arguments is always a good idea. Just a thought.

I like this idea of having a centralized hub, good call David.

Report this comment
#14) On January 25, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Lienbuster (94.19) wrote:

Brilliant! I am going to enjoy digesting the collected research on this issue!

Report this comment
#15) On January 26, 2010 at 1:21 AM, ralphmachio (24.87) wrote:

The planet heats up, cools down, and heats up again a couple of times just before an ice age, according to ice core samples from antarctica. I believe that there is no 'ice age' so much as the theory that poles shift, crust displaces, and what was once warm is now covered in miles of ice. That is how we have maps of Antarctica with no ice on it from pre 1500.  The Piri Reise Map (I don't know how to spell it) was copied from one on the wall of the ancient library in Alexandrea. 

All I know is, the ice always melts a couple of days after snow where I live, but for the last couple of years, it stays around for months. At this rate, it'll be 50 feet thick in 20 years:)

Report this comment
#16) On January 26, 2010 at 11:10 AM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

David,

Nice compendium.

You've probably run across someone to whom you've forwarded this information who does one or more of the following:

1. Calls you a name. Fascist is common. Nut job, or stupid perhaps.

2. Discredits Burt Rutan because he is not a climatologist.

3. Can prove global warming because glaciers are melting.

4. Accuses you of hating polar bears. Species-ist I think.

For these people they've bought in to the idea so much, they are vested in it to the point where denial and personal attacks win out over any discussion of the facts. Here's how I answer these folks -- and it drives them nuts:

1. Nope. I love a clean water and clean air, and I am an outdoor enthusiast. Fascists were Solcialists, and I'm a Libertarian. Taxing me to halt an unproven and discredited theory is Socialsit. As a good Socialist, if you believe so much in your cause -- because you are exhaling greenhouse gases - then show you care and cease to produce them!

2. Burt Rutan did not do the climate data gathering - he did data analysis (which he is an expert at) to expose the fraud of the so-called climatologists. Where exactly do you go to become a climatologist anyway? Environmental Science at EAU - where else!

3. Where I am seated now there was ice 2 miles thick - which has been retreating for 20,000 years! What we see today is just a continuation of the trend for the last 20,000 years. The error is in relating melt rates of the last few years to the last 50 years - and thinking faster now is worse. It goes faster and slower at times due to fluctuations during the overall trend, but it's been on a melt for 20,000 years. How else do massive 2 miles thick ice glaciers disappear?

4. I don't hate polar bears, they're quite nice. Taste like chicken.

Known as tkc-nk-ktu (Inuit for eater of bears) nzsvz9

Report this comment
#17) On January 26, 2010 at 3:48 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

USNHR when whereaminow posted Aviation pioneer and master engineer Burt Rutan on Global Warming, I was caught up in the Health Care debate on cspan.

I'm a skeptic by nature and do my own research before backing a position.

After viewing Burt Rutan's videos, I did a bit of checking and found this post from 2001. Its likely to require a few cups of java to fully enjoy but is a great departure point for the topic:

Does CO2 really drive global warming?

Report this comment
#18) On February 04, 2010 at 2:06 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

I can see why Al Gore refuses to debate Lord Monckton.

 

Lord Monckton on Climate Change - Melbourne Highlights clip (1 of 2)

"How many climate skeptics does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: None, its far to early to say whether it needs changing."

 

Lord Monckton on Climate Change - Melbourne Highlights clip (2 of 2)

"No More Free Markets"...

Report this comment
#19) On February 04, 2010 at 3:13 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

2010 Background Info:
BBC Trust to Review Science Coverage
Outlet’s “accuracy and impartiality” to be scrutinized following criticism
By Curtis Brainard
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/bbc_trust_to_review_science_co.php

 

BBC asks WUWT for help find UK Scientists who are skeptical "on the weather".

The witch hunt begins?

Report this comment
#20) On February 12, 2010 at 5:36 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming
Richard Lindzen, MIT
(February 10, 2009 at the Fermi Lab Colloquium)

"I will briefly discuss why this is a peculiar issue, and illustrate this with various examples of how the issue is being exploited and portrayed. In particular, I will show how much of the science and phenomenology being presented is contradicted by both logic and data. Although there is a profound disconnect between the commonly cited IPCC conclusion and the various projections of catastrophe, it is nonetheless worthwhile to examine the basis for the IPCC attribution of recent warming to man because the arguments are profoundly at odds with normative scientific logic. Even so, the claimed result, itself, is consistent with low, and hence unworrisome, climate sensitivity. This talk will discuss how one can ascertain the sensitivity. Most approaches are faulty in that they use observed temperature behavior and assume its cause. We show how this trap can be avoided. There are several approaches, and they each lead to the conclusion that current models are substantially exaggerating sensitivity. However, because of the peculiar nature of this issue, it seems unlikely that either this or the evidence of data mishandling will serve to diminish the commitment of many individuals to the seriousness of the alleged problem."

Report this comment
#21) On February 21, 2010 at 4:24 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

I highly recommend this TV special for anyone with an open mind about the science behind AGW.

Must see: John Coleman’s Global Warming Special #2 – now online at YouTube

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/20/must-see-john-colemans-global-warming-special-2-now-online-at-youtube/ 

Report this comment
#22) On February 22, 2010 at 10:41 AM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Snowmageddon : O

 

Report this comment
#23) On February 22, 2010 at 7:05 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Its been interesting watching The Cryosphere Today reports for Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Data provided by NSIDC: NASA SMMR and SSMI

17 February, 2010: There’s approximately 3-4 more weeks of ice growth ahead and we’re currently -0.757 (million sq. km) from the 1979-2008 mean. So I thought it would be interesting to see where we top in relation to past years.

M/D/Y Posted Value Comment
021710: -.757
021810: -.726 (31,000 sq. km increase)
021910: -.689 (37,000 sq. km increase)
022010: (no data available when I checked – 2010 daily readings aren’t posted)
022110: -.597 (92,000 sq. km increase in the past 2 days | 160,000 to-date)
022210: -.684 (87,000 sq. km decrease since yesterday)

From 02-17-2010 to the present:
31,000 sq. km increase in 1 day
68,000 sq. km increase in the past 2 days
(no data when I checked) ? sq. km increase in the past 3 days
160,000 sq. km increase in the past 4 days
73,000 sq. km increase in the past 5 days (87,000 sq. km decrease since yesterday – odd, the positive trend was accelerating for the last 4 days and this is double the trend in the opposite direction – did they goof again?)

Report this comment
#24) On February 22, 2010 at 7:15 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Report this comment
#25) On February 24, 2010 at 10:41 AM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

United States Senate Report 'Consensus' Exposed: The CRU Controversy 

source: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63

 

"In our view, the CRU documents and emails reveal, among other things, unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some of the world‘s preeminent climate scientists."

 

Bottomline: EPA is acting on bad science and needs to start over.

 

Report this comment
#26) On February 26, 2010 at 2:00 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Someone has finally stepped up and stated the real reason for this debate -- Stewardship.

Report this comment
#27) On February 26, 2010 at 2:04 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

PS Now that the debate is moving in the right direction, we can dump Carbon Tax and Dump Cap and Trade in favor of supporting all the great reasons and methods for preserving our resources without Taxing the Stuffing out of the General Public.

Report this comment
#28) On February 28, 2010 at 7:00 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

maybe its just me  but a bit odd no one has responded - do you like paying for "scam"?

Report this comment
#29) On March 18, 2010 at 10:06 AM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

I haven't added anything to this thread for a while but ran across this article which I found interesting. Generally, the articles I've read over the last month indicate that climate science and the computer models it uses are at best deeply flawed. 

Reproducing Global Temperature Anomalies With Natural Forcings

Notes From Bob Tisdale on Climate Change and Global Warming

It Only Takes NINO3.4 SST Anomaly, Sunspot Number, and Volcanic Aerosols Data and A Different Mindset

 

INITIAL COMMENTS

"In this post, only natural forcings are used to simulate the Global Temperature Anomaly curve. The correlation is closer than any other attempt of this kind that I’ve seen to date, with or without anthropogenic forcings and with or without General Circulation Models (GCMs). Consider two things: First, most GCMs that government entities employ to make projections about future global climate do NOT model El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, even though ENSO is a dominant natural climate phenomenon. Second, those few GCMs that attempt to model ENSO events do NOT model their processes or the climate responses before, during, or after the events with any accuracy, though they are improving."

source: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html

 

Report this comment
#30) On March 18, 2010 at 10:17 AM, DJDynamicNC (41.76) wrote:

@CHK999 - "I remember when the accepted wisdom was that another ice age was coming and there was nothing we could do about it."

 

You mean one article in a popular science magazine?

 

Let's define "warming." Can we all agree that if the Earth has higher average temperatures, that means it is "warming"? That should be pretty basic.

 Now let's do some observation. How does the average temperature of the Earth compare to the historical record? According to literally millions of measurements, the last ten years have been the warmest on record.

Given that the most recent years are the warmest, can we all agree then that the Earth is warming?


Now let's consider that carbon dioxide traps heat. Nobody denies this.

Now let's also consider that we generate carbon dioxide, and release it from the environment, in large quantities. Nobody denies this.

 

So what we've got is something that traps heat, being released by us into the atmosphere, and a general warming trend.

Isn't it possible that there's a correlation there?

 

In related news, your "31,000 skeptical scientists" is a pretty silly argument. How many of those 31,000 are scientists who actually study climate? Seriously. Go ahead and count them. It won't take long, the number is very, very small.

 Now, if you have a heart attack, are you going to go see a Doctor of Theology? No, because they won't know what they're doing with your heart. Asking a bunch of medical doctors about their stance on climate change is the same idea. And it's just as dumb.

Report this comment
#31) On March 18, 2010 at 1:42 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

CO2 isn't forcing the temperature rise - there simply isn't enough of it. Sadly, the temperature records (data set) are also in dispute.

Here's a link to another interesting view. 

Dr. Joseph Fletcher

ICOADS: International Comprehensive (Consolidated) Ocean and Atmosphere Data Sets 

Global Climate MAESTRO

source: http://sharpgary.org/FletcherForecast.html 

Report this comment
#32) On March 18, 2010 at 2:19 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

AGW CO2 isn't provable and isn't a reason to introduce Cap and Trade and a Carbon Tax. Preserving resources and eliminating serious pollution is a great thing but should be funded by industry and addressed with innovation.

I've also run across some really fascinating and fun Eco factors along the way. Factors that naturally compensate for environmental deviations like excessive UV.

For instance, did you know that plankton make clouds to avoid sun burn? 

Compare the land mass to the ocean areas plankton populate and we've got another major factor that's beyond current climate projections but some day could be part of the model.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html

Report this comment
#33) On March 18, 2010 at 2:27 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

DJDynamicNC,

Climate Models are placing true scientists in a bad light. Scientists don't support current climate projections and openly compare Climate models to a child playing with video games.

Food for thought. 

Report this comment
#34) On April 13, 2010 at 10:11 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Haven't posted to this topic for a while but ran across these and thought you'd enjoy.

 

20/20 Stossel- GMAB - Al Gore Global Warming Debate

December 14, 2007

 

 

Preview: 'The Factor' Confronts Al Gore

April 12, 2010

 

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement