|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/25/2005 08:26:01 AM · #51 |
First, a correction: The conservatives in this country do NOT, repeat NOT deny that global warming is real. See, there are FACTS presented in REAL studies PROVING that it has occurred over the last century and a half.
However, there are NOT facts, repeat NOT, that PROVE that the major cause is human activity. In FACT, studies have shown a DIRECT correlation between temperature and volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, etc. ( call them NATURAL phenomena ), but NO SUCH STUDIES show a DIRECT correlation between temperatures and human activity. For example, if global warming WERE associated with human activity, then one would expect to see temperature fluctuations during or shortly after major alterations in industrial activity, energy consumption, etc. such as occur during economic booms and depressions, but guess what? No such correlation can be found.
Namely, there is no proof that human activity has any discernable impact on global warming. The only correlation is one of inference.
Message edited by author 2005-02-25 08:30:52. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 08:56:11 AM · #52 |
IQ testing shall shall be performed before haman breeding is allowed.
The pay you receive shall be based of of how well you work not your social status.
One weekend a year the use of vehicles shall be forbidden.
All products purchased by the consumer shall have a resource tax added to the price. This tax shall be paid in full every year and will be used to rebuild the evironment destroyed to make the product.
Each member of the world population shall be limited to one child unless special permission is granted based on the individiual contribution to the world around them.
TV broadcasting will stop beetween the hours of 1pm and 5 pm. To encourage a heathier life style.
The criminal justice sytem shall allow violent crime inmates the option to terminate there life in liu of serving out there sentence.
Castration will be mandatory for anyone convicted of Rape or other violent sex crimes..
All people receiving government air will be required to compensate this aid. Through volenteer work or othe resonable methods.
I could go on all day with things that would possibly help the environment, economy, and the world in general..
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 11:35:52 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by RonB:
First, a correction: The conservatives in this country do NOT, repeat NOT deny that global warming is real. See, there are FACTS presented in REAL studies PROVING that it has occurred over the last century and a half.
However, there are NOT facts, repeat NOT, that PROVE that the major cause is human activity. In FACT, studies have shown a DIRECT correlation between temperature and volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, etc. ( call them NATURAL phenomena ), but NO SUCH STUDIES show a DIRECT correlation between temperatures and human activity. For example, if global warming WERE associated with human activity, then one would expect to see temperature fluctuations during or shortly after major alterations in industrial activity, energy consumption, etc. such as occur during economic booms and depressions, but guess what? No such correlation can be found.
Namely, there is no proof that human activity has any discernable impact on global warming. The only correlation is one of inference. |
Hear Hear!
Also remember that there were ice ages and mass extinctions and such long before the humans were here. In a 4 billion year old planet humans have been here for 100,000 years or so, and burning much of anything only for the last 400 years (max) and using fossil fuels for only 140 years and measuring it all for only 70 to 100 years.
It is like the four blind men that described the elephant. Man does not have enough information to reach a conclusion at this time.
Many predictions from my youth (only 30 years ago) have not come to pass.
overpopulation: Global population growth has stopped, and i read recently declined even!
starvation: There is more food produced worldwide than we can all eat.
coming ice age: now we are too warm
bad air: it is of a better quality now then 40 years ago
no trees left: the overwhelming amount of lumber and paper in teh US comes from tree farms. There are MANY more trees in north america now than in the mid 19th century when th eeastern US was completely deforested.
Just get into your SUV and go to walmart and buy an imported disposable plastic something or another.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 11:59:47 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
overpopulation: Global population growth has stopped, and i read recently declined even! |
Then I would respectfully suggest you change your reading matter.
From the UN Press Release concerning their latest world population report:
"World population is expected to increase by 2.6 billion over the next 45 years, from 6.5 billion today to 9.1 billion in 2050"
That's an interesting definition of "population growth has stopped" you're using. Perhaps you mistook "US population" for "world population".
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 12:05:14 PM · #55 |
Prof,
You said "In a 4 billion year old planet humans have been here for 100,000 years or so, and burning much of anything only for the last 400 years (max) and using fossil fuels for only 140 years and measuring it all for only 70 to 100 years."
I'm interested in your 140 year fossil fuel stat. Is that a fact? I'm not disputing it, I am curious. Isn't peat a fossil fuel? Isn't coal? Haven't they been used for far longer? Or is it that you're meaning to say something like "rapid industrialization combined with massive use of fossil fuels"?
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 12:27:21 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Prof,
You said "In a 4 billion year old planet humans have been here for 100,000 years or so, and burning much of anything only for the last 400 years (max) and using fossil fuels for only 140 years and measuring it all for only 70 to 100 years."
I'm interested in your 140 year fossil fuel stat. Is that a fact? I'm not disputing it, I am curious. Isn't peat a fossil fuel? Isn't coal? Haven't they been used for far longer? Or is it that you're meaning to say something like "rapid industrialization combined with massive use of fossil fuels"?
Robt. |
Not to throw a monkey-wrench into the discussion, but there is no "proof" that either coal or oil are "fossil" fuels. While fossils have been found in coal, there is no proof that coal is composed of "fossilized" anything or that its formation took "millions of years". |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 12:34:50 PM · #57 |
It seems to me that for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't really matter from whence they are derived, since the issue is the pollution caused bu their use. "Fossil Fuels" is a common coinage. My question is, in common usage don't coal and peat qualify as fossil fuels? This i don't know...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 12:47:17 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
It seems to me that for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't really matter from whence they are derived, since the issue is the pollution caused bu their use. "Fossil Fuels" is a common coinage. My question is, in common usage don't coal and peat qualify as fossil fuels? This i don't know...
Robt. |
For the purpose of this discussion, and in common usage, peat is NOT a "fossil fuel". |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 12:57:05 PM · #59 |
I was referring mainly to oil, found in 1869. I had not thought about coal, but i suppose it would count.
fall 2003 I read a transportaion in\dustry rag that said the only 'resouce' we have more of in north america than coal is natural gas. Then 3 months later there is a shortage and huge price jumps.
Interesting.
as to the population issue...In 2000, the world had 6.1 billion human inhabitants. This number could rise to more than 9 billion in the next 50 years. For the last 50 years, world population multiplied more rapidly than ever before, and more rapidly than it will ever grow in the future.
perhaps i read some repharsing of that 'more rapidly than it ever will' or perhaps it referred to more developed countries (see that part of the graph and the test above here //www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm)
Message edited by author 2005-02-25 12:57:22.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 01:05:49 PM · #60 |
| I guess the conservatives are looking for the type of hard evidence and facts for human caused global warming that they had with Iraqi WMDs. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 01:08:07 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
overpopulation: Global population growth has stopped, and i read recently declined even! |
Absolutly incredible. What is taught in school these days?!
In the last 12 years we grew 1 billion. In the next 12 it will be 2. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 02:07:11 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
overpopulation: Global population growth has stopped, and i read recently declined even! |
Absolutly incredible. What is taught in school these days?!
In the last 12 years we grew 1 billion. In the next 12 it will be 2. |
THAT is a whole 'nother discussion. Suffice it to say, liberals dominate the government ( commonly called "public" ) schools, as well as most colleges and universities. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 02:22:48 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Prof,
You said "In a 4 billion year old planet humans have been here for 100,000 years or so, and burning much of anything only for the last 400 years (max) and using fossil fuels for only 140 years and measuring it all for only 70 to 100 years."
I'm interested in your 140 year fossil fuel stat. Is that a fact? I'm not disputing it, I am curious. Isn't peat a fossil fuel? Isn't coal? Haven't they been used for far longer? Or is it that you're meaning to say something like "rapid industrialization combined with massive use of fossil fuels"?
Robt. |
Not to throw a monkey-wrench into the discussion, but there is no "proof" that either coal or oil are "fossil" fuels. While fossils have been found in coal, there is no proof that coal is composed of "fossilized" anything or that its formation took "millions of years". |
Just thought I'd chip in with a point about fossil fuels.
What are fossil fuels?
Coal, petroleum, and natural gas are called fossil fuels because they are made of fossilized, carbon-rich plant and animal remains. These remains are buried in sediments and compressed over geologic time, slowly being converted to fuel. Fossil fuels can be extracted from the sediment millions of years after its deposition. Its stored energy can be used as fuel when it is burned.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 02:36:58 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bear_music:
It seems to me that for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't really matter from whence they are derived, since the issue is the pollution caused bu their use. "Fossil Fuels" is a common coinage. My question is, in common usage don't coal and peat qualify as fossil fuels? This i don't know...
Robt. |
For the purpose of this discussion, and in common usage, peat is NOT a "fossil fuel". |
For the purpose of this discussion, every organic material which yields carbon dioxide as a combustion product is a "fossil fuel." |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 03:07:00 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bear_music:
It seems to me that for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't really matter from whence they are derived, since the issue is the pollution caused bu their use. "Fossil Fuels" is a common coinage. My question is, in common usage don't coal and peat qualify as fossil fuels? This i don't know...
Robt. |
For the purpose of this discussion, and in common usage, peat is NOT a "fossil fuel". |
For the purpose of this discussion, every organic material which yields carbon dioxide as a combustion product is a "fossil fuel." |
Interesting. So when I burn a log in my fireplace that was cut from a living tree just a year ago, I'm burning a "fossil fuel"?
Thanks for the enlightenment.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 03:15:26 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Graphicfunk,
Seems that your conclusion, while very cosmic (in the popular sense), that is, "Hey, over the long term it won't matter any ways since you'll be dead, so why worry about it?" Is, actually, very shortsighted. It's pretty clear -- in spite of how loudly conservatives in this country negate its existence -- that global warming is real, and that a century-plus of industrialization is a major contributing factor. I don't know about you, but as a lay person I know that I cannot attack nor explain the data that supports the existence of and human causation of global warming. However, it's pretty clear that environmental degradation is part of industrialization, human encroachment into previously undeveloped areas, etc. Accordingly, given the rapid global development of the past century, it stands to reason that we are in fact affecting our environment.
Now, clearly we -- humans and nations alike -- are not going to stop developing; however, given the data, and the lessons from previous human societies that over-exploited their environment, it would be foolish and shortsighted of us if we didn't start making certain long term preparations.
For example, we -- as nations -- ought to opt for cleaner fuels all across the board; we ought to develop communities, products and resources so that much of our materials are recycled; etc., etc., so on and so on. Now, my sole point is that we ought to make environmental choices that prolong the long term viability of our communities and environment. Now, this does not necessarily mean that our economies need to suffer -- at the most basic level, we ought to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time: develop sustainable and environmentally responsible energy/consumption strategies, while stimulating economic development in the near-term. We can do both. But, in order to do both, we must learn that collaboration is essential and that international partners will facilitate such progress.
Again, it does not have to be one over the other, instead: It's both, simultaneously, with the aim towards reducing those practices that harm our collective environment. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All what you say is great and I am sure that everyone is in agreement. If we breathe air and use water all steps should be taken to maintain these toxins at bay. However, you state that previous societies abused thei environment. Are you saying that that abuse led to earthwarming? Exactly how did they cause this abuse? What massive industrial civilization are you refering to?
You see, my argument is not that we are all going to be dead and that this planet and solar system will reach its end at one point in time. What I am saying is that the so called scientist are not even aware of the composition and hence condition of the core of the earth. Wouldn't you want to factor this information into this observation of the warming waters. Is the core composition and condition not the leading cause of earthquakes? But we can't because we lack this vital data. You see long ago the planet entered a cooling stage but since this info runs into a time frame wherein 10,000 years is an insignifant number, we just do not know what the next turn of events will be. yes, we sit here right now which is like a nano second in this time frame and we lack data to foretell the future. Earth warming is taking place but there were other earth warming periods and my question is who is responsible for them? Is it not logical that these events are more cyclical and inherent with the properties of this planetary system.
It is easy to make associations by seeking a correspondence of events to support a theory. 500 years before Christ, the sun was placed at the center and then the church returned the earth to the center. Look how many years it took to bring the sun back to the center. Study all the theories that were devised to explain the path of the planets with the earth as center. Many made a hell of a lot of sense. Our history incorrectly gives credit to the wrong people for discovering that the sun is at the center. This was old information. The point is that we are dealing with some very big numbers of which we are such a fleeting part that we are unable to put the big picture together.
All we do is find support and then must use terms like may or perhaps. However, there are people who for political reason are ready to lie.
So again, earthwarming is taken place, this phenomena has taken place in the past and many real estate that was once above water is below and it is possible that where we stand right now may be underwater at another time. I do not care how bright our scientist are, the time line is simply too big for any small period of time in which we devise our measurements.
Tell me, what can we do to prevent the next earthquake? The next major upheavels which will repeat a destructive patters like those of the past? It is easy to buy into a belief that we are the culprit rather than providence. Whatever feelings you have they have no effect on the inexorable movement of time and the developments inherent in a planet whose core is not settled. And who even knows, suppose that this core does reach a point in which it settles, will this new state support life as we know it? |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 03:21:21 PM · #67 |
As a debating tactic RonB's ploy is quite effective, while on the one hand he concedes that global warming is real, he immediately moves to insert doubt as to the legitimacy of the latest study by suggesting that "human activity" is not the cause. Please note that the reports on the latest study begin with:
"Researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear scientific evidence that human activity -- and very little else -- is warming the world's oceans." [ link ]
Note that the goal is the same, whether conservatives like RonB concede that global warming is real or not: their goal is to refuse to use of our resources and environment responsibly and collaboratively. It really doesn't matter much to conservatives whether global warming is real or not, man made or not; what's at heart of their refusal to acknowledge the problem is that, as an ideology, conservatism is based on selfishly putting the self ahead of a collaborative approach to problem solving. Here's what I mean: if, as nations and individuals, we recognize that global warming is real, and caused by human factors, then the only reasonable, rational and responsible thing to do is to "collaborate" with our immediate communities and other nations to begin to address the problem. Now, collaborative work means compromise and reaching out: two traits that conservatives are not particularly well known for.
As to RonB's approach, I wonder what sort of explicit literalism he expects to see before he's ever convinced that "human activity," since industrialization, is a contributing factor to global warming and to the broader degradation of our environment. I pose the question in terms of "what sort of explicit literalism RonB expects to see before he's ever convinced," because -- again -- RonB adheres to a particular brand of conservatism: explicit literalism on virtually every subject, including evolution vs. creationism. For example, in a previous thread RonB attacked evolution, while advocating for creationism; a position that seriously makes me wonder if RonB could ever be convinced by science of anything, including what the latest study reports:
"It is this high degree of visual agreement and statistical significance that leads Barnett to conclude that the warming is the product of human influence. Efforts to explain the ocean changes through naturally occurring variations in the climate or external forces- such as solar or volcanic factors--did not come close to reproducing the observed warming." [ link ]
Message edited by author 2005-02-25 15:28:46.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 03:25:16 PM · #68 |
| I usually would feel no need to state anythign on this matter, but having facts from a recent geology conference at my university, I want to put an interesting point out there. Our planet is due for another ice age, one that would in essence cause a mass extinction. The global warming that is occuring (not going to get into the cause of it) is actually mediating the temparature changes that would be taking place. This is of course over such a span of time that it would make absolutely no difference to anyone here. But just ponder the fact that the global warming could in fact make this planet a more inhabitable environment for a longer period of time during this geologic era. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 03:37:16 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
I usually would feel no need to state anythign on this matter, but having facts from a recent geology conference at my university, I want to put an interesting point out there. Our planet is due for another ice age, one that would in essence cause a mass extinction. The global warming that is occuring (not going to get into the cause of it) is actually mediating the temparature changes that would be taking place. This is of course over such a span of time that it would make absolutely no difference to anyone here. But just ponder the fact that the global warming could in fact make this planet a more inhabitable environment for a longer period of time during this geologic era. |
I'm all for it. I'd much rather live in a poluted greenhouse than die in a pristine freezer. :)
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 03:40:01 PM · #70 |
Bdobe: your last post is admitting that this is more a political thing.
The argument has all to do with politics. It is the left that believes that this paradise is being endangered by men. They want desperately to be identified with the noble task of saving the planet. It is the left that condems smoking and places it as a bigger danger than alcoholic consumption.
The conservatives care as much about life and the planet but we are not true believers and do not jump on the bandwagons to preach to the rest of society to remove God, Christmas, and whatever other target you choose such as earthwarming today and who knows what tomorrow.
Frankly with so many leftist in our educational system, why would you think that I would trust any of these leftist scientist. They did a good number on one of their own, namely Immanuel Velikovsky.
I detect that the left has adopted this view more as a religion and they continue the march to muddy the waters for political reasons.
Message edited by author 2005-02-25 22:25:26. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 03:44:38 PM · #71 |
probably said before here but i couldn t find it this odd contradiction
i recently saw a program on global warming and the most recent conclusion on polution is that it is tempering..yes tempering the global warming-up
they have measured that in the last 50 years for example in Russia the sunlight is tempered by 30% caused by all the thick polution that was sent into space and this deminish of sunlight causes that the warming up is slowed down so it would have been worse if we did not put all the shit in the air like we do and there would have been probably money in airconditioning systems in Alaska by now
but one way or the other i still feel like we should really start and concern about this polutionproblem |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 03:47:08 PM · #72 |
Suprada, or anyone;
"Coal, petroleum, and natural gas are called fossil fuels because they are made of fossilized, carbon-rich plant and animal remains. These remains are buried in sediments and compressed over geologic time, slowly being converted to fuel. Fossil fuels can be extracted from the sediment millions of years after its deposition. Its stored energy can be used as fuel when it is burned."
Yes, that's what I had thought. But is not peat in the same category? It's decayed plant matter compressed over time in "peat bogs"... I am asking as a point of information, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 03:51:25 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Interesting. So when I burn a log in my fireplace that was cut from a living tree just a year ago, I'm burning a "fossil fuel"?
Thanks for the enlightenment. |
Well the problem with what are generally called "fossil fuels" isn't how they are made, but the release of carbon that had been previously locked up away from the environment.
In that context, peat is clearly in that group as it has been "locked" carbon for a significant period of time. A log from a tree is not, because that carbon was captured from the atmosphere by the tree as it grew comparatively recently.
I suspect you know this, however.
|
|
|
|
02/25/2005 04:01:40 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
As a debating tactic RonB's ploy is quite effective, while on the one hand he concedes that global warming is real, he immediately moves to insert doubt as to the legitimacy of the latest study by suggesting that "human activity" is not the cause. Please note that the reports on the latest study begin with:
"Researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear scientific evidence that human activity -- and very little else -- is warming the world's oceans." [ link ] |
Yes, I did note how it began. It began with the statement that there was "clear scientific evidence" not that there was "irrefutable proof". I asked gingerbaker where the "evidence" could be viewed but have yet to see a response - it causes me to wonder if perhaps the "scientists" are hiding the evidence so that it cannot be openly discussed and refuted.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Note that the goal is the same, whether conservatives like RonB concede that global warming is real or not: their goal is to refuse to use of our resources and environment responsibly and collaboratively. |
On what basis do you proffer this lie? Have I made ANY statement to the effect that I refuse to use our resources and environment responsibly and collaboratively? NO, I don't think so.
Originally posted by bdobe:
It really doesn't matter much to conservatives whether global warming is real or not, man made or not; what's at heart of their refusal to acknowledge the problem is that, as an ideology, conservatism is based on selfishly putting the self ahead of a collaborative approach to problem solving. |
What liberals call "collaborative" is when they can run the show - it's like "bi-partisanship" only exists when the Republicans cave in to Democratic demands.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Here's what I mean: if, as nations and individuals, we recognize that global warming is real, and caused by human factors... |
But we don't. We DO agree that global warming is real - we DON'T agree that it is caused by human factors. ADDED to perhaps, but not CAUSED by.
Originally posted by bdobe:
..., then the only reasonable, rational and responsible thing to do is to "collaborate" with our immediate communities and other nations to begin to address the problem. Now, collaborative work means compromise and reaching out: two traits that conservatives are not particularly well known for. |
Now, collaborative means that China, India, and Brazil have to "collaborate", too - otherwise it puts the U.S. at an extreme disadvantage in the global economy.
BTW, When is the last time the liberals in Congress "reached out" and compromised?
Originally posted by bdobe:
As to RonB's approach, I wonder what sort of explicit literalism he expects to see before he's ever convinced that "human activity," since industrialization, is a contributing factor to global warming and to the broader degradation of our environment. |
When I see irrefutable proof that there is a direct relationship between global temperatures ( or ocean temperatures, if you will ) and industrial activity, or energy generation/consumption.
Originally posted by bdobe:
I pose the question in terms of "what sort of explicit literalism RonB expects to see before he's ever convinced," because -- again -- RonB adheres to a particular brand of conservatism: explicit literalism on virtually every subject, including evolution vs. creationism. For example, in a previous thread RonB attacked evolution, while advocating for creationism |
Yes, and I noticed that you fled the argument when I posed a direct question that would expose the inadequacies in your argument - let me repeat it here:
You're flying over a desert island and see "TOM LOVES MARY" etched in the sand just above the highest waterline. You observe NO life forms on the island. You land. You investigate thoroughly. NO life forms anywhere. Just a strip of sand in the ocean without vegetation or any life of any kind.
Q, How do you explain the "TOM LOVES MARY" etched in the sand?
A1. If you only believe in science, you theorize that the random interactions of the waves, wind, and perhaps some floating debris caused what you observe. You come to this conclusion because there is no evidence to support any other theory - you found no footprints, no "tools" that could have been used.
A2 If you are NOT a scientist ( that is, you are not "trained" in the formal methodology of science ), you suggest that a man named TOM had visited the strip of sand recently and "wrote" a message in the sand. He stood in front of what he wrote and his footprints have since been washed away by the incoming tide.
By the way. A single strand of DNA is probably on the order of 1 billion times more complex than the phrase "TOM LOVES MARY".
Which answer would require a greater leap of faith? Which would require a greater setting aside of logic and intelligence?
Originally posted by bdobe:
...; a position that seriously makes me wonder if RonB could ever be convinced by science of anything, including what the latest study reports:
"It is this high degree of visual agreement and statistical significance that leads Barnett to conclude that the warming is the product of human influence. Efforts to explain the ocean changes through naturally occurring variations in the climate or external forces- such as solar or volcanic factors--did not come close to reproducing the observed warming." [ link ] |
I don't believe that "high degree...leads...conclude" rises to the level of proof that any rational being should require of a "scientist". "Scientist" should be able to offer irrefutable evidense, not conjecture. |
|
|
|
02/25/2005 04:06:41 PM · #75 |
| So it must be that the doctor who tells his/her patient that they are developing emphysema and must stop their tobacco habit must be a leftist with political ambitions so as to take money away from the tobacco companies. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/26/2025 09:22:23 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/26/2025 09:22:23 AM EDT.
|
