Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is it I ignored? It has been at a 2.6% decline since 1979-2000. a 4.1 % deviation. The ice melted and rebounded. And may continue to recover or may decline.
Their response downplays the growth, but then is seems to focus more heavily on 2006 while ignoring 2008-2010. What will you say next year if it recovers even more?
Yet this is what the IPCC used to display the data? Are you being obtuse here or are you reaching the level of your understanding of the issue now?
The IPCC deliberately misrepresented the data, is that acceptable to you?
So what does the data say? No comment on the surface stations? No comment on the hiding the data other than a dismissal?
So far, you have come in here appealing to authority and now you are defending every improper and unethical action that have done. Not making a good case for them, then again they can't even do that themselves, so it is understandable you are reaching your limit here.
2008-2010 does not a trend make, any more than 1983-1986 which showed a rise. 2010 peak is still about the same as the 1997 minimum. Until growth meets or exceeds the average it still shows ice decline.
Obtuse? No. Level of understanding? Possibly. But when I see zoomed in pictures of graphics proving an error or conspiracy or whatever, I get very skeptical without seeing the underlying data behind the graphic.
Deliberately misrepresent data? Any study of this complexity goes through many revisions. That does not make previous versions deliberately misrepresented.
Surface station errors? I look at trends. Error follows the trend, and the mean change shows an increase unless you develop an super smart tolerance stack on hundreds of stations.
GISS? I don't know anything about that, sorry. Maybe if Triana had been launched in 2001 ("Goresat") instead of being cancelled by Bush we could have had a whole surface emissivity measurement of the Earth. Then we couldn't argue the conclusions.
It is easy to shoot down selective data, but the overwhelming data collected, peer review by worldwide organizations, and conclusions make deniers sound foolish.
(I once had a Professor who insisted that all of Velikovsky's "theories" were true and that the entire scientific community conspired against him. Maybe I will start calling climate change deniers Velikovskians.)
Unfortunatley, it will never stop. It won't because it isn't about the climate at all, that is just the disguise that freedom-thieves use to justify the taking of your liberty and the fruits of your labor.
Those who lust for power, and their kindred spirits, will always lust for power. They change their "mask" from time to time, but their goal is always the same - to steall your freedom from you.
The folderal about manmade global warming is no different. Same circus, different animals.
Unfortunatley, it will never stop. It won't because it isn't about the climate at all, that is just the disguise that freedom-thieves use to justify the taking of your liberty and the fruits of your labor.
Those who lust for power, and their kindred spirits, will always lust for power. They change their "mask" from time to time, but their goal is always the same - to steall your freedom from you.
The folderal about manmade global warming is no different. Same circus, different animals.
I knew from just seeing "semper" in your username you would probably be blathering about "freedom" in regards to climate change. Once again, I nailed it.
SWISH! Nothing but the bottom of the net.
Further proof that the subject can be turned on its head, and the argument pumped out by the likes of BillO, Rushie Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to their easily fooled audiences.
It's not about losing your "freedom" sport, thats what we are invading other countries for, remember?
I deny nothing; it is envoimentalists who deny. The earth goes thru changes. It has gone thru times of warming and ice ages in the past and will do so in the future. Environmentalists for some reason believe it is not only possible but advisable to keep things as they are now. This is an impossibility. Climates change. Species become extinct. Species Adapt. Life goes on. I remember the first "earth day" in 1970, the environmentalists of that time were convinced that we would all be wearing gas masks by 1980. LOL
2008-2010 does not a trend make, any more than 1983-1986 which showed a rise. 2010 peak is still about the same as the 1997 minimum. Until growth meets or exceeds the average it still shows ice decline.
I never said it did, but lets be honest here, the 2006 decline was revered and proclaimed a "devastation" to the ice, it was promoted and used as evidence that the ice would be gone a few years later. Short term was acceptable to them when it benefited a bias, but when it returned with such growth, it was mentioned as "still below average".
This is a play on words and it is irresponsible. This is political spin, not science. A couple of years is not a trend, yet many scientists argue that even a 30 year does not a trend make. The problem is that this is roughly the time we were able to obtain record keeping of this nature.
Historical evidence in journals and pictures during the 1920's describe the Arctic sea ice much in the same manner that we do now. The point is, just as you would suggest my focus on the growth is not significant in the larger scheme of things, so is the attempt to claim a 2.6 percent decade decline over 30 years and a focus on a steep decline in 2006. That is, making conclusions about its occurrence is simply assumptive and to the level it has been done is highly political.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci
Obtuse? No. Level of understanding? Possibly. But when I see zoomed in pictures of graphics proving an error or conspiracy or whatever, I get very skeptical without seeing the underlying data behind the graphic.
Each of those graphs are found (aside from the surface stations and the additional helpers to show the hidden decline more closely) in the IPCC's report. That is, they used them as evidence to their claims. If you are looking for the data that supports their methodology, get in line, this is what all the FOI requests were about. People like McIntyre, and other reviewers were finding errors in the research and when asked for the data and methodology to do proper review (a part of basic scientific process of evaluation by reproduction of results), they were stone walled, and given excuses by Phil Jones in the manner of "Why would I give you that, you will simply try to prove them wrong".
The point is, you rely on the IPCC as many of the administrations you have posted do. In fact, the bulk of those supportive agencies is simply a result of the IPCC's findings, not some independent review on their part to which coincides with the IPCC's conclusions. They simply read the reports and because the IPCC was touted as "robust" and "peer reviewed", they accepted its findings and supported it through a position of authority, much like you are doing now.
So, if you are being skeptical of the graphs, then welcome to the club, you are skeptical of the IPCC and the researchers to which those findings are specifically related (Jones, Mann, Briffa, Santer, etc...).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci
Deliberately misrepresent data? Any study of this complexity goes through many revisions. That does not make previous versions deliberately misrepresented.
Look at the graph I spoke of concerning the slope adjustment. First, it defies basic mathematical structure and understanding. Adjusting the scaling at the end of the time line has no mathematical reason, no sound principal or practice. It defies the very mechanism to which evaluation is applied. The result of their manipulation shows and increasing slope and for what purpose other than to imply an accelerating trend? Second, the graph initially showed up in the zero assessment, but was removed and then reinserted "after" the review comment process. That is, it was slid in at the last minute. Why? What reasonable explanation can be given, especially concerning the severity of the manipulation of it?
Also, we discussed the briffa 2000 truncation. What "reasoning" could be applied for such other than to bolster bias? In science, divergence must be explained, if it can not "all" data becomes suspect as we do not know if we are simply looking at random noise that shows some consistency, or if it is actually a representation of its hypothesized correlations. The divergence throws off warning bells to good scientists, removing it only serves to hide this problem from those making evaluations.
It can be spun many ways, but every explanation has failed as none of the reasoning made for such actions are properly supported. Maybe I am being a bit hasty in claiming it deliberate intention, there are other possibilities, strong devotion to a bias one of them, but when we evaluate the amount of mistakes, misrepresentations, and behavior of them, it is certainly suspect.
As for revisions, this went through "revisions", it was brought up in the reviewer comments and dismissed by those making the assessments (those in charge of attending to the reviewers comments were often those who were responsible for the research itself which is hardly a controlled environment of proper due diligence and scientific practice).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci
Surface station errors? I look at trends. Error follows the trend, and the mean change shows an increase unless you develop an super smart tolerance stack on hundreds of stations.
Yet then why do many of the readings not account of UHI? Hansen's work on the 1998 warmest trend used poor methodology to proclaim such. His reasoning was he "accounted for it", yet his application of such was unscientific, not a standardized statistical method of approach used anywhere in statistical analysis. The result was corrections to his work which placed 1934 back to the warmest year (as well as placing most of the warmest years around that time frame with spikes from more recent years).
Also, if I remember right, the Met Office reported a warming trend in Europe, the stations it used were all from air ports. How does one account for UHI when all of the data is biased? How does one account for the type of bias and to the level of its influence? They didn't go out and calibrate these stations, they simply used them and applied modeled adaptions to guess. Again, uncontrolled, highly suspect.
Also, if you look at the station lists for USHCN to which I provided, each of those networks were assessed and found to have many influences ranging from air conditioners, tarmac, burn barrels, traffic proximity, locations on top of buildings in the middle of major cities. If one is going to assess error influence, it must be provided with a point of reference. Again, one would think that using rural stations would be a good baseline, but there is no evidence of such. In fact, as I mentioned GISS appears to have large missing pools of rural stations removed from their database allowing for a more even trend of the biased ones. This is yet another example of not accounting for the divergence, explaining it, but simply hiding it or removing it to promote the bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci
GISS? I don't know anything about that, sorry. Maybe if Triana had been launched in 2001 ("Goresat") instead of being cancelled by Bush we could have had a whole surface emissivity measurement of the Earth. Then we couldn't argue the conclusions.
GISS is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, it complies data for many things related to climate studies, in this case it was data obtained from GHCN which is the Global History Climatology Network, a list of many stations over the world which NOAO/NCDC is primarily responsible for. The issue is more specifically one with NOAO/NCDC, yet it also shows a major problem with GISS in their ability to provide quality control. That is, they assessed the data and displayed its results, yet did not check the anomalies and reported an obvious error as a claim.
That claim was with the warmest march in Finland, yet as I showed you, this heat spot was surrounded by strong blue, an obvious anomaly that was not explained, yet it was certainly concluded in their reporting and was contrary to Finland's own records which showed a colder than usual season.
Also, NASA/GISS has admitted that their records are actually in worse shape (revealed with FOIA requests) than the East Anglia data, which if you have kept up on the CRU issue (emails, FOIA scandal, etc...) is disturbing to say the least. It means that a large portion of our monitoring networks, if not all of them are a disaster, so filled with mismanagement that finding any relevant information from them may be impossible (an issue commented on in the emails by the database manager who was responsible for keeping the records, again... something that was in the emails).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci
It is easy to shoot down selective data, but the overwhelming data collected, peer review by worldwide organizations, and conclusions make deniers sound foolish.
I don't think you really understand the issue here. It isn't selective nit picking on irrelevant data. It is entire networks in terrible shape, showing mass anomalies with no means other than random statistical applications that are not proven correcting them. It is errors in the core work to which is found throughout the field. Again, the IPCC misrepresented its position as if it were numerous affirmations from individual sources of findings, but the fact is that this is not true. There are streams of it throughout the work and is shown in the IPCC's report. MBH98/99 is found throughout the research, the relationship of the researchers is not individual of their own, but a building on previous.
Do you know why Briffa's error existed? It wasn't because it was from his own data and methodology, it was because he used previous work of another (one who specifically noted the problem) and then applied it to his work without taking into account the noted problem. Mann's work is found through a lot of the other work out there in that specified focus. The surface record issues are consistently used as a basis in much of the research be it strongly, or through mild supportive means. What the IPCC claims as a robust display of individually supported position is an incestuous relation of research mixing between each other, building on each other. This is why you see consistent almost picture perfect results in much of the core research. It is essentially the same core research with those same core problems reoccurring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci
(I once had a Professor who insisted that all of Velikovsky's "theories" were true and that the entire scientific community conspired against him. Maybe I will start calling climate change deniers Velikovskians.)
I think it is clear as to where your position stands. You are politically motivated and use catch words to insult. You didn't understand half of the topics I mentioned, didn't even know the most essential organizations to which I referred, and then you insult as if you have a validated position? Let us be clear here. The issue is that the science to which you are fanatically devoted to is weak, it has holes, it has been shown to be devious in its display and political in nature. When you describe that professor, you are describing your position. That is, your position is not scientifically sound to purport a conclusion, but you are devoted to it and refuse to accept when your own position fails.
As for consensus, which is what you attempt to suggest, there is none. There are organizations who proclaim support in a general manner and use it to purport a conclusion that is not directly supported by those it claims to represent. You would know this if you spent any time actually reading about the science rather than rushing to defend political positions.
Lastly, I really think you need to be careful about using "denier" when you have such a limited understanding of the issue. It makes you look ignorant and foolish.
I deny nothing; it is envoimentalists who deny. The earth goes thru changes. It has gone thru times of warming and ice ages in the past and will do so in the future. Environmentalists for some reason believe it is not only possible but advisable to keep things as they are now. This is an impossibility. Climates change. Species become extinct. Species Adapt. Life goes on. I remember the first "earth day" in 1970, the environmentalists of that time were convinced that we would all be wearing gas masks by 1980. LOL
I wouldn't bother with him. We argued Odanny into a corner with the science and he just went into political diatribe mode. He only comes in to heckle and insult. Put him on ignore like most of us have and disregard anything he has to say. He has absolutely no understanding of the issue past cut and paste political talking points. Not worth the effort in responding.
I never said it did, but lets be honest here, the 2006 decline was revered and proclaimed a "devastation" to the ice, it was promoted and used as evidence that the ice would be gone a few years later. Short term was acceptable to them when it benefited a bias, but when it returned with such growth, it was mentioned as "still below average".
This is a play on words and it is irresponsible. This is political spin, not science. A couple of years is not a trend, yet many scientists argue that even a 30 year does not a trend make. The problem is that this is roughly the time we were able to obtain record keeping of this nature.
Historical evidence in journals and pictures during the 1920's describe the Arctic sea ice much in the same manner that we do now. The point is, just as you would suggest my focus on the growth is not significant in the larger scheme of things, so is the attempt to claim a 2.6 percent decade decline over 30 years and a focus on a steep decline in 2006. That is, making conclusions about its occurrence is simply assumptive and to the level it has been done is highly political.
Each of those graphs are found (aside from the surface stations and the additional helpers to show the hidden decline more closely) in the IPCC's report. That is, they used them as evidence to their claims. If you are looking for the data that supports their methodology, get in line, this is what all the FOI requests were about. People like McIntyre, and other reviewers were finding errors in the research and when asked for the data and methodology to do proper review (a part of basic scientific process of evaluation by reproduction of results), they were stone walled, and given excuses by Phil Jones in the manner of "Why would I give you that, you will simply try to prove them wrong".
The point is, you rely on the IPCC as many of the administrations you have posted do. In fact, the bulk of those supportive agencies is simply a result of the IPCC's findings, not some independent review on their part to which coincides with the IPCC's conclusions. They simply read the reports and because the IPCC was touted as "robust" and "peer reviewed", they accepted its findings and supported it through a position of authority, much like you are doing now.
So, if you are being skeptical of the graphs, then welcome to the club, you are skeptical of the IPCC and the researchers to which those findings are specifically related (Jones, Mann, Briffa, Santer, etc...).
Look at the graph I spoke of concerning the slope adjustment. First, it defies basic mathematical structure and understanding. Adjusting the scaling at the end of the time line has no mathematical reason, no sound principal or practice. It defies the very mechanism to which evaluation is applied. The result of their manipulation shows and increasing slope and for what purpose other than to imply an accelerating trend? Second, the graph initially showed up in the zero assessment, but was removed and then reinserted "after" the review comment process. That is, it was slid in at the last minute. Why? What reasonable explanation can be given, especially concerning the severity of the manipulation of it?
Also, we discussed the briffa 2000 truncation. What "reasoning" could be applied for such other than to bolster bias? In science, divergence must be explained, if it can not "all" data becomes suspect as we do not know if we are simply looking at random noise that shows some consistency, or if it is actually a representation of its hypothesized correlations. The divergence throws off warning bells to good scientists, removing it only serves to hide this problem from those making evaluations.
It can be spun many ways, but every explanation has failed as none of the reasoning made for such actions are properly supported. Maybe I am being a bit hasty in claiming it deliberate intention, there are other possibilities, strong devotion to a bias one of them, but when we evaluate the amount of mistakes, misrepresentations, and behavior of them, it is certainly suspect.
As for revisions, this went through "revisions", it was brought up in the reviewer comments and dismissed by those making the assessments (those in charge of attending to the reviewers comments were often those who were responsible for the research itself which is hardly a controlled environment of proper due diligence and scientific practice).
Yet then why do many of the readings not account of UHI? Hansen's work on the 1998 warmest trend used poor methodology to proclaim such. His reasoning was he "accounted for it", yet his application of such was unscientific, not a standardized statistical method of approach used anywhere in statistical analysis. The result was corrections to his work which placed 1934 back to the warmest year (as well as placing most of the warmest years around that time frame with spikes from more recent years).
Also, if I remember right, the Met Office reported a warming trend in Europe, the stations it used were all from air ports. How does one account for UHI when all of the data is biased? How does one account for the type of bias and to the level of its influence? They didn't go out and calibrate these stations, they simply used them and applied modeled adaptions to guess. Again, uncontrolled, highly suspect.
Also, if you look at the station lists for USHCN to which I provided, each of those networks were assessed and found to have many influences ranging from air conditioners, tarmac, burn barrels, traffic proximity, locations on top of buildings in the middle of major cities. If one is going to assess error influence, it must be provided with a point of reference. Again, one would think that using rural stations would be a good baseline, but there is no evidence of such. In fact, as I mentioned GISS appears to have large missing pools of rural stations removed from their database allowing for a more even trend of the biased ones. This is yet another example of not accounting for the divergence, explaining it, but simply hiding it or removing it to promote the bias.
GISS is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, it complies data for many things related to climate studies, in this case it was data obtained from GHCN which is the Global History Climatology Network, a list of many stations over the world which NOAO/NCDC is primarily responsible for. The issue is more specifically one with NOAO/NCDC, yet it also shows a major problem with GISS in their ability to provide quality control. That is, they assessed the data and displayed its results, yet did not check the anomalies and reported an obvious error as a claim.
That claim was with the warmest march in Finland, yet as I showed you, this heat spot was surrounded by strong blue, an obvious anomaly that was not explained, yet it was certainly concluded in their reporting and was contrary to Finland's own records which showed a colder than usual season.
Also, NASA/GISS has admitted that their records are actually in worse shape (revealed with FOIA requests) than the East Anglia data, which if you have kept up on the CRU issue (emails, FOIA scandal, etc...) is disturbing to say the least. It means that a large portion of our monitoring networks, if not all of them are a disaster, so filled with mismanagement that finding any relevant information from them may be impossible (an issue commented on in the emails by the database manager who was responsible for keeping the records, again... something that was in the emails).
I don't think you really understand the issue here. It isn't selective nit picking on irrelevant data. It is entire networks in terrible shape, showing mass anomalies with no means other than random statistical applications that are not proven correcting them. It is errors in the core work to which is found throughout the field. Again, the IPCC misrepresented its position as if it were numerous affirmations from individual sources of findings, but the fact is that this is not true. There are streams of it throughout the work and is shown in the IPCC's report. MBH98/99 is found throughout the research, the relationship of the researchers is not individual of their own, but a building on previous.
Do you know why Briffa's error existed? It wasn't because it was from his own data and methodology, it was because he used previous work of another (one who specifically noted the problem) and then applied it to his work without taking into account the noted problem. Mann's work is found through a lot of the other work out there in that specified focus. The surface record issues are consistently used as a basis in much of the research be it strongly, or through mild supportive means. What the IPCC claims as a robust display of individually supported position is an incestuous relation of research mixing between each other, building on each other. This is why you see consistent almost picture perfect results in much of the core research. It is essentially the same core research with those same core problems reoccurring.
I think it is clear as to where your position stands. You are politically motivated and use catch words to insult. You didn't understand half of the topics I mentioned, didn't even know the most essential organizations to which I referred, and then you insult as if you have a validated position? Let us be clear here. The issue is that the science to which you are fanatically devoted to is weak, it has holes, it has been shown to be devious in its display and political in nature. When you describe that professor, you are describing your position. That is, your position is not scientifically sound to purport a conclusion, but you are devoted to it and refuse to accept when your own position fails.
As for consensus, which is what you attempt to suggest, there is none. There are organizations who proclaim support in a general manner and use it to purport a conclusion that is not directly supported by those it claims to represent. You would know this if you spent any time actually reading about the science rather than rushing to defend political positions.
Lastly, I really think you need to be careful about using "denier" when you have such a limited understanding of the issue. It makes you look ignorant and foolish.
Ah, yes, call people who disagree with you ignorant and foolish. Fine, whatever.
I admit I have a limited understanding of all of the data and theory behind the climate change consensus. Yes it IS a consensus: "a general agreement or accord." There are alternate opinions, but it is STILL a consensus.
I am a very skeptical person by nature, especially where I see a political bias driving a scientific debate. Historically, it has been the governments of the world which have fought AGAINST the developing scientific studies which showed the relationship between man made CO2 and global temperature rise. It spurred my skepticism: WHY were governments so hard down on stifling scientists? Why not let the data lead us down the right path?
Also, why has there developed a right-wing bias against the concept of global warming? Just by viewing the majority of the posters on this site alone, it is truly a knee-jerk reaction reeking of anti-science and anti-Obama rhetoric. Again, why not let the data lead us down the right path?
You offer a lot of information which you claim refutes the concepts identified by the IPCC report. Great - how can I independently verify that what you say is relevant - how do I separate it from the the garbage that regularly gets posted by ignorant people?
You are not ignorant, rude and presumptuous perhaps, but in my opinion focused more on disputing the report rather than finding the truth. So, I will address your items with comments which hopefully can lead us all into a better understanding of the disputes.
1 - irregardless of your perceived "irresponsibility" in identifying the 2006 ice decline, it was nevertheless greater than expected by the climate community. Whether it represented an acceleration in melting, or a short term deviation was unknown at the time. You can no more ignore the 2006 data than 2009 or 2010. All affect the slope of the change in ice coverage.
2 - anecdotal information on ice coverage prior to satellite or photo imagery of ice coverage may be interesting, but cannot be used to confirm or deny percent coverage as without 100% visibility local variations will be missed.
3 - The graphs:
---the Global Mean Temperature graph that you criticized because they curve fitted different slopes for different time periods - I do not understand what is improper about it. It clearly shows that going backward from the end date, there is an increasing rate of change. As data gets added, the slopes will change.
---the GISS data graphic of Finland - this was not used in the IPCC report as it was from this year, and has since been updated and corrected by GISS. Where clear errors are present, GISS corrects the data, and random bias is just that, and cancels out when averaged across the entire surface area. So, any suggestion of errors introduced by GISS problems is just that, a suggestion, and not proof of error.
---Arctic growth - yes it grows and declines seasonally. Climate change, like the weather, is not linear. The observed trend has a declining slope over several decades.
----US surface stations - errors, otherwise known as "tolerances" average each other out given a large number of data points. There are certainly a large number of data points, and the US also only represents 6.5% or the earth's surface area
---Northern Hemisphere Anomaly Temp versus Year - regarding the elimination of the Briffa line decline at the end of the graph - that is consistent with questions regarding late data due to the selection of old trees and the limited dataset - in other words the data was considered invalid - I know that is not satisfying as it appears as if inconsistent data was selectively removed - but questions associated with the data collected and the manner it was assessed made some of the results questionable. Also, even if Briffa were to be eliminated entirely, the trend from he other data sets do not show any divergence
Have a nice day.
Last edited by RocketSci; 04-21-2010 at 08:12 PM..
Reason: typo
I wouldn't bother with him. We argued Odanny into a corner with the science and he just went into political diatribe mode. He only comes in to heckle and insult. Put him on ignore like most of us have and disregard anything he has to say. He has absolutely no understanding of the issue past cut and paste political talking points. Not worth the effort in responding.
"We" argued me into a corner? There are various types of deniers out there, and I'll hand it to you, you are one of the more savvy and sophisticated, using some psuedo science to try and make your point that, on its face, flies in the face of the consensus of 95% of scientists studying the issue.
So I'll give you the same credit I give a successful quick change artist at the cash registers: You are good at what you do.
But its doesnt make it right. Cause it isnt. And neither are you.
I deny nothing; it is envoimentalists who deny. The earth goes thru changes. It has gone thru times of warming and ice ages in the past and will do so in the future. Environmentalists for some reason believe it is not only possible but advisable to keep things as they are now. This is an impossibility. Climates change. Species become extinct. Species Adapt. Life goes on. I remember the first "earth day" in 1970, the environmentalists of that time were convinced that we would all be wearing gas masks by 1980. LOL
I really dont know what you are talking about, but to categorically deny that mankind can even have an influence on climate and weather patterns makes it kind of pointless to continue a discussion with someone on climate change, as it shows a rigidity of thought that is not conducive to an more thorough examination of the topic at hand.
In this case, mankind's influence on a warming planet. It's proven that carbon has a warming effect and scientists currently have measured it at 382 ppm. At 350 ppm, the climate will change
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
