Let's talk global warming...

Yakima 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
z987k said:
um yeah that earth is growing thing is full of ****.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, that is a fact disputed in the Glenn Beck interviews by a scientist. I am still looking for the transcript of the show....bear with me.

desiderata said:
These facts must have been determined based on scientific evidence (1300s). It is scientific evidence that is proving global warming today. Why should we accept the evidence in that case and dispute it in this (current) case.
Click to expand...

What I can't get over is we have much more exact and accurate instruments now vs. the 1600s or whenever most of this data was compiled....What do you believe?

The bottom line is we know very little about the salinity of the oceans and the oceans in general. So many meteorlogical factors are influenced by the oceans. They cover 3/4 of the Earth. The land masses have less to do with GW than the ocean currents do, believe that if nothing else.
 
Dude said:
No it isn't, that is a fact disputed in the Glenn Beck interviews by a scientist. I am still looking for the transcript of the show....bear with me.



What I can't get over is we have much more exact and accurate instruments now vs. the 1600s or whenever most of this data was compiled....What do you believe?

The bottom line is we know very little about the salinity of the oceans and the oceans in general. So many meteorlogical factors are influenced by the oceans. They cover 3/4 of the Earth. The land masses have less to do with GW than the ocean currents do, believe that if nothing else.
Click to expand...

With the earth growing thing, I have 2 hudge questions. 1 The earth is not getting less dense, and if it's volume is growing the mass also has to go up to compensate for the increased volume. How would that be explained?

2 if the earth was growing and everything was pulling apart like the video shows there would be no mountains. Explain all the mountains. (lots of mountains have nothing to do with volcanic activity,)

Next, on the data from the 1600's most of this data has been compiled from recently. Read my section on paleoclimate in the massive ppt.

An next your right the oceans have a hudge impact on the climate. 1 oceans are a huge carbon sink(absosb carbon from the atmos) and second it takes way way longer to heat/cool the oceans and thus why no immediate change will change the climate very quickly.
 
desiderata said:
So much for the condensed version, LOL :) I did get the gist, though.

:off: I wish I knew how to (or if there is even a way to) make multiple quotes in one post. I'm borderline becoming a post-whore too. :)
Click to expand...

to quote multiple people do this {quote=z987k}blah blah blah {/quote}
replace the {'s with ['s.
 
Dude said:
Here is a link but it has at least one missing part.

Very interesting read. Pay particular attention to the part about the C02/Temperature argument.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/02/gb.01.html
Click to expand...
you're going to have to quote something, I read a few pages, but I think that's longer than my ppt I made :)

On the kyoto protocol, their right. It screws the 1st world and hands everything to the developing countries on a silver platter. Surprisingly I am completely against the kyoto protocol. China and India pollute less than us per capita, but more overall, and here china is putting up a new coal plant every month or so. There just going to kill themselves when the rain's pH drops to like 3 or 4 and crops wont grow, ecosystems are destroyed and fish die.

ok edit I found the temp and co2 thing.... give me a sec to find real data.
 
z987k said:
you're going to have to quote something, I read a few pages, but I think that's longer than my ppt I made :)
Click to expand...

Meh, I think you are just too biased to read real scientific evidence. ;)

I admit I haven't gone through your ppt yet, although I did download it. It is time for me to hang up the laptop for the night...but i will continue this discussion tomorrow.
 
no I ended up reading it. I noticed the thing about temp goes up before co2 I found 3 graphs. 1 is ch4 plotted vs co2 to show a direct correlation between their total amount in the atmos one is ch4 vs temp and one is ch4 and co2 vs temp. Their on slides 17, 18 and 20. You decide.


Also something that can be fun to play with is a model that will predict various changes in a lot of things (temp, co2, sea level, nox, sox, ch4, etc) given variables. What can be fun is you can set the variables to anything. Say like putting 400 gigatons of carbon in the atmos every year. temp goes way up :) I ran one with outrageous data input and the temperature raise and ocean level rise was off the chart 100. Co2 in the atmos in 100 years was 3909.71ppmv vs 359.27ppmv in 1995.
http://isam.atmos.uiuc.edu/isam2/index.html
 
z987k said:
ok well I made a ppt that ended up to be 65 slides long and ~18mb.
Hmmm, I don't know how I can host this anywhere.
Click to expand...

Save as html might reduce size. Then you just need to find a hosting site :eek:
 
You guys are the experts here, so I can't contribute anything significant to this debate. But, I enjoy reading the arguments. Keep it up.:p
 
Too many people on earth and it's only getting exponentially worse like olllllo stated. Even if you believe / don't believe the increase in warming is based on 2-leggers.

Lets start with this family (yea, that's cropped for General Public :p)


fun13_Edited.jpg
 
z987k said:
maybe it's like google adsense. But I have not ads here at HBT, I don't think I ever have.
Click to expand...

probably, never knew much about the technology behind ads/banners since I HATE THEM. I think my membership just expired. Time to re-up...
 
Someone please explain how climate change is any less of a threat if it is not a man-made phenomena. I see all these people who refute the evidence that we are contributing to the warming of the Earth as if that means climate change isn't happening or isn't going to drastically alter the word.

Personally my favorite thing about global warming is that by the time the real effects start, it will be too late to do anything about it (hence my name is jaded). I think what we really ought to be doing is finding alternative ways to grow food, so we can all still eat once the arable land starts disappearing (which may not have anything to do with rising ocean level, but rather desertification).

As for the use of fossil fuels, my reasons for wanting to find some alternatives have more to do with global politics than global warming.
 
TheJadedDog said:
Someone please explain how climate change is any less of a threat if it is not a man-made phenomena. I see all these people who refute the evidence that we are contributing to the warming of the Earth as if that means climate change isn't happening or isn't going to drastically alter the word.

Personally my favorite thing about global warming is that by the time the real effects start, it will be too late to do anything about it (hence my name is jaded). I think what we really ought to be doing is finding alternative ways to grow food, so we can all still eat once the arable land starts disappearing (which may not have anything to do with rising ocean level, but rather desertification).

As for the use of fossil fuels, my reasons for wanting to find some alternatives have more to do with global politics than global warming.
Click to expand...

While interesting, that is another discussion for another time.

I don't think anyone here is refuting that man has certainly contributed to global warming, but opinions differ on exactly how much. I tend to believe it is a normal cycle of nature more than man made. There is evidence out there that proves it. I have some ammo in my hip pocket--I'm just trying to get the discussion going.
 
This topic gets me very angry and I am very passionate about it. Especially when I see people like Al Gore saying things like, 'the debate is over, it's proven all meteorologists and climatologists agree we are causing global warming and it will be the end of society as we know it'. Without raising my blood pressure, here are a few of my points.

In my opinion people are quite naive when they think that you can go to the wall and set Earth’s thermostat to whatever temperature you feel is Earth’s right or natural temperature. The Earth has warmed and cooled significantly over its history and will continue to do so for eternity, to believe that people have the ability to hold a specific temperature, is laughable.

The global average temperature is somewhere between 12-14C. If you look at the 2 billion year history of the Earth, the global average temperature has ranged between about 10C and 22C. With the cool valleys brief compared to the warm stretches (see http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm). Our globe is warming, are humans having some impact? Probably, how much of that is Earth returning to ‘normal’, most of it. Do we also have impacts that cool our planet? Probably. Can you make an accurate climate model that accounts for all of those parameters and unknown natural variation? Definitely not.

One point people like to bring up, it’s not that we are warming, it’s the rate at we are warming. They cite ice core samples that go back hundreds of thousands of years or more. The major problem with that data is, the older an ice sample is, you lose the fine scale (short-term) variability and you see more of a long-term trend. When you compare that to very fine temporal data we have for the past few hundred years, well of course we are warming faster than the past many thousand years, the ice cores you are using intrinsically blur (or effectively time average) that data. It is not appropriate to make comparisons as such.

To construct public and economic policy to attempt to set an artificial ‘normal’ Earth temperature not only is irresponsible, it is a worthless endeavor because it plain will not work.

The attention that these people give to ‘global warming’ should be directed to things we actually do have a large impact on and could change. Fresh clean drinking water that could end up being what the next major regional, if not world war is over, not oil. 80-90% of the rivers in China are polluted to the point where it is undrinkable. Over a billion people with not enough water to drink, sounds like a problem to me. The Earth is overpopulated, some sort of epidemic will occur on this planet, even with modern medicine, will kill millions if not billions, but that will actually benefit the planet in the long run. And we must use the oil on our land now and MUST develop an alternate to oil because it will run out or become unimaginably expensive.

The global warming alarmists like Al Gore are in many ways like religious fanatics, in many ways global warming and his version of environmentalism is his religion. Al Gore and people like him, believe what you like, live how you feel is right, but for one minute don’t push your beliefs on others (note beliefs, his statements are NOT fact), especially when your goal is truly unobtainable, but comes at an extremely high cost.

Stepping down from my soapbox without getting too worked and keeping this short. Yes, I think this is short.
 
uwmgdman said:
This topic gets me very angry and I am very passionate about it. Especially when I see people like Al Gore saying things like, 'the debate is over, it's proven all meteorologists and climatologists agree we are causing global warming and it will be the end of society as we know it'. Without raising my blood pressure, here are a few of my points.

In my opinion people are quite naive when they think that you can go to the wall and set Earth’s thermostat to whatever temperature you feel is Earth’s right or natural temperature. The Earth has warmed and cooled significantly over its history and will continue to do so for eternity, to believe that people have the ability to hold a specific temperature, is laughable.

The global average temperature is somewhere between 12-14C. If you look at the 2 billion year history of the Earth, the global average temperature has ranged between about 10C and 22C. With the cool valleys brief compared to the warm stretches (see http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm). Our globe is warming, are humans having some impact? Probably, how much of that is Earth returning to ‘normal’, most of it. Do we also have impacts that cool our planet? Probably. Can you make an accurate climate model that accounts for all of those parameters and unknown natural variation? Definitely not.

One point people like to bring up, it’s not that we are warming, it’s the rate at we are warming. They cite ice core samples that go back hundreds of thousands of years or more. The major problem with that data is, the older an ice sample is, you lose the fine scale (short-term) variability and you see more of a long-term trend. When you compare that to very fine temporal data we have for the past few hundred years, well of course we are warming faster than the past many thousand years, the ice cores you are using intrinsically blur (or effectively time average) that data. It is not appropriate to make comparisons as such.

To construct public and economic policy to attempt to set an artificial ‘normal’ Earth temperature not only is irresponsible, it is a worthless endeavor because it plain will not work.

The attention that these people give to ‘global warming’ should be directed to things we actually do have a large impact on and could change. Fresh clean drinking water that could end up being what the next major regional, if not world war is over, not oil. 80-90% of the rivers in China are polluted to the point where it is undrinkable. Over a billion people with not enough water to drink, sounds like a problem to me. The Earth is overpopulated, some sort of epidemic will occur on this planet, even with modern medicine, will kill millions if not billions, but that will actually benefit the planet in the long run. And we must use the oil on our land now and MUST develop an alternate to oil because it will run out or become unimaginably expensive.

The global warming alarmists like Al Gore are in many ways like religious fanatics, in many ways global warming and his version of environmentalism is his religion. Al Gore and people like him, believe what you like, live how you feel is right, but for one minute don’t push your beliefs on others (note beliefs, his statements are NOT fact), especially when your goal is truly unobtainable, but comes at an extremely high cost.

Stepping down from my soapbox without getting too worked and keeping this short. Yes, I think this is short.
Click to expand...

Do you need an aspirin? :D

I agree with pretty much everything you just said. One point i do want to raise though is that I DO think GW is being perpetuated moreso by humans but not to the degree of the "end is near" way of thinking in the Al Gore camps of the world. Al Gore's agenda is political and he is attacking an issue that is popular right now.

Without making this into a political topic, I think there are so many theories out there that are skewing people to believe what they want to believe and they discount anything else rational.

This is my opinion. The "heat islands" that man has created, and the pollutants that man has created, has very little to do with warming trend of the world, and more to do with natural cycles of global currents--mainly in the oceans. We will never be able to fully understand it and therefore I belong to the camp that we should focus issues on other resources rather than worry about something that more than likely we cannot control.
 
Dude said:
Do you need an aspirin? :D
Click to expand...

A brew wouldn't hurt either.

Dude said:
......I belong to the camp that we should focus issues on other resources rather than worry about something that more than likely we cannot control.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
As others have stated, there is no way to know with any degree of certainty what impact (if any) we are having on the global temperate. That's unfortunate for those who support the man-made global warming theory, because the burden of proof is on them. They are the ones who want to introduce restrictions that would cripple the global economy, so they have to justify such serious measures. They can't, end of story.
 
Just a few observations:
1.) Whether it is man-made or natural or any combination, does not mean that we cannot impact it in some way OR mitigate the negative effects of the change. As Dude points out, there are man-made factors currently affecting local weather. Lessening some of these (and more importantly) making sure that 1-2 billion people that will move from a annual income of $9000 to $35,000 (8-9% China economic growth) in the next 30 years keep thier impact to a minimum.

2) Someone stated in an earlier post that the Chinese could basically ruin thier own country with acid rain etc, and it would be a disincentive for them to pollute or if they didn't well too bad for them.... This is not a well thought out idea. Most of the Chinese population is on the Pacific coast. Guess where all of that goes.
Weather patterns flow from West to East. And the oceans.

3) Here is the real doomsday scenario. We can debate how likely or what we can or cant do....

Ocean temperatures rise (not a whole lot) enough to promote O2 depleting bacterial life (already happening in sea dead zones). Since we have over fished or seriously stressed the middle tier of predators (through pollution and pesticdes) that consume this and since these bacteria compete with and crush plankton the bacterial growth spreads unchecked further deoxegenating the oceans.... oceans rich in dissolved organic carbon.

Basically the oceans would then release enough carbon to cause an irreversable (in man's time on earth terms) die off.

This theory is supplanting the asteriod or volcano theory of a 90% die off that occured at the end of the Permian Era.

4) Again, the odds of this are debatable. The odds of a large object smashing into the earth is debatable. There are people looking into preventing or seiously mitigating such a collision. No one thinks that these people are crack pots. We don't have the debate about it being a natural event.

But then that issue hasn't become a political issue.

5) There are no technical barriers to getting this done. There are only economic and political ones. Technology however can help to reduce the economic and political (read cultural and life-style acceptabilty) cost.
 
Lets say Al Gore is right and we need to drastically cut greenhouse gasses to save our ass. How much do we need to cut…25%…50%…75%? My guess is that the economic hit from even a 25% cut forced upon society would do more damage than global warming ever will. Plus if Al Gore is right and CO2 is so bad, I doubt a 25% cut would do anything to stop global warming.

Now don’t get me wrong I hate pollution and think we all should work to reduce, but I also think scaremongering solves nothing. Let nature and the free market take its course and don’t force me to change my live. I will choose to do so freely as energy prices rise and as nature requires. All oil and food isn’t going to disappear overnight. Earth won’t turn into a ball of fire tomorrow. It will happen gradually and we will adapt. As oil gets scarcer the free market will find alternatives (as the current alternative energy boom shows) and people will use less. If food becomes more expensive, more people will start growing their own. As the ocean slowly rises coastal cities will evolve and change (hell the Venusians built a city on water).

We have heard the dire predictions many many times before, yet we are better off today than any point in history. I wish the fear mongers would quit trying to scare the crap out of everyone and just RDWHAHB.
 
Getting back to something discussed by Dude as to wheter we can control this.

Perhaps we cannot. We cannot prevent an earthquake, but we can do things to lessen it's impact. We do not, for example, store our nuclear waste in a fault zone. We create building codes to mitigate damage.

So, perhaps we cannot "change" global warming. We can however change some of our practices so that we do not accelerate deleterious effects. Reducing our impact on the environment seems to be a good start.
 
olllllo said:
Just a few observations]
2) Someone stated in an earlier post that the Chinese could basically ruin thier own country with acid rain etc, and it would be a disincentive for them to pollute or if they didn't well too bad for them.... This is not a well thought out idea. Most of the Chinese population is on the Pacific coast. Guess where all of that goes.
Weather patterns flow from West to East. And the oceans.
Click to expand...

It was me. First the acidification of the oceans would be detrimental to fishing ecosystems and many other things. Second, yes they are polluting themselves very badly. Most rivers there are undrinkable - as I think someone said.. Second the acid rain does go to the ocean somewhat, but a lot of it still get rained down into the rivers streams and lakes in the mainland. Remember it doesn't necessarily matter where the population is, it's where the Sox and Nox polluting sources are, in this case mostly coal burning power plants.
And remember acid rain is strictly a local problem, it is not carried all that far.
Slide 41 has a good map to consider.


Next to everyone, I guess I don't really care which way you think on the subject as long as you are making an informed decision. Don't believe everything Al Gore or whoever the right wing anti-global warming nut job is says either. Find the facts (data) and make your on INFORMED decision, but please don't base it on an opinion.
 
z987k said:
Next to everyone, I guess I don't really care which way you think on the subject as long as you are making an informed decision. Don't believe everything Al Gore or whoever the right wing anti-global warming nut job is says either. Find the facts (data) and make your on INFORMED decision, but please don't base it on an opinion.
Click to expand...


I agree 100% with you there... Nothing I hate more than yuppies driving SUV's talking about how coal plants are polluting... Or EX-politicians doing an eco-crusade with their Motorcades and Jumbo Jets... all because it's the 'popular' thing. Always get the facts for yourself and decide, don't go by another person's opinion.
 
Want proof for global warming? Let's look at the planet Venus.

Venus is the SECOND planet in the solar system. It's however the HOTTEST terrestrial (rock) planet in the solar system? Why isn't Mercury (1st planet) the hottest? It's much closer to the sun than Venus.

The reason is this. Venus' atomosphere consist of mainly CO2 and a very small trace of nitrogen. What is CO2? A greenhouse gas. CO2 has been proven scientifically to be a greenhouse gas. (Traps heat on the surface)

Now obviously there are natural cycles on earth. Volcanoes release CO2, alcohol fermentation :)rockin: ), etc. However so does burning of fossil fuels. Oil is supposed to be under the ground or under the ocean. When you burn gas, you are adding more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Every planet has natural cycles (Mar's is getting warmer right now.) However, if CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we release UNNATURAL amounts of CO2 in the air, it's obvious that eventually the surface temeperature is going to get too hot.

Finally, it might not be as bad if we wouldn't cut our trees. Plants take in CO2 and release oxygen that we breathe. Unfortunately we are killing all the trees and plants, thereby less CO2 is being converted into O.

So basically you got this:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Fact)
Earth does have a natural cycle (Fact)
Trees and plants are in this natural cycle to turn CO2 into O (Fact)
There are a diminishing amount of trees and plants (Fact)
There are still the same natural CO2 emitters (Fact)
There is an additional CO2 emitter, humans (Fact)

With less plants and trees to convert CO2 into O, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. Between more CO2 being emitted by humans and less CO2 being converted into oxygen because of tree and plant loss (humans fault) there will therefore be more CO2 greenhouse gases causing the surface temperature to increase (see: greenhouse gas in dictionary and Venus.)

Thank you.
 
z987k said:
It was me. First the acidification of the oceans would be detrimental to fishing ecosystems and many other things. Second, yes they are polluting themselves very badly. Most rivers there are undrinkable - as I think someone said.. Second the acid rain does go to the ocean somewhat, but a lot of it still get rained down into the rivers streams and lakes in the mainland. Remember it doesn't necessarily matter where the population is, it's where the Sox and Nox polluting sources are, in this case mostly coal burning power plants.
And remember acid rain is strictly a local problem, it is not carried all that far.
Slide 41 has a good map to consider.


Next to everyone, I guess I don't really care which way you think on the subject as long as you are making an informed decision. Don't believe everything Al Gore or whoever the right wing anti-global warming nut job is says either. Find the facts (data) and make your on INFORMED decision, but please don't base it on an opinion.
Click to expand...


I think on the balance then with respect to acid rain we're in agreement. Acid rain wasn't the curx of that point and I should have been more clear. It is the oceans, and other particulate pollutants that can travel with the weather.
And the fact that the Chinese government has a history of allowing the people to bear the brunt of whatever the government deems a priority. In 1939, (pre communtist era) they let 500,000 people die because of flooding and subsequent famine in N. China. Dams were destroyed to slow down the invading Japanese armies in Manchuria.

In the cold war period Mao strategized that he could prevail in a nuclear exchange with the US or Russia because he could outlast us with the size of the population.
 
Nexus555 said:
Want proof for global warming? Let's look at the planet Venus.

Venus is the SECOND planet in the solar system. It's however the HOTTEST terrestrial (rock) planet in the solar system? Why isn't Mercury (1st planet) the hottest? It's much closer to the sun than Venus.

The reason is this. Venus' atomosphere consist of mainly CO2 and a very small trace of nitrogen. What is CO2? A greenhouse gas. CO2 has been proven scientifically to be a greenhouse gas. (Traps heat on the surface)

Now obviously there are natural cycles on earth. Volcanoes release CO2, alcohol fermentation :)rockin: ), etc. However so does burning of fossil fuels. Oil is supposed to be under the ground or under the ocean. When you burn gas, you are adding more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Every planet has natural cycles (Mar's is getting warmer right now.) However, if CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we release UNNATURAL amounts of CO2 in the air, it's obvious that eventually the surface temeperature is going to get too hot.

Finally, it might not be as bad if we wouldn't cut our trees. Plants take in CO2 and release oxygen that we breathe. Unfortunately we are killing all the trees and plants, thereby less CO2 is being converted into O.

So basically you got this:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Fact)
Earth does have a natural cycle (Fact)
Trees and plants are in this natural cycle to turn CO2 into O (Fact)
There are a diminishing amount of trees and plants (Fact)
There are still the same natural CO2 emitters (Fact)
There is an additional CO2 emitter, humans (Fact)

With less plants and trees to convert CO2 into O, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. Between more CO2 being emitted by humans and less CO2 being converted into oxygen because of tree and plant loss (humans fault) there will therefore be more CO2 greenhouse gases causing the surface temperature to increase (see: greenhouse gas in dictionary and Venus.)

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Yeah CO2 and H2O both trap about ~90% of IR radiation. That's a fact no scientist will argue.
 
Brewing Clamper said:
It's hot....
Click to expand...


LOL!

It was 117* Here in Las Vegas on the fourth of July.

I was down the river about 100 miles this past weekend in Bullhead City, Arizona. The billboard said 124* when I drove by it!
 
regarding The Great Global Warming Swindle:

I think they make a solid hypothesis against man-made global warming, but they fall short of proving anything. They say: "you can't prove that CO2 levels cause warming." Then they only show a few graphs that suggest the complex relationship between greenhouse gases, but it doesn't definitively prove their argument to be right, nor their opposition to be wrong. (I think you guys have summed up the ins and outs of that debate pretty well here already, so it's kindof moot.)

In the last 20 minutes or so they lose a lot of credibility when they try to accuse environmentalists of waging some campaign to destroy civilization as we know it. Sure, there are plenty of pretentious idiots in the far left green machine (like in any political extreme) but they fail to acknowledge the notion of sustainable progress. That is the key issue that most people in the environmentalist camp are advocating. Global warming or no global warming, changes need to be made.

These guys in GGWS swear up and down that they are not financially vested in the status quo, but they seem awfully defensive against change (doesn't the bit about the solar powered clinic in Africa remind you of the in the Simpsons?). I say stick to science, ********, and use it for something other than beating a dead political horse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't need A-Holes like the Goracle telling me how to live when that tard uses more electricity in a month than I do in a year. F'ing Fat hypocrite. Don't tell me he's carbon neutral either. Buying credits from himself. What a f'ing joke.

By the way, fermenting beer produces mass quantities of CO2, now considered a pollutant thanks to unelected men in black robes. If the Goracle would have his way, he'd tax beer production for all the CO2 generated.

Mars is warming at the same rate as Earth. Hmm, could it be a solar cycle?

Check this site out. It's a hoot. http://carboncreditkillers.com/

/soap box off
 
i think whether or not burning fossil fuels causes global warming is a stupid argument. no matter what it still has an adverse affect on our environment and we should be continuously exploring and experimenting with clean, safe, alternate means of energy.

fossil fuels won't last forever, anyway.

i'm sick of hearing all these debates on unimportant issues. it seems to me they're just a distraction from the real problems.
 

Similar threads

Revvy
RIP Ray Bradbury.
Replies
8
Views
892
Dynachrome
Dynachrome
CornyKegs 300

Latest posts

Back
Top