MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Global Warming
Join to comment
 Group admin 
OK, by popular demand here's the global warming topic. Are we destroying our own ecosystem, or is this a hoax perpetrated by Al Gore?
Permalink
| October 24, 2013, 10:18 pm
Quoting Michael K.
OK, by popular demand here's the global warming topic. Are we destroying our own ecosystem, or is this a hoax perpetrated by Al Gore?


It's a hoax perpetrated by Al Gore. If there was global warming. It would be pretty obvious, I'm sure. Anyway here in our little town in California the weather is chilly way early for us and last year we got hardly any rain and a light summer this year we got a hard summer and we are supposed to get three times more the amount of snow than ever before so the most we have ever gotten here in our little town is three feet but that was at least 20 years ago long before we moved here. So the point I'm coming to is that we are looking at the weather that happens before an ice age not global warming.
Permalink
| October 24, 2013, 10:34 pm
Quoting Michael K.
OK, by popular demand here's the global warming topic. Are we destroying our own ecosystem, or is this a hoax perpetrated by Al Gore?

The whole idea of global warming is silly. Scientific evidence and common sense easily disproves it, but it would be interesting to hear others' opinions.
Permalink
| October 24, 2013, 10:38 pm
 Group admin 
There has been little to no warming in the last 15 years, the most liberal climate scientists acknowledge this, even though "greenhouse gasses" keep going up.
Permalink
| October 24, 2013, 10:40 pm
Global warming isn't an entirely accurate term. However there is and will be climate change and obvious increases in pollution that can and are significantly shaping the environment around us. Research, kids.
Permalink
| October 24, 2013, 10:46 pm
It's not that hard.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml

Credible studies by trained professionals have found that the average global temperature has risen. It doesn't take much to do anything.

It's pretty obvious that if the 10 warmest years since 1880 occurred in the past 15...temperatures have risen. Not by much, but there's definitely been a change.

Individual instances of cold weather and similar phenomena don't disprove global warming, in the same way that a few people can have a different opinion from that of the majority.
Permalink
| October 24, 2013, 10:49 pm
 Group admin 
Overblown, IMO. Yes, we have an impact, but not nearly as large as they say. More of the CO2 is created from rotting trees and dead animals, as well as forest fires, than human activity. That isn't to say that we shouldn't strive to cleaner energy and whatnot. In the long run, its better. Otherwise, eh.
Permalink
| October 24, 2013, 10:52 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Overblown, IMO. Yes, we have an impact, but not nearly as large as they say. More of the CO2 is created from rotting trees and dead animals, as well as forest fires, than human activity. That isn't to say that we shouldn't strive to cleaner energy and whatnot. In the long run, its better. Otherwise, eh.

Sure, a greater percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from "natural" sources, but that doesn't mean that carbon dioxide we add should be in the atmosphere (or is good for the planet).

Also, a few degrees can make a big difference - if you look at receding glaciers and polar ice caps, arctic regions have been hit hard.

Also, just a few degrees allows tropical/subtropical diseases to move more north/south (depending on which side of the equator they are on).

There are other effects too.

Also, if you've ever breathed smog (you almost certainly have), you know that it's not fun to breathe (and definitely not healthy). Burning oil is definitely not the way to go if we want a clean environment.
Permalink
| October 24, 2013, 10:56 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BobaFett 2
It's not that hard.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml

Credible studies by trained professionals have found that the average global temperature has risen. It doesn't take much to do anything.

It's pretty obvious that if the 10 warmest years since 1880 occurred in the past 15...temperatures have risen. Not by much, but there's definitely been a change.

No, the UN's climate report is now struggling to make an excuse as to why there has been little to no warming. No public figure, no high up climate scientist is claiming that temperatures are still skyrocketing.
Permalink
| October 25, 2013, 8:01 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Overblown, IMO. Yes, we have an impact, but not nearly as large as they say. More of the CO2 is created from rotting trees and dead animals, as well as forest fires, than human activity. That isn't to say that we shouldn't strive to cleaner energy and whatnot. In the long run, its better. Otherwise, eh.

As far as I understood you, I agree.
If theres a global warming nobody knows for sure but besides that we really should stop polluting our world that much.
Permalink
| October 25, 2013, 12:38 pm
Quoting Locutus 666
As far as I understood you, I agree.
If theres a global warming nobody knows for sure but besides that we really should stop polluting our world that much.

Nobody knows for sure?

The majority of climate scientists agree (a significant majority - the number of those that disagree is very small)...and they're trained professionals. Oversampling of naysayers (a significant number of whom have no actual meteorological training) results in people thinking that there isn't a consensus. There is.

Permalink
| October 25, 2013, 2:16 pm
Another interesting tidbit of information is the fact that the Polar Icecaps grew 60% in one year and another thing Alaska had it's shortest summer recorded on record. If I'm not mistaken it lasted only thirty day's.
Permalink
| October 25, 2013, 2:38 pm
Quoting Eve Daniels
Another interesting tidbit of information is the fact that the Polar Icecaps grew 60% in one year and another thing Alaska had it's shortest summer recorded on record. If I'm not mistaken it lasted only thirty day's.

Assuming you mean this year...

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/986

They're still the 6th smallest on record. Climate change isn't a blanket warming or cooling, it's warming on average, but different places are affected differently at different times.

That article should explain it.
Permalink
| October 25, 2013, 2:43 pm
 Group admin 

Well of course an "unbiased" source like media matters would claim that, but I saw a liberal news outlet saying the usual of the report. They tried to explain it by say it's cause the ocean is absorbing all the heat.
Permalink
| October 25, 2013, 9:20 pm
Quoting Michael K.
Well of course an "unbiased" source like media matters would claim that, but I saw a liberal news outlet saying the usual of the report. They tried to explain it by say it's cause the ocean is absorbing all the heat.

It's called statistics. Sure, the site isn't unbiased, but there's definitely a sampling error. It's definitely true that there's been a consensus about climate change among climate scientists for a long time.

Also, look at the NASA stuff.
Permalink
| October 25, 2013, 9:30 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Josh B.
Global warming isn't an entirely accurate term. However there is and will be climate change and obvious increases in pollution that can and are significantly shaping the environment around us. Research, kids.
Yes, climate changes but it has a pattern. Consider this, approximately 30 years ago scientists were talking about global cooling.

This is a proven pattern of the earth. It goes through warming and cool trends about every 30 years, so we can expect things start cooling during our lifetimes.

Pollution is bad, that's a fact, but it doesn't affect our world as greatly as people say. Global warming is just a political tool used the effectively by left. Scare tactics.
Permalink
| October 27, 2013, 7:58 am
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting Josh B.
Global warming isn't an entirely accurate term. However there is and will be climate change and obvious increases in pollution that can and are significantly shaping the environment around us. Research, kids.
Yes, climate changes but it has a pattern. Consider this, approximately 30 years ago scientists were talking about global cooling.

This is a proven pattern of the earth. It goes through warming and cool trends about every 30 years, so we can expect things start cooling during our lifetimes.

Pollution is bad, that's a fact, but it doesn't affect our world as greatly as people say. Global warming is just a political tool used the effectively by left. Scare tactics.

Read the links already. Scientists reached a consensus around 20 years ago.

It goes through warming and cooling trends but this is more extreme than usual.

This wouldn't be a partisan issue if fossil fuel companies didn't fund the right-wing...

I'm pretty sure that this isn't an issue in the rest of the world...
Permalink
| October 27, 2013, 4:52 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BobaFett 2
This wouldn't be a partisan issue if fossil fuel companies didn't fund the right-wing...
And those companies wouldn't have to fund the right if the left stopped trying to choke them out.
Permalink
| October 27, 2013, 4:56 pm
Quoting The Object of Legend
Quoting BobaFett 2
This wouldn't be a partisan issue if fossil fuel companies didn't fund the right-wing...
And those companies wouldn't have to fund the right if the left stopped trying to choke them out.

Because we like to live on a planet that's habitable by human beings?
It's not that hard.
Smog itself is bad, that's obvious.
Fossil fuel produces a lot of smog. Alternative energy is the way to go either way.

The evidence points strongly towards global warming. Heck, all it takes is a look at a chart. That's it. It's as simple as that. On average, temperatures have risen drastically over the past 100+ years.

Also, the global cooling thing was NOT a scientific thing. That was due to the media.
Permalink
| October 27, 2013, 4:57 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting BobaFett 2
It goes through warming and cooling trends but this is more extreme than usual.

This wouldn't be a partisan issue if fossil fuel companies didn't fund the right-wing...

Yeah, too bad the left wastes money on "green energy"companies. Yes, literally waste, as in most green-subsides are wasted on companies that go bankrupt.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/
Permalink
| October 27, 2013, 8:10 pm
Quoting Michael K.
Yeah, too bad the left wastes money on "green energy"companies. Yes, literally waste, as in most green-subsides are wasted on companies that go bankrupt.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

Here you go
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/22/news/economy/obama-energy-bankruptcies/

That's far from most - 8% barely qualifies as "marginal".

Investments in the future are investments in the future. Not all investments succeed.
Permalink
| October 27, 2013, 8:30 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Alternative energy is the way to go either way.

"Alternative energy" is inherently inefficient. Wind is unreliable, and needs those EEEVIIIL polluting generators to be going twenty-four hours a day in case the wind stops. Solar is only effective for half the day, and only when there's no clouds.

Fusion is a possibility, but not one we're likely to see in the next twenty years.

"Cold" fusion and "free energy" devices are bollocks to begin with.
Quoting BobaFett 2
The evidence points strongly towards global warming. Heck, all it takes is a look at a chart. That's it. It's as simple as that. On average, temperatures have risen drastically over the past 100+ years.

Yes. The chart which looks the same no matter what data you give it.

And the hundred + years in which we've been taking precise temperature readings.

Mostly in cities.

Which are warmer than the surrounding ground anyway.
Permalink
| October 27, 2013, 11:03 pm
Quoting Areetsa C
Quoting BobaFett 2
Alternative energy is the way to go either way.

"Alternative energy" is inherently inefficient. Wind is unreliable, and needs those EEEVIIIL polluting generators to be going twenty-four hours a day in case the wind stops. Solar is only effective for half the day, and only when there's no clouds.

Fusion is a possibility, but not one we're likely to see in the next twenty years.

"Cold" fusion and "free energy" devices are bollocks to begin with.
Quoting BobaFett 2
The evidence points strongly towards global warming. Heck, all it takes is a look at a chart. That's it. It's as simple as that. On average, temperatures have risen drastically over the past 100+ years.

Yes. The chart which looks the same no matter what data you give it.

And the hundred + years in which we've been taking precise temperature readings.

Mostly in cities.

Which are warmer than the surrounding ground anyway.

As it currently is, it's inefficient. It's not inherently inefficient, in our current environment and at our level of technological development the ones we have access to and how efficient we've been able to make them is inefficient.

Wind power does pollute, and it's definitely not a final solution, but it pollutes less than fossil fuel burning.

The main problem with solar is how inefficient the cells themselves are, which is why more research and development into materials and design is important.

We're actually getting to fusion now, but yeah, it'll probably be at least 30 before it's commercially viable.

Of course cold fusion is bollocks.

What does the "chart looks the same no matter what data you give it mean"?

Also, it doesn't matter if it's taken in cities, because the whole planet heats up.

Also, we have historical records, ice cores, corals, and tree rings which can be used to determine past temperatures, and it was a lot less than now.
Permalink
| October 27, 2013, 11:30 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
What does the "chart looks the same no matter what data you give it mean"?

Big fuss a while ago about how the most popular scare-mongering chart would show the same dramatic, apocalyptic increase whether you gave it climate info or sports results.
Quoting BobaFett 2
Also, it doesn't matter if it's taken in cities, because the whole planet heats up.

Eh, yeah, it does. Cities are consistently warmer than the surrounding area, and that skews any recordings made. "Heat island effect" is the technical term, I think.
Quoting BobaFett 2
Also, we have historical records, ice cores, corals, and tree rings which can be used to determine past temperatures, and it was a lot less than now.

All inherently imprecise.

And no, I distinctly recall reading that things were quite a bit warmer about five hundred years to a millenium ago.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 1:06 am
Quoting Areetsa C
Quoted text

Link please...

Urban and rural trends have both been found to be the same. The heat island effect doesn't actually bias data.

Whatever the degree of imprecision, it's precise enough to be considered valid by a significant majority of the scientific community.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 8:53 am
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Not sure if it's the right one; just grabbed the top link on google.
Quoting BobaFett 2
Urban and rural trends have both been found to be the same. The heat island effect doesn't actually bias data.

Riight.
Quoting BobaFett 2
Whatever the degree of imprecision, it's precise enough to be considered valid by a significant majority of the scientific community.

Which doesn't mean all that much.
Wasn't so very long ago that a significant majority of the scientific community thought shoving a bit of sharpened wire through someone's forehead was a good way to cure a case of the crazies.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 10:49 am
Quoting Areetsa C
Which doesn't mean all that much.
Wasn't so very long ago that a significant majority of the scientific community thought shoving a bit of sharpened wire through someone's forehead was a good way to cure a case of the crazies.

That was at least 100 years ago, I think more than 150. Medicine wasn't remotely scientific until the last century. Same with a lot of other fields.
And yes, it does mean something.

Proxy records show the medieval warm period as still being cooler than today.

The fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas shouldn't be that hard to grasp. It reflects infrared radiation from the Earth's surface.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 10:59 am
 Group admin 
Quoting BobaFett 2
Here you go
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/22/news/economy/obama-energy-bankruptcies/

That's far from most - 8% doesn't barely qualifies as "marginal".

Investments in the future are investments in the future. Not all investments succeed.

OK, not most, but the point is a massive amount of money is wasted. If green energy was such a good idea at this point, wouldn't private industry invest their own money, as they do with other promising technologies? MOst other forms of energy were privately developed. We don't need the govt picking winners and losers.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:33 pm
Quoting Michael K.
OK, not most, but the point is a massive amount of money is wasted. If green energy was such a good idea at this point, wouldn't private industry invest their own money, as they do with other promising technologies? MOst other forms of energy were privately developed. We don't need the govt picking winners and losers.

Whoops, noticed a spelling error in my original post.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. First, the amount of money isn't that much. In the business world and in the government, massive amounts of money go around all the time.

Businessmen invest in ventures that are likely to be profitable. Few businesses are going to invest in research and development of rockets to go to Mars - the chances of earning money from an investment like that are terrible.

Likewise, solar technology (the most promising alternative energy source we currently have) isn't efficient enough (although it will be sooner or later) to be competitive with fossil fuels, nor are other forms of alternative energy. Most investors don't pick what's best for everyone, they pick what's best for them. Granted, there are some foundations and wealthy individuals funding research into things which are unlikely to turn a profit in a short amount of time, but that doesn't mean that it'd make sense for someone who invests for a living to do so.

Fusion energy is too far off to be worth investing in if your goal is to turn a profit. We have a limited number of philanthropic organizations and wealthy billionaires willing to donate large sums of money, so don't expect a ton of groundbreaking research from investment there.

The government wasn't choosing who would win or lose - they were investing in our future so that we'd sooner be rid of our dependence on oil and coal (much of which is foreign) and have cleaner and safer sources of energy.
Permalink
| October 28, 2013, 4:42 pm
Well, the earth is going to start warming soon. About 10,000 years ago an ice age ended. Now we are in a time of warming, until the next ice age. No human actions could ever cause what they are talking about, seas rising, 10-20 degree changes, etc...
Permalink
| October 31, 2013, 6:54 am
Quoting Jack K
Well, the earth is going to start warming soon. About 10,000 years ago an ice age ended. Now we are in a time of warming, until the next ice age. No human actions could ever cause what they are talking about, seas rising, 10-20 degree changes, etc...

Why not? If infrared radiation (heat) going out from the earth is reflected back, it will heat up. There's no reason that we can't do it. We're talking a few degrees here, and it's already heated up a few. The degree of warming is also faster than ever before.

Seas rise if ice caps melt. If we heat the arctic up a few degrees, we can (and have) melted the ice caps.
Permalink
| October 31, 2013, 8:15 am
Quoting BobaFett 2
That was at least 100 years ago, I think more than 150. Medicine wasn't remotely scientific until the last century. Same with a lot of other fields...

Try seventy.
Quoting BobaFett 2
...Proxy records show the medieval warm period as still being cooler than today...

Proxy records that are inherently imprecise.
Quoting BobaFett 2
...The fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas shouldn't be that hard to grasp. It reflects infrared radiation from the Earth's surface.

You know what else is a greenhouse gas? Water vapour. And there's a whole lot more of it than there is carbon dioxide.
Permalink
| October 31, 2013, 8:41 am
Quoting Areetsa C
Quote

Right, and it makes up the atmosphere. But if you added enough, it would reflect more heat back and raise global temperatures.

"Inherently imprecise".

It's still precise enough to be scientifically valid.
Permalink
| October 31, 2013, 8:56 am
It's funny that people worry about global warming when the past 2.6 million years have seen the coldest climate since the Permian period, and that the present temperature is still low enough that we haven't broken out of a glacial age.

I also think it's odd that people worry about CO2 levels going above 400 ppm, when for most of Earth's history, they've been above twice that. Indeed, atmospheric CO2 has been up to nearly 6000 ppm in the past.

I would suspect that the reason people want to keep the climate at the recent extremes is that we think that those climates are optimal, simply because we happened to arise when those climates were occurring. I would doubt that it's possible to stop the climate from changing, and I find it obvious that global warming is better than global cooling.
Permalink
| November 2, 2013, 11:34 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
They're still the 6th smallest on record. Climate change isn't a blanket warming or cooling, it's warming on average, but different places are affected differently at different times.
Sixth smallest on record when ice caps haven't even existed for most of earth's history?

Permalink
| November 2, 2013, 11:50 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Sure, a greater percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from "natural" sources, but that doesn't mean that carbon dioxide we add should be in the atmosphere (or is good for the planet).
All that CO2 was in the atmosphere before the fossils fuels formed, so we're just putting trapped CO2 back where it belongs.
Permalink
| November 2, 2013, 11:51 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
It's funny that people worry about global warming when the past 2.6 million years have seen the coldest climate since the Permian period, and that the present temperature is still low enough that we haven't broken out of a glacial age.

I also think it's odd that people worry about CO2 levels going above 400 ppm, when for most of Earth's history, they've been above twice that. Indeed, atmospheric CO2 has been up to nearly 6000 ppm in the past.

I would suspect that the reason people want to keep the climate at the recent extremes is that we think that those climates are optimal, simply because we happened to arise when those climates were occurring. I would doubt that it's possible to stop the climate from changing, and I find it obvious that global warming is better than global cooling.

Well, at least you trust the scientific data.

One of the big differences is the speed with which temperatures have risen. That's part of why this is so troubling.

There are various methods which would keep the temperature stable (including pumping particles into the air to deflect a lot of incoming light), but they're too expensive and there isn't a crisis near enough for people to be willing to spend money on them.

Yes, part of it is because our current temperatures work pretty well. Warmer temperatures mean a lot of things, like tropical diseases moving northward, areas which are already hot during the summer becoming nearly uninhabitable, and less tundra/glacier, unbalancing entire ecosystems. Warmer temperatures could impact crops, although they could also open up new growing land. When there are massive changes toppling ecosystems, many species become extinct. It's unlikely that this would drastically affect us in the United States, but in parts of the world that are less developed, it could affect food supply in areas which rely on meat. It could also affect oceans - higher CO2 content in oceans makes them more acidic.

It's not necessarily unsolvable - eventually we'd get a lot more algae and plants growing due to having fewer predators, but as long as we keep putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it's not going to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Permalink
| November 3, 2013, 8:41 am
whats there to talk about. earth is having a heat stroke! any of you guys seen the day after tomorrow?(the movie ,not really the day after tomorrow) how like global warning breaks ice caps(melts), and creates storms that go down in the history books(Sandy). that's all an effect of global warming. the average temp. being higher in other places and lower in others, GLOBAL WARNING!!!
The End Of the World!!!(coming to a theater near you) if you want more info, i suggest the Weather Channel. Its Global Warming Galore over there. almost all of there educational programs have some thing to do with global warming, EVEN the weather reports sometimes talk about it! so yeah. Global Warming is a slient killer that is starting to speak...
(dn dn dunnnnn!)(music effect)
Permalink
| November 3, 2013, 3:51 pm
Quoting BobaFett 2
Well, at least you trust the scientific data.
Of course.
Quoting BobaFett 2
One of the big differences is the speed with which temperatures have risen. That's part of why this is so troubling.
Ah, I see.
Of course, The environment has taken bigger hits and more drastic changes in the past.
Quoting BobaFett 2
There are various methods which would keep the temperature stable (including pumping particles into the air to deflect a lot of incoming light), but they're too expensive and there isn't a crisis near enough for people to be willing to spend money on them.
The climate has never ceased fluctuating in the past, so why should we try to artificially hold ourselves in a glacial age?
Quoting BobaFett 2
Yes, part of it is because our current temperatures work pretty well.
So did the warmer temperatures of the Cambrian or Cretaceous. The only times in earth's history when it's been colder than the present we call 'ice ages'.
Quoting BobaFett 2 Warmer temperatures mean a lot of things, like tropical diseases moving northward, areas which are already hot during the summer becoming nearly uninhabitable, and less tundra/glacier, unbalancing entire ecosystems. Warmer temperatures could impact crops, although they could also open up new growing land. When there are massive changes toppling ecosystems, many species become extinct. It's unlikely that this would drastically affect us in the United States, but in parts of the world that are less developed, it could affect food supply in areas which rely on meat. It could also affect oceans - higher CO2 content in oceans makes them more acidic.
Hm.. I haven't thought so much about the impact of global warming on humans. I'll have to look into it more.
Quoting BobaFett 2
It's not necessarily unsolvable - eventually we'd get a lot more algae and plants growing due to having fewer predators,
Fewer predators, why?
Quoting BobaFett 2 but as long as we keep putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it's not going to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Obviously, who ever suggested otherwise?
Permalink
| November 3, 2013, 10:49 pm
Quoting TRON 117
Movies! Docudramas! Scaremongering!

Propaganda, you mean.

Permalink
| November 4, 2013, 8:06 am
Quoting Areetsa C
Propaganda, you mean.


*sigh* i don't know. these days you cant trust anything scientists say. One day bacon is the worst food on earth then they find it gives you some healthy stuff so eat all you want.

But the movies, docudramas, and scaremongering do make good entertainment for me, you know what i mean :)
Permalink
| November 4, 2013, 11:42 pm
Quoting TRON 117
*sigh* i don't know. these days you cant trust anything scientists say. One day bacon is the worst food on earth then they find it gives you some healthy stuff so eat all you want.

But the movies, docudramas, and scaremongering do make good entertainment for me, you know what i mean :)

Trouble is, the people making the documentaries aren't any more trustworthy.

Newsies, for instance; you know how there's been all those mass shootings lately? Yeah, they don't actually happen very often. In fact, there's been less and less of them over the last 50 years or so, despite firearm restrictions getting lighter and lighter.

Of course, when you've got seven billion people, you're going to get a few who just go completely ape.
With the internet, the whole world will hear in minutes.
Permalink
| November 6, 2013, 2:52 am
Quoting Areetsa C
With the internet, the whole world will hear in minutes.


i know what you mean.

Permalink
| November 6, 2013, 6:42 pm
Other topics
Robot Apocalypse? Updated Saturday
student teen kid toy play lego child video game hobby blocks construction toy legos fun games



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use