Forum Index > Stewardship > Disappearing Glaciers
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Skinem
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 293 | TRs
Location: Washington ex-pat
Skinem
  Top

Member
PostSun Oct 08, 2006 12:19 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
scm007 wrote:
Please read my above posts... it will never be clear enough.

I have.  And I agree with you.

--------------
Earth First!  We'll strip mine the rest of the galaxy later.
They call me the thread killer...
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mtn Dog
Technohiker



Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 3332 | TRs
Location: Bellevue, WA
Mtn Dog
  Top

Technohiker
PostSun Oct 08, 2006 12:54 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
scm007 wrote:
Perhaps because we can't afford new cars? Also today's data is quite a bit different than what they had in the 70's. If people had scrutinized their data they would have found it was bunk.

Oh, I see.  It's critically important for our government and current administration to take gobal warming seriously and mitigate its effects regardless of the cost but finances are a factor for you personally.  Hybrids have been around now for over 5 years.  How old is your car?  You could probably even buy a pre-owned hybrid by now...unless what you're saying is meant to serve as merely rhetoric without substance.

--------------
Footprints on the sands of time will never be made sitting down.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
scm007
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 257 | TRs

scm007
  Top

Member
PostSun Oct 08, 2006 1:27 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Try on an 88' Honda Civic for size. And also, maybe you should read my posts before responding to them, it just makes you look foolish. I never said the government should try to stop CO2 emissions at all costs. And here's a hint, maybe people would take you more seriously if you didn't jump the gun and start attacking people and making false assumptions.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
philfort
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 76 | TRs
Location: seattle
philfort
  Top

Member
PostSun Oct 08, 2006 1:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Skinem wrote:
...which is exactly what both sides are saying about the other on the global warming issue.  It apparantly isn't clear enough on either side to for one or the other to be absolutely persuasive.

Well, you've got the overwhelming majority of climate scientists on one side of the scientific debate, and the US conservative media on the other.

You're mistaken if you think there's much of a debate about this in the scientific community anymore (certainly there's debate about the extent of global warming).
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
jimmymac
Zip Lock Bagger



Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3699 | TRs
Location: Lake Wittenmyer, WA
jimmymac
  Top

Zip Lock Bagger
PostSun Oct 08, 2006 1:55 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
"...unless what you're saying is meant to serve as merely rhetoric without substance..."
"...it just makes you look foolish...."
"...maybe people would take you more seriously if you didn't..."


Specifically, folks, this is what crashes our controversial threads.
It's rarely an issue of contrasting opinions on the actual topic.

Please?

--------------
"Profound serenity is the product of unfaltering Trust and heightened vulnerability."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Skinem
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 293 | TRs
Location: Washington ex-pat
Skinem
  Top

Member
PostSun Oct 08, 2006 2:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
philfort wrote:
Skinem wrote:
...which is exactly what both sides are saying about the other on the global warming issue.  It apparantly isn't clear enough on either side to for one or the other to be absolutely persuasive.

Well, you've got the overwhelming majority of climate scientists on one side of the scientific debate, and the US conservative media on the other.

You're mistaken if you think there's much of a debate about this in the scientific community anymore (certainly there's debate about the extent of global warming).

I wasn't clear when I said "either side".  I apologize.
The "sides" I was referring to are the one that at one extreme think it's nearly all man's fault and the side on the other extreme that think it's part of a naturally occuring cycle.
When you have huge amounts of polar ice melting at accelerated rates, (or at least at rates faster than we have monitored before) it would seem like (to me) that there's not much left to debate as to whether it's happening or not-just the "why".

--------------
Earth First!  We'll strip mine the rest of the galaxy later.
They call me the thread killer...
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mtn Dog
Technohiker



Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 3332 | TRs
Location: Bellevue, WA
Mtn Dog
  Top

Technohiker
PostSun Oct 08, 2006 8:20 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
scm007:
I was only making a point, I'm sorry if you felt attacked.  I had an '88 Mustang until 1997.  It's emission controls were not nearly then what they are today but it was fuel injected and a step up from the previous carbureted engines of the earlier '80s.  Hopefully your Honda is the same way.  With Hybrid vehicles, hydroelectric and natural gas power at home, and other measures I feel I'm doing my part to combat global warming.  In fact my family's contribution to CO2 emissions is negligible compared with the average U.S. household. agree.gif

--------------
Footprints on the sands of time will never be made sitting down.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
touron
Member
Member


Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 10300 | TRs
Location: Plymouth Rock
touron
  Top

Member
PostSun Oct 08, 2006 9:22 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
jimmymac wrote:
"...unless what you're saying is meant to serve as merely rhetoric without substance..."
"...it just makes you look foolish...."
"...maybe people would take you more seriously if you didn't..."


Specifically, folks, this is what crashes our controversial threads.
It's rarely an issue of contrasting opinions on the actual topic.

Please?

Good point.  Study has shown that nwhikers and enwh are part of a ring of fire that are contributing to global warming.  Help cool the planet!

--------------
Touron is a nougat of Arabic origin made with almonds and honey or sugar, without which it would just not be Christmas in Spain.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
yew
non-technical



Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 1171 | TRs
Location: Bellingham
yew
  Top

non-technical
PostMon Oct 09, 2006 12:48 am 
climate modeling, science
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
not that these results have empirical predictive value.

Quote:
Warming theory lacks many elements which have a total lack of empirical testability, including the most basic one of all... the temperature the climate is 'supposed' to be, absent human forcing.

Quote:
the lack of an empirically testable baseline 'normal' temperature, warming theory inherently lacks any way to disprove it... which makes it untestable.

Quote:
it is inherently unprovable because it lacks a basis for an empirically shown negative result. Many warming proponents play this down, or ignore it, for purely political reasons because they do not wish it to appear as if there can be doubt because this complicates their case politically.

Human-induced global warming deniers ought to take their cases to the rest of the scientific community, publish in journals and try to convince the mainstream scientific community like Harlin Bretz did with the Lake Missoula Floods and Alfred Wegener did with plate tectonics.  Dissenting scientists ought to preach and try to convice colleagues rather than testifying to Congressional committees, libertarian political think tanks, newspaper op-ed pages and laypeople who fear the political and economic implications of reducing human injection of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Science does not "prove" facts and never has.  With that criteria a lot of geology and astronomy is not science.  To my knowledge no one has conducted an experiment manipulating heavenly bodies or continental plates yet we still consider astronomy and plate tectonics as science, most of which is based on mere data collection, deduction and modeling just like climatology. Even though we do not have an exact replica of another earth to carry out controlled experiments it does not mean that climatologists modeling climate change is not science.

Karl Popper maintained that science must be falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable).   If Karl Popper were alive today, I think he’d consider climate modeling “science”.  Falsifiability refers to non-testable hypotheses like Intelligent Design theory since there's no way you could refute or collect data on a Great Intelligence creating the world.  Popper and his followers did not mean that in order for something to be falsifiable and therefore be science that it had to be able to be replicated in a lab.  Science under this criteria could be reasoned out with numbers and observations not that it literally had to be physically reenacted.

Climate models do make predictions and can be tested.  For example, if the earth's overall average temperature declines for many years into the future while CO2, methane and greenhouse gas levels increase than global warming theory is wrong.  In that case, a new theory may take its place if it has a better explanation.  A theory doesn't have to be literally, physically replicatable in a laboratory to be scientifically valid.  Climatologists say they can run their models backwards in time and the outputs are reasonable close to what really occurred.  They claim they can even filter out “noise” like volcanic eruptions.

People who write models (like http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10) have heard all of these arguments and have incorporated into their models.  For example, "Attribution of 20th Century climate change to CO2" at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/

The people listed on http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10 have a lot more credibility to me than the Wall Street Journal editorial page, libertarian think tanks and political economists or other people with ideological or financial motivations.  I wonder why so many human-induced global warming deniers are libertarian and conservative think tanks (?)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/ does a pretty good job explaining how climatologists calculate the effect human-produced greenhouse gases on top of natural climate change.

The increase in the earth's overall average temperature since the late 1800s can be attributed to natural temperature increases (coming out of the Little Ice Age) superimposed by an increase in CO2 from a whole hell of a lot of burning of oil, coal and deforestation.  It's not an either/or deal.  It's a combination.  Of course, the planet has been warmer in the past.  But, the rate of temperature increase is higher than what has happened in the past and with a strong statistical correlation to an increase in CO2 that coincides with industrialization.

But, none of this matters.  No one is going to do anything about global warming.  We'll just have to adapt and deal with the consequences.  Most glaciers will just keep shrinking and shrinking until the natural forces that cause Ice Ages overwhelm the greenhouse effect.

--------------
"I aint jokin woman, I got to ramble...We gonna go walkin through the park every day." - Led Zeppelin
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11329 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Oct 09, 2006 2:20 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
Human-induced global warming deniers ought to take their cases to the rest of the scientific community, publish in journals and try to convince the mainstream scientific community like Harlin Bretz did with the Lake Missoula Floods and Alfred Wegener did with plate tectonics.

You think they don't?

Quote:
Dissenting scientists ought to preach and try to convice colleagues rather than testifying to Congressional committees, libertarian political think tanks, newspaper op-ed pages and laypeople who fear the political and economic implications of reducing human injection of CO2 into the atmosphere.

If it's invalid to present contrary views to the public which is currently seeing a different take continually presented, I trust that you feel the same way about arguments for the pro human caused warming side. Otherwise, it would appear as if you think one side should be presented to the public which is urged to take political action, but not the other.

Quote:
Science does not "prove" facts and never has.  With that criteria a lot of geology and astronomy is not science.

Note my comments, (which you included quotes from, so we know you are responding to me) do not make the argument that this is the case. Science actually rests not upon positive proofs, but upon the absense of negative ones...showing that something has not yet been shown *not* to be possible due to a negative empirical result proving it cannot be true as formulated.

Thus the requirement for falsifiability in science.... there may not be evidence showing something is not empirically false (a rock falling upwards, 2+2 turning out to be 5)... but there must be cases and tests in which that result is a possible empirical outcome....and in which this negative result will be accepted as proof something *isn't* true.

No such cases are empirically achievable for human caused global warming.

Quote:
To my knowledge no one has conducted an experiment manipulating heavenly bodies or continental plates yet we still consider astronomy and plate tectonics as science, most of which is based on mere data collection, deduction and modeling just like climatology.

That is correct. But these theories are not backing a demand for political action involving the centrally directed control of the actions of every person on earth at the cost of trillions of dollars. At such time as someone claims plate tectonics backs the demands for such actions, the point you make will come into play.

Quote:
Even though we do not have an exact replica of another earth to carry out controlled experiments it does not mean that climatologists modeling climate change is not science.

It may not mean it for any one sub theory of the whole no.. as long as each one has a path to a falsifiable result. It is entirely possible for people to follow good method in science and come up with ideas that are created using scientific means, such as a falsifiable experiment in a lab showing CO2 can trap heat... but then proceed beyond the boundaries of falsifiability in extending these results to the synthesis of a much larger claim, which itself is not testable.

That is what we are seeing here... many sub aspects which are testable, and some which are not (many modeling claims), synthesized into a whole which itself is not actually falsifiable due to the nature of the claims made.

Quote:
Karl Popper maintained that science must be falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable).  If Karl Popper were alive today, I think he’d consider climate modeling “science”.  Falsifiability refers to non-testable hypotheses like Intelligent Design theory since there's no way you could refute or collect data on a Great Intelligence creating the world. 

Precisely, one can consider aspects of a theory science until it's claims pass beyond falsifiability.

There is no way we can collect empirical data on the claims made concerning the temperature the earth "should" be today.

The final summation made of all the lower level work, makes claims which have passed far beyond the boundaries of falsifiability. In the objective world, one does not have the luxury of taking massive chains of linked claims, of which the tiniest detail of every single claim must have a non negative result, and ignoring that for large chunks of this chain of claims, it isn't even possible to obtain negative results because there is no way to get the empirical data in the first place.

It doesn't matter that this is not convenient or possible. The responsibility for accepting that a negative empirical result must at least be testable, rests with the proponents of a claim.

Showing a negative result may be the work of someone else, but the *possibility* of showing this must exist regardless of who obtains it..and for human caused warming, this possibility does not exist with respect to the postulated 'normal' empirical temperature.

Quote:
How do you suggest we colllPopper and his followers did not mean that in order for something to be falsifiable and therefore be science that it had to be able to be replicated in a lab.  Science under this criteria could be reasoned out with numbers and observations not that it literally had to be physically reenacted.

Even then it cannot be considered as falsifiable science.....if empirical tests showing a negative result are not even possible. Then you have claims which may have a scientific basis... but remain beyond the actual boundary of falsifiability.

Quote:
Climate models do make predictions and can be tested.  For example, if the earth's overall average temperature declines for many years into the future while CO2, methane and greenhouse gas levels increase than global warming theory is wrong.  In that case, a new theory may take its place if it has a better explanation.  A theory doesn't have to be literally, physically replicatable in a laboratory to be scientifically valid.  Climatologists say they can run their models backwards in time and the outputs are reasonable close to what really occurred.  They claim they can even filter out “noise” like volcanic eruptions.

As I have noted some aspects are testable, some are not. As you have noted the presence of empirically measured cooling would show that theories postulating warming are not true (the necessary negative result for showing a false claim), but in the context of warming they cannot show that they are not false, because there is zero basis for the empirical "normal" temperature.

Yes, it's a subtle thing..but the logic holds regardless.

Quote:
The people listed on http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10 have a lot more credibility to me than the Wall Street Journal editorial page, libertarian think tanks and political economists or other people with ideological or financial motivations.

An interesting, essentially ad hominim argument, since every one of those people's reputation, career,and funding now basically rests upon their claims.

Making the claim that there are no ideological, personal, or financial motivations on one side, but there are on the other, is factually and logically insupportable. T

Quote:
I wonder why so many human-induced global warming deniers are libertarian and conservative think tanks (?)

You do? I should think it would be obvious... are people supporting the idea of human cause warming going to support or fund the work of dissenters who oppose their conclusions?

Do you have evidence of other areas in science, in which proponents of one theory support and back work which is in opposition to their claims?

Quote:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/ does a pretty good job explaining how climatologists calculate the effect human-produced greenhouse gases on top of natural climate change.

How do they propose to empirically measure the temperature the earth "should" be, to test these calculations? The lack of the actual linchpin of their entire argument (the unforced baseline temperature) makes all these calculations, no matter how intricate, complex, and detailed, unfalsifiable when it comes to that value.

Even cooling in the place predicted warming, does not actually deliver results of what the unforced temperature "should" be... it only shows what the temperature of the forced system turned out to be. This basic lack cannot be rectified. It's buried deep within the actual nature of the body of the claims made.

Thanks for the detailed rebuttal by the way. Very cool and chewy.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
yew
non-technical



Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 1171 | TRs
Location: Bellingham
yew
  Top

non-technical
PostMon Oct 09, 2006 1:35 pm 
climate change
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mtngoat:

Quote:
You think they don't?

It's rare that professional practicing climatologists claim human-induced global warming is wrong anymore because making such a case does not match very well with observations and the overwhelming body of evidence.

Quote:
But these theories are not backing a demand for political action involving the centrally directed control of the actions of every person on earth at the cost of trillions of dollars. At such time as someone claims plate tectonics backs the demands for such actions, the point you make will come into play.

Political and economic ramifications must be kept completely separate from scientific research.  No one should say a theory is wrong because they don't like the political and economic ramifications.

Quote:
An interesting, essentially ad hominim argument, since every one of those people's reputation, career,and funding now basically rests upon their claims.

Quote:
Making the claim that there are no ideological, personal, or financial motivations on one side, but there are on the other, is factually and logically insupportable. T

That is not true!  Professional practicing climatologists like the people at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ and universities will see their professional reputations severely tarnished if time proves them wrong.  It's embarrasing to have ones theories shot down.  They don't have a political agenda.  They're as neutral and objective as humanly possible.   They'd get plenty of funding for climate research even if they did not claim humans were changing the climate.

Quote:
You do? I should think it would be obvious

That was a rhetorical question.  I should've followed it up with an emoticon.

To address your main point, it's not necessary to know with certainty the baseline overall average temperature of the earth in the absence of human-produced greenhouses gases to make reasonably good calculations.

I recommend that people read "Calculating the greenhouse effect" at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/ which explains how climatologist calculate how much of warming is due to anthropocentric CO2 and other greenhouses gases.  I recommend scrolling down to the comments at the bottom.  They act as footnotes and makes for interesting and enriching reading.  Comment #18/Re#9 and others is relevate to one of the claims made here.

Where do you get your information on this topic?  Can you provide links?  I'd like to read some of it.

That's a very long response with a lot to heady topics to ponder (especially the philosophy of science stuff) and I don't have time to continue with more responses.  I have to go to work now then I'm going bird hunting & camping in central Washington for a few days.  I'll dig into it when I get home.

--------------
"I aint jokin woman, I got to ramble...We gonna go walkin through the park every day." - Led Zeppelin
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tvashtar
Tvashtalker



Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1226 | TRs
Location: The 11th Dimension
Tvashtar
  Top

Tvashtalker
PostThu Oct 12, 2006 4:05 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Here are some things about global warming that may or may not have been mentioned:

Human carbon emissions have a unique isotopic signature.  It's easy to tell them apart from naturally produced carbon, as from volcanoes or other sources.  From this, we know that the current rapid acceleration of carbon emissions is from us, not nature.

We have over half a million years of atmospheric data from trapped gas bubbles in arctic an antarctic ice caps, so we know what the average temperature and atmospheric carbon content has been for that long.   From this and other data we have a very well defined and correlated model for how atmospheric carbon affects temperature.  As a result, the whole of the scientific community has unanimously concluded that global warming is caused by humans.

The only disagreement about whether or not global warming is human causes comes from non-scientific publications.  Among the scientific community, there is no longer any debate.

Ice ages are primarily triggered by three cycling pertebations in the earth's motions.  According to these cycles, we are supposed to be heading back into another ice age.  Clearly, we are not.  This opposite effect can be explained wholely by human generated carbon emissions, primarily in the form of methane (which began with the invention of rice paddies about 5000 years ago) and CO2 (which began when we started cutting down trees and burning them).

Finally, the possible consequences of global warming are becoming more and more grim as we understand more about ocean currents and mass extinctions.  A recent article in Scientific American this year postulates that periods of intense global warming in prehistoric times caused by extreme vulcanism caused 4 out of the past 5 mass extinctions and wiped out as much as 80% of all species.  They calculated that the PPM for carbon required to trigger those mass extinctions was around 1000.  We're now at 385, and growing at 3 PPM per year.  Do the math.  Not something we should be hoping will just go away on its own.  It won't.

Someone earlier mentioned previous consensus that the world was flat, etc...but those were unscientific assumptions, unsupported by data or peer review.   Human caused global warming is a completely different animal.  It's here, its accelerating, and it will have, even in the rosiest scenarios, very serious consequences for a species that has evolved to live in the threatened climate we enjoy today.

--------------
"We are, all of us, in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tvashtar
Tvashtalker



Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1226 | TRs
Location: The 11th Dimension
Tvashtar
  Top

Tvashtalker
PostThu Oct 12, 2006 4:33 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mtn Dog wrote:
Afterall, we somehow managed to survive the "Coming Ice Age" of the 70s that many 'reputable' scientists also foretold.

This is a common argument by skeptics of global warming.  It's an outdated one, however.

The discovery that past ice ages were highly correlated with three cycling pertebation in the earth's motions had just been made in the 70s.  According to that discovery, many scientists concluded that we should be heading into another ice age.

What scientists did not have, at that time, was the wealth of historical atmospheric data that we do today.  Since then, we've analyzed antarctic and arctic drilled ice cores that have revealed that data as far back as half a million years.  Hence, the change in scientific conclusions in the past 30 years.

Any publication that cites this as a reason to doubt human caused global warming should be treated with a great deal of suspicion.  There are more credible publications with better journalistic integrity out there, to be sure.

--------------
"We are, all of us, in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gray
Lazy Hiker



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 1063 | TRs
Location: Seattle, WA
Gray
  Top

Lazy Hiker
PostThu Oct 12, 2006 5:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
Human carbon emissions have a unique isotopic signature.

Honest question here:

I chop down a tree, and burn it. We'll call this CO2-A.

Lightning strikes a tree, and burns it. We'll call this CO2-B.

Are you saying that CO2-A has a different isotopic signature than CO2-B?

If so... how?

--Gray
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 14246 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
  Top

Member
PostThu Oct 12, 2006 5:57 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Trees are not considered to be fossil fuel. Coal and Oil have much older carbon with no C14 or decay products. Trees are pretty much Carbon neutral.

Of course all that scientific evidence pales in comparison to Rush and the Cato Institute rolleyes.gif

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Disappearing Glaciers
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy