RE: I know Global Warming Again

RE: I know Global Warming Again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/5/2015 7:16:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Lucylastic http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cato_Institute Is this the link you were looking. The one where CATO supports global warming? nope, simply looked for cato institute debunked. "lies" was too prurient....

HunterCA -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/10/2015 11:48:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey NOAA’s Climate Data Center says the climate models the scients are using are worng. http://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-hiatus-global-warming-after-all?utm_content=buffer6d2c7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climate-scientists-criticize-government-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming/

JVoV -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/10/2015 2:39:09 PM)
Is the science really important either way? Isn't it a part of nearly every religion's doctrine that we're supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Does it make sense to anyone for governments to allow pollution to go uncontrolled if we can do something about it?

Kirata -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/10/2015 2:44:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Does it make sense to anyone for governments to allow pollution to go uncontrolled if we can do something about it? Well of course not, but I think pollution is a separate matter (the fiction that CO2 is a "pollutant" notwithstanding). K.

Lucylastic -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/10/2015 2:54:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey NOAA’s Climate Data Center says the climate models the scients are using are worng. http://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-hiatus-global-warming-after-all?utm_content=buffer6d2c7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climate-scientists-criticize-government-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming/ more complete info here http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2015/06/05/no-slowdown-in-global-warming-experts-respond/

Sanity -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/10/2015 3:08:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Is the science really important either way? Isn't it a part of nearly every religion's doctrine that we're supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Does it make sense to anyone for governments to allow pollution to go uncontrolled if we can do something about it? If you dont want to force people into caves, or cardboard boxes or whatever... And make them eat twigs and bark (especially the poorest people), you have to strike a reasonable balance.

Kirata -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/10/2015 3:12:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey NOAA’s Climate Data Center says the climate models the scients are using are worng. http://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-hiatus-global-warming-after-all?utm_content=buffer6d2c7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.full http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climate-scientists-criticize-government-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming/ more complete info here http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2015/06/05/no-slowdown-in-global-warming-experts-respond/ There seems to be a growing lack of "consensus". K.

JVoV -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/10/2015 4:37:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Is the science really important either way? Isn't it a part of nearly every religion's doctrine that we're supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Does it make sense to anyone for governments to allow pollution to go uncontrolled if we can do something about it? If you dont want to force people into caves, or cardboard boxes or whatever... And make them eat twigs and bark (especially the poorest people), you have to strike a reasonable balance. Right. Reasonable balance. Being more responsible about the damage we do to the environment when we can easily prevent it. Especially as technology advances. Doesn't sound like a difficult concept to embrace.

HunterCA -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/10/2015 4:51:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Is the science really important either way? Isn't it a part of nearly every religion's doctrine that we're supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Does it make sense to anyone for governments to allow pollution to go uncontrolled if we can do something about it? Not sure what's going uncontrolled in this country. From your question, a good one, specifically I'd have to respond that stewardship of the earth is reasonable, yet, a godless Marxist transfer of wealth, which this is, isn't suggested in any religion I'm aware of. With regard to the science being important or not, I think the science is reasonable. I don't think jumping into a national economy ruined by science we still don't fully understand is reasonable.

JVoV -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/10/2015 7:19:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Is the science really important either way? Isn't it a part of nearly every religion's doctrine that we're supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Does it make sense to anyone for governments to allow pollution to go uncontrolled if we can do something about it? Not sure what's going uncontrolled in this country. From your question, a good one, specifically I'd have to respond that stewardship of the earth is reasonable, yet, a godless Marxist transfer of wealth, which this is, isn't suggested in any religion I'm aware of. With regard to the science being important or not, I think the science is reasonable. I don't think jumping into a national economy ruined by science we still don't fully understand is reasonable. I don't see any discussion of actual policies in this thread, Marxist or otherwise. Just more of the scientific debate that I know is way out of my paygrade. Our energy dependence has been used against us several times, making it as much a national security threat as an environmental one. If not more so, with the continued instability of the Middle East. So even if global warming and ozone depletion is all some lefty Marxist scam, there are still massive benefits in green technologies. I think gas prices over the last 7 or so years have done a lot more towards your "godless Marxist transfer of wealth" than any push towards renewable energy.

MrRodgers -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/11/2015 7:11:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Is the science really important either way? Isn't it a part of nearly every religion's doctrine that we're supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Does it make sense to anyone for governments to allow pollution to go uncontrolled if we can do something about it? If you dont want to force people into caves, or cardboard boxes or whatever... And make them eat twigs and bark (especially the poorest people), you have to strike a reasonable balance. Right. Reasonable balance. Being more responsible about the damage we do to the environment when we can easily prevent it. Especially as technology advances. Doesn't sound like a difficult concept to embrace. Fact of the matter, is that we are forever stuck on fossil fuels for our transportation et al, because of the profit motive. Thus we will over time, burn up every drop and cc we find. Then it may well be too late to save the planet.

HunterCA -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/11/2015 7:16:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Is the science really important either way? Isn't it a part of nearly every religion's doctrine that we're supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Does it make sense to anyone for governments to allow pollution to go uncontrolled if we can do something about it? If you dont want to force people into caves, or cardboard boxes or whatever... And make them eat twigs and bark (especially the poorest people), you have to strike a reasonable balance. Right. Reasonable balance. Being more responsible about the damage we do to the environment when we can easily prevent it. Especially as technology advances. Doesn't sound like a difficult concept to embrace. Fact of the matter, is that we are forever stuck on fossil fuels for our transportation et al, because of the profit motive. Thus we will over time, burn up every drop and cc we find. Then it may well be too late to save the planet. That statement is pretty much like,"When did you stop beating your wife." It assumes the planet is not in a natural phase, which we don't know, and needs us to spend a Marist treasure of untold redistribution to save. JVoV, if attached lots of links to posts in the past discussing it being a transfer of wealth thing. If you'd like I'll post a few again. But, you can google, if you'd like, what they talk about at these international conferences. It's all about how much the U.S. is willing to pass to developing nations so they can get "even" with us in development while bringing us down to their level so all things are fair. It's not hard to find.

Sanity -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/11/2015 8:39:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Is the science really important either way? Isn't it a part of nearly every religion's doctrine that we're supposed to be good stewards of the Earth? Does it make sense to anyone for governments to allow pollution to go uncontrolled if we can do something about it? If you dont want to force people into caves, or cardboard boxes or whatever... And make them eat twigs and bark (especially the poorest people), you have to strike a reasonable balance. Right. Reasonable balance. Being more responsible about the damage we do to the environment when we can easily prevent it. Especially as technology advances. Doesn't sound like a difficult concept to embrace. "Easily prevent it". Define that please. How is the United States not responsible? We have fairly strict environmental laws, strict enough to severely hamper industry and send most of our jobs overseas. We treat our sewage, we recycle. We bury what we cant recycle. We strive for improvements in land management and farm runoff, but we cant eliminate every trace of humanity completely and still have the products and energy we require at costs that are affordable for the poorest among us Where are we so terribly deficient in your mind. How are we such ogres, especially when compared to China and India etc

Sanity -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/12/2015 8:26:25 AM)
FR Saw this on Drudge a moment ago [sm=rofl.gif] FLASHBACK: ABCNEWS '08 Prediction: NYC Under Water From 'Climate Change' By June 2015! The story Matt Drudge linked to (with video): quote: FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015 New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015. The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.) - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june#sthash.NmmbgbxN.kJeNvDEE.dpuf Fucking Grubers... [:D]

joether -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/12/2015 9:50:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Yeah... "Stand back, folks - Marxism at work." KenDckey, Take note of what Sanity says after reading my post, specifically the following: "It uses just 'Karl', because 'Karl', is like 'Karl Marx'. An we all know who 'Karl Marx' is and his 'reputation' by conservatives and libertarians, right? That is.....WHY.....the CATO Institute uses that name. It sounds like a conspiracy, until you realize that is what the CATO Institute is pushing. That some guy named 'Karl' is saying Climate Change is on vacation (i.e. its not happening), and all the scientists are wrong; but doesn't give any evidence to support the claim." That Sanity responds to your OP exactly in the manner the CATO Institute wants him to do. Without question, without thought, without understanding; just blind and total obedience..... Except for the minor point that my post came hours before yours Which shows just how conditioned you are by the far right to view anything they give..... They know their audience very well. Its part of market research (a form of psychology). To which one studies every possible aspect of a business concept towards the individual viewer. In this case, pushing a political ideology on a 'reputable' sounding name, towards 'Low Information Voters'. Low Information Voters, as its been observed have several 'qualities': do not check information for accuracy, low critical thinking skills, low educational levels, often immature, easy to manipulate. The material from the CATO Institute appeals to you Sanity. You accept what your told from an organization, if you think its conservative; which ultimately shows your inability to accept ideas or thoughts from other sources. Another bit of criteria the CATO Institute demands from its audience. That you question EVERYTHING else, EXCEPT, what comes from a conservative ideology.

joether -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/12/2015 9:54:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee I cannot believe that I just read a conspiracy theory involving MLA article cite formatting, the CATO institute, and the authors of a science white paper. Wow. Joether, you are a twit. I cannot believe they (collarspace) still allow your lame ass attitude on the forum. The pile of insults and attacks. So if its 'OK' for you to attack me, its 'OK" for me to attack you, lame excuse for a person! Can't keep up with my thought process, which is plainly observed here, so attack me directly you will. Like Sanity, your ALSO easy to predict. Unlike Sanity, you can not behave like a mature adult.

HunterCA -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/12/2015 10:12:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee I cannot believe that I just read a conspiracy theory involving MLA article cite formatting, the CATO institute, and the authors of a science white paper. Wow. Joether, you are a twit. I cannot believe they (collarspace) still allow your lame ass attitude on the forum. The pile of insults and attacks. So if its 'OK' for you to attack me, its 'OK" for me to attack you, lame excuse for a person! Can't keep up with my thought process, which is plainly observed here, so attack me directly you will. Like Sanity, your ALSO easy to predict. Unlike Sanity, you can not behave like a mature adult. [sm=rofl.gif] Yes it's observed. It why nobody plays with you. Just as happened to you on the school yard and the rest of your life.

joether -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/12/2015 10:31:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Joe Just because I added a link from Cato, did you bother to read the article in Science Magazine? They aren't a part of Cato. Additionally, it does say that global warming exists, just at a different rate than is being generally used in models. If that makes Cato wrong, then global warming is wrong. I am usually quite wary of information put up by the CATO Institute. Meaning, I check the information given before accepting it as 'legit'. For an organization that thinks its 'polished' this 'paper' feels more like 'journalistic quality from FOX news' than either actual journalism or scientific study. The author is pushing a political viewpoint onto an audience that doesn't understand the basic material in science, let alone the more advanced concepts of the subject material (i.e. Climate Change). To many believers, not enough studying the evidence. That is the problem with Climate Change from a political perspective. That there are people on both sides that believe in one or more concepts regarding Climate Change, but afraid to have their viewpoints tested with the actual evidence. Because it takes time and effort to learn the basics before proceeding onto the advanced concepts. Much easier to be spoon fed 'information' that sounds 'legit', right? Particularly if it supports your political views? That sort of 'lazy' existence has not more harm to this nation than anything else. A people accepting what they are told, rather than seeking out the correct and true information. Right now, more conservatives and libertarians in this nation behave that way than in years past (pre-1990s). So we have a body of people that are not only lazy on the facts but very easy to manipulate with total lies. Liberty, or the concept of it, dies, when a people surrender their own free will to an ideology that is based on nothing good (i.e. support the concept of the Devil). Nor will any good come from its existence (i.e. making deals with said Devil). 'Global Warming' was a concept scientists first used in political dialogue back in the late 90s to mid 2000's. They tried to explain the concept to Americans prior to that time. Believing Americans were intellect and informed enough to handle such advanced concepts and ideas. They were wrong. So they retooled the 'understanding' and tried to give a dumb-downed version of Climate Change, 'Global Warming'. Even then, that did not exactly translate into the 'common mind' of the American people all to well. So now, they have taken lessons from educators in K-12, and 'talk to the individual at their educational level'. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE. Bill Nye approached the FOX 'news' anchor from the default position: high school education. When Mr. Nye realized this person doesn't have that, he dumb down the projection of information to a lower grade level (i.e. making it easier to understand). As I stated, Climate Change as a concept, is a very advanced idea in the sciences. Most people do not have the basics (i.e. high school physics, chemistry, biology); either because they never took the course work, or have forgotten much of it with the passage of time. Would be like explaining how light reacts to black holes. Most people believe (notice that word), that all light gets sucked into black holes. The science on the topic is quite more interesting if not very in-depth stuff. If I'm wrong, then I should be able to walk into the worst performing high schools in America, and see each and every pupil reading the latest Stephen Hawking's book on astrophysics and fully understanding its content. For the CATO Institute to be wrong, takes very little in the way of information. That they have been debunked many times previously with people not only giving the facts, but explaining the evidence with the 'rubish' the CATO puts out. When lies are projected by organizations, it takes time to look the information over, figure out what is 'true', 'semi-true' and 'bullshit', then create a document or video to which the correct information can be given to the audience minus the political drama and bullshit. So why doesnt the CATO Institute do this from the beginning? Since the lies have to be debunked and it costs people time and money to debunk the crap; why not just published the facts and truth for an organization...THAT HATES WASTE....in the first place? Because they push a political ideology (an that makes them a hypocrite). The white paper that you linked was quite interesting to read, btw. Just too limited....

HunterCA -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/12/2015 10:46:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Joe Just because I added a link from Cato, did you bother to read the article in Science Magazine? They aren't a part of Cato. Additionally, it does say that global warming exists, just at a different rate than is being generally used in models. If that makes Cato wrong, then global warming is wrong. I am usually quite wary of information put up by the CATO Institute. Meaning, I check the information given before accepting it as 'legit'. For an organization that thinks its 'polished' this 'paper' feels more like 'journalistic quality from FOX news' than either actual journalism or scientific study. The author is pushing a political viewpoint onto an audience that doesn't understand the basic material in science, let alone the more advanced concepts of the subject material (i.e. Climate Change). To many believers, not enough studying the evidence. That is the problem with Climate Change from a political perspective. That there are people on both sides that believe in one or more concepts regarding Climate Change, but afraid to have their viewpoints tested with the actual evidence. Because it takes time and effort to learn the basics before proceeding onto the advanced concepts. Much easier to be spoon fed 'information' that sounds 'legit', right? Particularly if it supports your political views? That sort of 'lazy' existence has not more harm to this nation than anything else. A people accepting what they are told, rather than seeking out the correct and true information. Right now, more conservatives and libertarians in this nation behave that way than in years past (pre-1990s). So we have a body of people that are not only lazy on the facts but very easy to manipulate with total lies. Liberty, or the concept of it, dies, when a people surrender their own free will to an ideology that is based on nothing good (i.e. support the concept of the Devil). Nor will any good come from its existence (i.e. making deals with said Devil). 'Global Warming' was a concept scientists first used in political dialogue back in the late 90s to mid 2000's. They tried to explain the concept to Americans prior to that time. Believing Americans were intellect and informed enough to handle such advanced concepts and ideas. They were wrong. So they retooled the 'understanding' and tried to give a dumb-downed version of Climate Change, 'Global Warming'. Even then, that did not exactly translate into the 'common mind' of the American people all to well. So now, they have taken lessons from educators in K-12, and 'talk to the individual at their educational level'. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE. Bill Nye approached the FOX 'news' anchor from the default position: high school education. When Mr. Nye realized this person doesn't have that, he dumb down the projection of information to a lower grade level (i.e. making it easier to understand). As I stated, Climate Change as a concept, is a very advanced idea in the sciences. Most people do not have the basics (i.e. high school physics, chemistry, biology); either because they never took the course work, or have forgotten much of it with the passage of time. Would be like explaining how light reacts to black holes. Most people believe (notice that word), that all light gets sucked into black holes. The science on the topic is quite more interesting if not very in-depth stuff. If I'm wrong, then I should be able to walk into the worst performing high schools in America, and see each and every pupil reading the latest Stephen Hawking's book on astrophysics and fully understanding its content. For the CATO Institute to be wrong, takes very little in the way of information. That they have been debunked many times previously with people not only giving the facts, but explaining the evidence with the 'rubish' the CATO puts out. When lies are projected by organizations, it takes time to look the information over, figure out what is 'true', 'semi-true' and 'bullshit', then create a document or video to which the correct information can be given to the audience minus the political drama and bullshit. So why doesnt the CATO Institute do this from the beginning? Since the lies have to be debunked and it costs people time and money to debunk the crap; why not just published the facts and truth for an organization...THAT HATES WASTE....in the first place? Because they push a political ideology (an that makes them a hypocrite). The white paper that you linked was quite interesting to read, btw. Just too limited.... Provide links to CATO being debunked on global warming. I provided links to the paper KenDucky posted being debunked. It's all over the press that everyone reviewing the paper thinks it's not only poor work but politically motivated. Oh no! A paper on global warming from NOAA debunked as politically motivated? Well that takes at least a masters degree in science (which is all Bill Nye has and uses for entertainment only) so how will you understand it with only high school chemistry and physics?

joether -> RE: I know Global Warming Again (6/12/2015 11:17:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee I cannot believe that I just read a conspiracy theory involving MLA article cite formatting, the CATO institute, and the authors of a science white paper. Wow. Joether, you are a twit. I cannot believe they (collarspace) still allow your lame ass attitude on the forum. The pile of insults and attacks. So if its 'OK' for you to attack me, its 'OK" for me to attack you, lame excuse for a person! Can't keep up with my thought process, which is plainly observed here, so attack me directly you will. Like Sanity, your ALSO easy to predict. Unlike Sanity, you can not behave like a mature adult. Yes it's observed. It why nobody plays with you. Just as happened to you on the school yard and the rest of your life. Dude, I've schooled your 'environmental engineer' mindset in the past on a few concepts. The reason you and other conservatives/libertarians can not play, is because we operate on different levels. I expect you to rise up to my level; and you demand (with insults) to bring me down to your level. I've dealt with many engineers of many disciplines (chemical, civil, demo, environmental, electrical, etc.). Would say they are more likely to be intelligent and informed not just on their area of expertise, but on many other areas. Because physics in environmental studies operates on the same fucking concepts as in demolitions. With chemistry (which you would be required to take an an environmental engineer at a college level for the past 40 years), the scientific understanding of how molecules operate in construction materials, also holds up to how molecules might handle under differing levels of stress due to environmental conditions. I'm not telling you: 'you must accept Climate Change'. But it seems weird for an 'environmental engineer' not to know the basic understanding of Climate Change, let alone the very advanced stuff; just like it would be weird for an Epidemiologist to not know about The Theory of Evolution. That you don't accept Climate Change, not for the facts but for the fantasy projected by conservatives and libertarians, because your political viewpoints. That you can not even consider having a liberal view on anything. Which is amusing since most people in the USA, be they liberal, moderate, or conservative, hold liberal, moderate, and conservative viewpoints on a wide range of topics. Stuff that we consider a 'liberal' stance is really a conservative one (i.e. gun control). The root word for the word 'Liberal' is 'Liberalis', which is Latin for 'Freedom'. That your often against those liberals, means your against freedom. That you hate the 'Liberalis Media' is often a source of amusement; because I've ask if people are in favor of a free media and always gets many 'yes's' from conservatives. I fully understand that you and others can not handle the dialogue I'm giving to you on this and other topics. I know that you will need to dumb down the information to 'your level' of understanding. An thereby give up the critical sources of information that can not be dumb downed. Since what you cant dumb down, you ignore. It shows in your words.... I can take your little paragraphs and debate them fully with ease at my level. When your response is either: A ) a one sentence reply or B ) a small paragraph, to what I state. I know that you could not debate nor discuss concepts and ideas at my level. That you 'give up' and try to keep things simple. You'll do this again and again in the future. There are people on here that will go 'toe to toe' with me in an intelligent discussion and are conservative (or they believe they are conservative). Like DS or BamaD (both of whom I respect and like). The argument that I see myself as more intelligent and educated is actually a misunderstanding concept. You and others on here have, for one reason or another (to what causes it I dont know) been dumb down in your thinking and reasoning abilities/skills. That is perhaps the fascination I have in viewing you and some of the others (i.e. Aylee or Kirata). What is the cause(s) of the dumbing down. As I've met many conservatives whom are very intelligent and studied on a variety of subjects (they dislike President Obama's stances, but understand why he has those stances through his reasoning and thought process). Having a few more on here would be nice. Guess I'm asking to much of you to 'grow the fun up', 'be an adult', and 'sound like your an actual engineer from an accredited university/college.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.859375E-02