Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

[wilcopops]

" Antarctica contains 90% of the world's ice and more than 70% of its fresh water." precipitation is about 6.5 in p.a. The sow (there is no water precipitation) eventually gets compressed and forms part on the ice cap.

[canuckamuck]

There you go again. Twisting words and phrases, and trying to paint everything as either all black or all white. I prefaced my benign muse with the word 'sometimes' which is a conditional word. Look up; 'conditional.'

Personally, I live free of fear. But I'm a rarity, because nearly everyone has things their afraid of. I don't like bandying the word around, but here we go again:

Fear is a great motivator. It's the reason people build walls around their houses, why they put money in banks, why they fasten seat belts, why they read labels on food items, why they get roofs engineered, ....the list goes on and on. I'd rather use the word 'concern' or the phrase 'common sense.'

Governments do a lot of things which all citizens don't agree with. Indeed, there's probably not a government project anywhere which has across the board approval from everyone. What am I arguing such basic tenets for? It's like trying to talk sense with a 5 yr old. Some deniers are so fixated on being contrarian, that it's almost a joke. However, if the deniers are wrong, the consequences of not being prepared could be calamitous, ....but deniers could never admit being wrong. Impossible.

I thought you were trying to make a point, but it is hard to know what it is. Your were saying fear is a great motivator, well yes, You can force people to do anything through fear. But when the fear is based on a distortion of the facts, what you have is extortion, fraud, blackmail, and so on. The world has fought wars to end regimes that favor the motivation of fear, but it always comes back doesn't it? It is so tempting. If you listen to the rhetoric of the alarmists you can see they would be quite happy to bring in dictatorship to enforce green policies. And this is because they have been whipped in to a frenzy by fear. They are quite willing to accept tremendous loss of rights and freedoms because they are afraid. Fear is a motivator but it is not as good at solving problems as sober rationality is.

But now your argument has taken a turn and now you don't like the word fear and you replace it with common sense or concern. It is not really the same thing is it? You yourself say you live free from fear, so either you have no common sense or you agree that the terms fear and common sense are not exactly equal.

And it isn't really the truth is it, that you live free from fear, is it? Because if it were you would not end your argument by restating we might be heading for calamity.

You mention talking sense to a five year old, but maybe it is you that needs time to sort out your thoughts.

[RickBradford]

^^

Fear is a motivator but it is not as good at solving problems as sober rationality is.

True, but to the "progressive" mindset, sober rationality is a thought crime; it leads to choices, judgments, discriminating between alternate viempoints. It says that one thing is better than another, which to "progressives" is sheer bigotry.

"Mindless indiscrimination" is the holy grail, which is why we get events like the new Hiroshima app from the SkS Kidz, which tells us: "Global warming is accumulating in the Earth's climate system at a rate equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second."

So lacking in self-awareness are these people that they think this is a cool app, not a blatant abuse of one of history's most atrocious events and the memories of the people who suffered through it. This is the natural successor to the 10:10 video exploding children, and reinforces what a nasty bunch the Mindless Foot Soldiers of global warming really are.

This is taking the Leftist mantram of All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten to its logical limits.

[boomerangutang]

 

There you go again. Twisting words and phrases, and trying to paint everything as either all black or all white. I prefaced my benign muse with the word 'sometimes' which is a conditional word. Look up; 'conditional.'

Personally, I live free of fear. But I'm a rarity, because nearly everyone has things their afraid of. I don't like bandying the word around, but here we go again:

Fear is a great motivator. It's the reason people build walls around their houses, why they put money in banks, why they fasten seat belts, why they read labels on food items, why they get roofs engineered, ....the list goes on and on. I'd rather use the word 'concern' or the phrase 'common sense.'

Governments do a lot of things which all citizens don't agree with. Indeed, there's probably not a government project anywhere which has across the board approval from everyone. What am I arguing such basic tenets for? It's like trying to talk sense with a 5 yr old. Some deniers are so fixated on being contrarian, that it's almost a joke. However, if the deniers are wrong, the consequences of not being prepared could be calamitous, ....but deniers could never admit being wrong. Impossible.

I thought you were trying to make a point, but it is hard to know what it is. Your were saying fear is a great motivator, well yes, You can force people to do anything through fear. But when the fear is based on a distortion of the facts, what you have is extortion, fraud, blackmail, and so on. The world has fought wars to end regimes that favor the motivation of fear, but it always comes back doesn't it? It is so tempting. If you listen to the rhetoric of the alarmists you can see they would be quite happy to bring in dictatorship to enforce green policies. And this is because they have been whipped in to a frenzy by fear. They are quite willing to accept tremendous loss of rights and freedoms because they are afraid. Fear is a motivator but it is not as good at solving problems as sober rationality is.

But now your argument has taken a turn and now you don't like the word fear and you replace it with common sense or concern. It is not really the same thing is it? You yourself say you live free from fear, so either you have no common sense or you agree that the terms fear and common sense are not exactly equal.

And it isn't really the truth is it, that you live free from fear, is it? Because if it were you would not end your argument by restating we might be heading for calamity.

You mention talking sense to a five year old, but maybe it is you that needs time to sort out your thoughts.

I mention I'm not motivated by fear, and someone retorts that I have no common sense. Silly convolution of words.

It was the deniers who introduced 'fear' (as a motivator) in to this discussion, so I was responding to that. I shouldn't have taken the bait, because 'fear' is not a key issue that needs to be focused upon.

'Concern' and 'precaution' are better words to focus upon.

As for someone's father saying things like; 'weather isn't now what it used to be decades ago.' That's ok, but not very scientific. It's akin to (but less scientific than) old-time residents in the Alps mentioning how glaciers used to be a lot longer and thicker than they are now. If deniers only want to believe the bits of science which appear to back the views they want to see, that's their choice.

For the most part, I see climate-related scientists doing good work. Perhaps all aren't perfect in their data-gathering. If not, then it's up to other scientists to correct them. That's the beauty of science. It's not like religion, where the congregation is required to believe exactly what the preacher says, or burn in the fires of purgatory.

There are field scientists, garnering climate-related data in many tough regions of the globe. If a layman wants to denigrate their efforts and data - because that layman doesn't like the message it conveys, then so be it. Speaking for myself, I admire and respect those scientists who are doing a good job - particularly when they're out in the field in harsh conditions.

[FiftyTwo]

There are field scientists, garnering climate-related data in many tough regions of the globe. If a layman wants to denigrate their efforts and data - because that layman doesn't like the message it conveys, then so be it. Speaking for myself, I admire and respect those scientists who are doing a good job - particularly when they're out in the field in harsh conditions.

Name one please, just one, who actually goes out in the field and gathers data.

[jimmybcool]

Always a great subject. I suspect I am like many (semi)educated humans.

1) Yes, there is climate change on earth. Has been forever. Will continue regardless of if humans exist.

2) Yes, having 7 billion humans on the planet has an impact on it. Deforestation and dumping in the oceans and overfishing and yes pumping exhaust into the sky are bad ideas if continued too long or too heavily. Personally I believe the overfishing and dumping in the ocean will end up being a bigger threat to the earths ability to support 7 billion and growing humans on it. At least near term.

3) The developed nations of the world, US, Europe, etc could all reduce emissions by 90% tomorrow and we still have the same amount generated for the last 30 years as the most growth is in emerging countries who are far too worried about feeding their people NOW than to worry about 20 years from now. Anyone notice how many trucks in thailand have zero emissions controls?

4) Call be a denier if you want but I'm not convinced the warming of the earth really is that harmful. Unless you live in a low atoll based country in which case you better either move or learn how to tread water. But I'm not positive so I'd like to find solutions that make SENSE.

5) IMO the solutions people like Gore propose are absolutely wrong. And in fact the effort to claim the science is settled is also defeatist when you close off discussion. I can't support them. The left uses this subject more for politics than it does solving the problem. Kyoto is a joke as are all other "tax plans".

6) The solution sadly is not that easy. It will require development of new and better sources of energy that don't pollute as much. it will take a weening away from a disposable products lifestyle. It will be a gradual movement by the people to purchase things that last instead of the cheapest one they can find.

It requires education of the masses without the religion and "believe is the science is settled" attitude. So obviously we won't get these things and will continue down the path we are on and watch as China and India develop and generate yet more pollution planetwide.

[RickBradford]

That's the beauty of science. It's not like religion, where the congregation is required to believe exactly what the preacher says, or burn in the fires of purgatory.

That's a fair distinction. Another way to say that would be: "Religions tend to be closed systems of belief that reject criticism. But the sciences are open systems of knowledge that welcome criticism."

Let's see where the global warming movement sits:

"Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies." - Richard Glover, Sydney Morning Herald

"At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?" - influential U.S. website (Talking Points Memo)

"Fighting Climate Change Deniers Is Like Fighting Hitler" - Chris Huhne, former UK government minister

"David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial. Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence - it is a crime against humanity after all." - Robin McKie, The Observer

"When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.” - Grist magazine

"…every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."— Guardian journalist George Monbiot.

“An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds,” former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on." Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

"I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Even mass murderers like Breivik should not be executed, in my opinion. GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death." - Professor Richard Parncutt, Graz University.

Yup, 'global warming' is a religion. Or, more precisely, a cult, and a nasty creepy one at that.

EDIT: Spelling

Edited December 1, 2013 by RickBradford

[stedyedy]

Because it is getting warmer the relative humidity increases which means there is more moisture in the air to be cooled which makes for more wind and rain and ice i have no doubt that earth has gone through climate changes before but then there wasnt unnatural gases and fuels been burnt back then and toxins and pollutants adding to it aswell.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[leggo]

I'm a CO2 sniffer -I can't help it!

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[boomerangutang]

There are field scientists, garnering climate-related data in many tough regions of the globe. If a layman wants to denigrate their efforts and data - because that layman doesn't like the message it conveys, then so be it. Speaking for myself, I admire and respect those scientists who are doing a good job - particularly when they're out in the field in harsh conditions.

Name one please, just one, who actually goes out in the field and gathers data.

Ok, this time, but I don't particularly want to do google searches for you. You can do them for yourself.

Roy Fritz Koerner

Of course, there are hundreds of others.

[FiftyTwo]

There are field scientists, garnering climate-related data in many tough regions of the globe. If a layman wants to denigrate their efforts and data - because that layman doesn't like the message it conveys, then so be it. Speaking for myself, I admire and respect those scientists who are doing a good job - particularly when they're out in the field in harsh conditions.

Name one please, just one, who actually goes out in the field and gathers data.

Ok, this time, but I don't particularly want to do google searches for you. You can do them for yourself.

Roy Fritz Koerner

Of course, there are hundreds of others.

So you didn't know of any 'famous researchers' and had to find a guy that had been dead 5 years using google.

Looks like they aren't all that famous to me.

Not forgetting when he died 5 years ago age 75, he should have already been retired for 10 years.

Not forgetting most scientists are effectively finished by age 40 ......

So let me see, when he was cutting edge it would have been about 1960s ... when they were predicting a new ice age.

[boomerangutang]

wow RB, that list of quotes is sobering. Actually had me grinning, when tuning in to the emotions this topic triggers in others. I don't condone threatening others over a topic like this. If that was all I had heard on the debate, I'd probably be a denier also. Yet, what I go with is the data and opinions of scientists and level-headed people who are concerned about the direction things are going regarding rising seas, bigger storms, more severe droughts and such.

I could easily wax cynical. At my age, 61, I can just cruise on thru the next bunch of years without big worries. But I do give a hoot about the environmental degradation, that's my main concern. I'm in favor of human de-population - mainly by people having less babies. I don't want to see masses of people die, but it looks inevitable, whether GW plays its hand or not. There are several scenarios where masses of people will likely die. One way is; super storms coupled with tidal surges, but that's not even near the top of the list (compared to war, disease, starvation). It's just not possible for one species to keep on multiplying so robustly on a finite-sized planet.

[boomerangutang]

There are field scientists, garnering climate-related data in many tough regions of the globe. If a layman wants to denigrate their efforts and data - because that layman doesn't like the message it conveys, then so be it. Speaking for myself, I admire and respect those scientists who are doing a good job - particularly when they're out in the field in harsh conditions.

Name one please, just one, who actually goes out in the field and gathers data.

Ok, this time, but I don't particularly want to do google searches for you. You can do them for yourself.

Roy Fritz Koerner

Of course, there are hundreds of others.

So you didn't know of any 'famous researchers' and had to find a guy that had been dead 5 years using google.

Looks like they aren't all that famous to me.

Not forgetting when he died 5 years ago age 75, he should have already been retired for 10 years.

Not forgetting most scientists are effectively finished by age 40 ......

So let me see, when he was cutting edge it would have been about 1960s ... when they were predicting a new ice age.

In your question, you didn't mention the word 'famous.'

What do want, an Einstein? I don't know his name, but the fellow in the video (mentioned earlier) who went to glaciers all over and did time lapse videos. He's gaining notoriety, besides doing a stellar job at a gig which he thought up himself. He even designed much of the specialty equipment being used. He's a star, if you ask me. To a denier, he's probably no big deal or a quack or someone who's just gouging money from a gullible public. Of course, if his data showed no global warming, then deniers would put him on a pedestal of adoration. Sorry folks, his data is showing profound shrinking of glaciers - many locations.

[FiftyTwo]

To a denier, he's probably no big deal or a quack or someone who's just gouging money from a gullible public. Of course, if his data showed no global warming, then deniers would put him on a pedestal of adoration. Sorry folks, his data is showing profound shrinking of glaciers - many locations.

He died age 75 in 2008.

Google results find you stuff like that.

[RickBradford]

Yet, what I go with is the data and opinions of scientists and level-headed people who are concerned about the direction things are going regarding rising seas, bigger storms, more severe droughts and such.

I also believe that the majority of climate scientists are decent hard-working people genuinely trying to make sense of the chaotic conundrum that is Earth's climate.

But it seems quite clear that the science has been hijacked by political interests, both national and supra-national. That is quite easy to achieve, since government is the only funder of climate science, and also the only customer for the results.

It is therefore an unfortunate truism that those scientists who are most congenial to parroting and regurgitating the government line are those who will become the most prominent, Michael 'Piltdown' Mann being the classic example. Hence, the legitimate scientific endeavour has become horribly skewed and politically driven, with the willing compliance of the idiot media.

So, there is the science (honest, for the most part), and there is the politics of global warming which uses that science.

If the global warming movement really wanted to 'save the planet', they would support the following endeavors:

1) acknowledge publicly that cutting CO2 emissions across the developed world -- even drastically -- has virtually no effect on global temperatures, and cutting emissions globally is politically impossible in the short term anyway

2) go all out to help the developing world have access to the cheapest and cleanest forms of energy

3) spend money on progress. That is, massively increase research into things like fusion energy, battery storage, improved solar panels, even.

4) stop subsidising (aka: wasting money on) demonstrably silly feel-good measures like windmills and electric cars, and creating Mafia honeypots like carbon trading

The global warming movement supports none of these things; in fact, they actively dismiss them. Specifically, demonizing CO2 has become a lucrative industry in its own right.

Stuck in their infantile utopian dreams of a world powered by windmills (which we already gave up once 200 years ago) and algae, they oppose precisely the things that could buttress humanity against whatever the climate throws at us.

They are not just wrong; they are 180 degrees wrong.

EDIT: Grammar

Edited December 1, 2013 by RickBradford

[thaibeachlovers]

Yet, what I go with is the data and opinions of scientists and level-headed people who are concerned about the direction things are going regarding rising seas, bigger storms, more severe droughts and such.

I also believe that the majority of climate scientists are decent hard-working people genuinely trying to make sense of the chaotic conundrum that is Earth's climate.

But it seems quite clear that the science has been hijacked by political interests, both national and supra-national. That is quite easy to achieve, since government is the only funder of climate science, and also the only customer for the results.

It is therefore an unfortunate truism that those scientists who are most congenial to parroting and regurgitating the government line are those who will become the most prominent, Michael 'Piltdown' Mann being the classic example. Hence, the legitimate scientific endeavour has become horribly skewed and politically driven, with the willing compliance of the idiot media.

So, there is the science (honest, for the most part), and there is the politics of global warming which uses that science.

If the global warming movement really wanted to 'save the planet', they would support the following endeavors:

1) acknowledge publicly that cutting CO2 emissions across the developed world -- even drastically -- has virtually no effect on global temperatures, and cutting emissions globally is politically impossible in the short term anyway

2) go all out to help the developing world have access to the cheapest and cleanest forms of energy

3) spend money on progress. That is, massively increase research into things like fusion energy, battery storage, improved solar panels, even.

4) stop subsidising (aka: wasting money on) demonstrably silly feel-good measures like windmills and electric cars, and creating Mafia honeypots like carbon trading

The global warming movement supports none of these things; in fact, they actively dismiss them. Specifically, demonizing CO2 has become a lucrative industry in its own right.

Stuck in their infantile utopian dreams of a world powered by windmills (which we already gave up once 200 years ago) and algae, they oppose precisely the things that could buttress humanity against whatever the climate throws at us.

They are not just wrong; they are 180 degrees wrong.

EDIT: Grammar

Given that nuclear is at the moment the ONLY non cabon producing method of producing sufficient energy to power the world ( including electric cars ), you'd think that any government actually interested in reducing carbon output, rather than just taxing an ever increasing carbon stream would be going down that route, quick quick, and also massively investing in fusion research.

Unfortunately we have Germany and Japan going in the opposite direction.

[stedyedy]

Italy have given amnesty too a few science and nuclear engineers after belgium goverment tried shuting these guys down look up keshe reactors or keshe foundation makes protein(food)water electricity flies like ufos in the sky and well you get the picture its operation is based on the universe(dynamic plasma in a vacuum)the first mini reactors are to be sold on the 12/19/2013 5-10kw generators that will last for fifty yrs by itself.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[jimmybcool]

Italy have given amnesty too a few science and nuclear engineers after belgium goverment tried shuting these guys down look up keshe reactors or keshe foundation makes protein(food)water electricity flies like ufos in the sky and well you get the picture its operation is based on the universe(dynamic plasma in a vacuum)the first mini reactors are to be sold on the 12/19/2013 5-10kw generators that will last for fifty yrs by itself.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[RickBradford]

Those who do not deride critical and rational thought as a mere act of bigotry, might be interested in a new paper published by Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, titled Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age.

In it he discusses his reasons for believing that the Sun, rather than a 400ppm atmospheric concentration of an inert gas, is the key driver of the Earth's climate.

His conclusions:

1) We are in a transitional period from warming to deep cooling characterized by unstable climate changes when the global temperature will oscillate (approximately until 2014) around the maximum achieved in 1998-2005

2) This will lead to a drop in the temperature and to the beginning of the epoch of the Little Ice Age approximately after the maximum of solar cycle 24 around the year 2014.

3) The start of Grand Maunder-type Minimum of the TSI [total solar irradiance] is anticipated in solar cycle 27±1 about the year 2043±11

4) The beginning of the phase of deep cooling of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7,500 years in the year 2060±11.

5) The Sun's effect on global temperature between 2010 and 2060 will be a drop of about 1.5C

Dr. Abdussamatov does not propose any new taxes or UN-mandated regulations, vast new climate bureaucracies, higher electricity bills, banning incandescent lightbulbs, putting up silly subsidised windmills or replacing food crops with biofuels. He just presents the theory.

He may be right, he may be wrong, or even a bit of both.

But it raises an interesting thought: which would be better for humanity -- 1.5C of warming, or 1.5C of cooling?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf

[wilcopops]

Well I would have thought by now that this thread would have PROVED beyond doubt the existence of man made global warming - the cause? All that hot air emitted by Rick Bradford.

[Scott]

No, I think this thread proves that what Einstein said is true, 'only two things are infinite.....'

[canuckamuck]

When thoughtful counterpoints cannot be found, ad hominem to the rescue.

Edited December 4, 2013 by canuckamuck

[canman]

Those who do not deride critical and rational thought as a mere act of bigotry, might be interested in a new paper published by Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, titled Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age.

In it he discusses his reasons for believing that the Sun, rather than a 400ppm atmospheric concentration of an inert gas, is the key driver of the Earth's climate.

His conclusions:

1) We are in a transitional period from warming to deep cooling characterized by unstable climate changes when the global temperature will oscillate (approximately until 2014) around the maximum achieved in 1998-2005

2) This will lead to a drop in the temperature and to the beginning of the epoch of the Little Ice Age approximately after the maximum of solar cycle 24 around the year 2014.

3) The start of Grand Maunder-type Minimum of the TSI [total solar irradiance] is anticipated in solar cycle 27±1 about the year 2043±11

4) The beginning of the phase of deep cooling of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7,500 years in the year 2060±11.

5) The Sun's effect on global temperature between 2010 and 2060 will be a drop of about 1.5C

Dr. Abdussamatov does not propose any new taxes or UN-mandated regulations, vast new climate bureaucracies, higher electricity bills, banning incandescent lightbulbs, putting up silly subsidised windmills or replacing food crops with biofuels. He just presents the theory.

He may be right, he may be wrong, or even a bit of both.

But it raises an interesting thought: which would be better for humanity -- 1.5C of warming, or 1.5C of cooling?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf

The Maunder and Dalton minimums are well documented. Plenty of discussion out there by real scientists predicting a prolonged cooling period in the near future.

I propose we call the coming minimum the "Gore Minimum"

[RickBradford]

Looks like the Warsaw climate talks were worth it after all!

[thaibeachlovers]

First time I have been cold in Lamphun. It is definitely colder than last year. Gimme some of that global warming, please.

[FDog]

800 of the worlds leading scientists were commissioned to study tens of thousands of data on climate change and determined it is real and that man is having an impact on it.

28 pages later on this forum some think that they know better.

Some people make me laugh.

[wilcopops]

When thoughtful counterpoints cannot be found, ad hominem to the rescue.

Thomas jefferson

"“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them....."

[thaibeachlovers]

800 of the worlds leading scientists were commissioned to study tens of thousands of data on climate change and determined it is real and that man is having an impact on it.

28 pages later on this forum some think that they know better.

Some people make me laugh.

"world's leading scientists"- sez who? I've known scientists that were legends in their own minds

[puukao]

I am sure this is all un-biased science. I started a company researching how coffee is good for you, and all my employees agreed with me. well, except one, but that was after we stopped paying him.

nobody would really care if the glaciers stayed the same, or got bigger. but massively smaller? that is good news.

flying a plane is bad for the environment. more computer use adds to more wasteful building of electrical plants. cars don't recycle well. computers don't recycle well. etc....

so, forget all this global whatever.....getting colder? yes, let me sell you a coat. at a discount!!!

[Scott]

It would appear with with the last few pages, the discussion has moved away from the presentation of facts and a discussion toward more opinionated and inflammatory remarks. I have removed a post and replies like this.

Most posters have actually been quite civil, considering their convictions, but I do believe it is time for this topic to be closed.

Feel free to send me a PM if you have something to add to the thread that isn't already here.

//Closed//