You have nothing to back up that claim, while there is lots to back up that we have a noticeable impact on global climate.
You have nothing to back up that claim, while there is lots to back up that we have a noticeable impact on global climate.
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
Nope...I have plenty of proof my peeing in the ocean did not significantly raise ocean levels. How silly of you to think it did.
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
It did not address the item, so it was irrelevant. You claimed I created a straw man. I said you need to support that claim. Anything else is a diversion.
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
Lol 
Look what just popped up in my subscriptions page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo&feature=feedu
Look what just popped up in my subscriptions page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo&feature=feedu
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
Fine, then instead we will use the term Statistically Indistinguishable From Zero
Humans have a Statistically Indistinguishable From Zero impact on global climate change.
You are trolling, that is clearly not what I was talking about. Of course peeing in the ocean won't raise it a noticeable amount. That has nothing to do with the topic we are talking about. Which is humans and climate change humans do have a clear impact on climate change.
You created an argument that had no baring and made no sense. I don't care... will you ever come up with a good argument. Or keep on bringing up fall analogies? You said that since newton gravity turned out to not work in all situations. Since most people thought it was right didn't make it right. Because of this we shouldn't listen to experts? You have to look at why the conclusion came to at the start, and what changed. Newton gravity still works in many situations. It changed as NEW data and information came in. This is what happens new data and information come in and things change. Plus modern science only came about recently, the process is much different than what was around in newtons time. Experts know much about our global climate. Will we know more in the future of course( if we keep on studying it ) will it change the way we think about parts of it? Yep. But to not listen to the people who study and know this stuff is just stupid. Until you can show that there is some new data that overthrows what they have been studying. But if that comes about they will just put that into what they have now and add to it.
When you want to actually discuss climate change and man's impact on it I am here.
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
Oh, you did reply to a post where I said I peed in the ocean you know.
Yes, humans have the same basic affect as me peeing in the ocean, you are correct. I am surprised you changed you view so quickly.
Analagies are quite useful aids in understanding. Think of them in the same way people use mnemonics as aids in remembering.
It does not work in any situation. It is based on a flawed premise. It sometimes gives correct results but for the wrong reasons. It is always wrong because the effects of gravity travel at the speed of light and is not instantaneously transmitted to every body in the universe undiminished. It is wrong at its very core.
No, this is where you refuse to read and understand. I very explicitly said I was attacking the logical fallacy being used. It is not hard to understand, but you managed to not do it.
No, it is always a wrong theory. It cannot work properly due to the underlying assumptions being completely wrong. It appears to work properly when it actually does not.
I have already posted the existing natural cycle, which shows that the planet's temps would continue to rise past the current temp even if humanity never existed.
What you need to show is what happened to make the natural cycle vanish so that mankind became the cause...or show that mankind is causing the planet's temps to rise faster than the existing natural cycle is making them rise. Good luck, because temp data points do not show this.
Last edited:
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
Of course, it is too hard to support your position. I understand, I would not want to try to support your position either. WAY too much work, having to delete emails that show fraud, etc. Far simpler just to support that naturally existing cycle that is currently raising the temp just like it always has.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
People have dropped knowledge on you already in this thread and you refuse to look at it. You are just another idiot with a internet connection. You are right about one thing though, your views just like your piss in the ocean dont amount to anything. Nobody cares about you and you are irrelevant. You should remove yourself from the gene pool.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
I'm not here to debate you and as you can see anyone who was actually trying to debate you has left and it's not because you have some kind of special knowledge that has eluded the entire scientific community, it's because you are a fucking idiot and no one want to talk to idiots.
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
It's interesting to see the "PR" machine in action.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ientists-economy-drama-music--game-shows.html
BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music... and even game shows
By David Rose
Last updated at 12:29 AM on 27th November 2011
Britains leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked Climategate emails has revealed.
The emails part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the universitys scientists, which goes back more than a decade.
They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.
Like the first Climategate leaks two years ago, they were placed last week on a Russian server by an anonymous source.
Again like their predecessors, they have emerged just before a United Nations climate summit, which is to start this week in Durban.
BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEAs two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.
Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate, one journalist said. If you disagree, youre branded a loony.
In 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
The document says the policy was decided after a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts including those from UEA.
The Climategate 2 emails disclose that in private some of those same scientists have had doubts about aspects of the global warming case.
For example, Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, admitted there was no evidence that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting because of climate change, and he and his colleagues agreed there were serious problems with the famous hockey stick graph the depiction of global temperatures that suggests they were broadly level for 1,000 years until they started to rise with industrialisation.
But although there is now more scientific debate than ever about influences on climate other than CO2, prompted by the fact that the world has not warmed for 15 years, a report from the BBC Trust this year compared climate change sceptics to the conspiracy theorists who blame America for 9/11, and said Britains main sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, should be given no air time.
The man at the centre of the BBC-UEA web is Roger Harrabin, the Corporations environment analyst, who reports for a range of programmes on radio and TV.
Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed that in 1996, he and his friend, Professor Joe Smith of the Open University, set up an informal two-man band to organise environment seminars for BBC executives.
Known as the Cambridge Media Environment Programme (CMEP), it operated until 2009, and over three years (2002 to 2005) received £15,000 from the Tyndall Centre. Mr Harrabin did not derive personal financial benefit, although Prof Smith was paid.
Yesterday Mike Hulme, UEAs Professor of Climate Change, who set up the centre in 2000 and was its director until 2007, said he planned to fund CMEP from Tyndalls outset, as an integral part of our outreach and communication strategy.
Mr Harrabin was also appointed to the Tyndall advisory board an unpaid position he held for five years until 2005.
The Climategate 2 emails suggest Prof Hulme expected something in return the slanting of BBC coverage to exclude global warming sceptics.
On February 25, 2002, the climate change sceptic Philip Stott, a London University professor, debated the subject with John Houghton of the Met Office on the Today programme.
This prompted an angry email to colleagues from Prof Hulme. Did anyone hear Stott vs Houghton on Today, Radio 4, this morning? he wrote.
Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media Environment Programme, to starve this type of reporting at source.
Last night Prof Hulme denied he was trying to deny space to sceptics, saying: What I wanted to starve at source was this type of reporting in which the important and complex issues raised by climate change are reduced to an argument between two voices representing different positions on climate science, as though there is one right and one wrong answer to climate change.
Far from wanting to narrow it, he said, he had tried to widen debate about the issue for years.
This was not the only time there was talk of sceptics being shut out. On December 7, 2004, the BBCs then-environment correspondent Alex Kirby wrote to Prof Jones.
He had, he said, succeeded in blocking one sceptic from the BBC, claiming his work was pure stream of consciousness rubbish. But to his regret, he had been unable to stop a group of scientists who said there were flaws in the hockey-stick graph being featured.
I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece, he wrote.
But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all... and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
Prof Jones commented: I thought you exercised some caution with crackpots.
Mr Kirby replied: Oh Phil, what can I say...I hope youll still talk to me despite this.
Yesterday Mr Kirby explained his joke, saying that editors often asked him to include sceptic views in his stories, in order to provide balance.
I felt then and I feel now that its not our job to inject artificial balance into an unbalanced reality, he said.
He believed scientists such as Prof Jones had got the subject mainly right, while those who rejected their conclusions were often not worth hearing.
In November 2008, in an email to his UEA colleague Claire Reeves, Prof Jones expressed his satisfaction that the reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, ie the counter argument is rarely made.
But alas, there was still a vociferous and small majority [sic] of climate change sceptics... who engage the public/govt/media through web sites.
He suggested UEA should set up a project to curb their influence, writing: Issues to be addressed include: should a vociferous minority be able to bully mainstream scientists? Should mainstream climate scientists have to change the way they have worked for generations?
Mr Harrabin shared his UEA contacts throughout the BBC.
For example, in October 2003 Vicki Barker, a presenter on the World Service, wrote asking to visit Prof Hulme, saying: My colleague Roger Harrabin suggested I contact you. I am about to spend several months attempting to answer the following question for senior BBC managers: If we were to reinvent economics coverage from scratch, TODAY, incorporating what we now know (or think we know) about global environmental and economic trends, what would it look like?
She said she had noticed environmental undertow that was beginning to tug at economies around the world... I have wondered if current newsgathering practices and priorities are conveying these phenomena as effectively as they could be. Is this a question you and some of your colleagues feel like pondering?
The same year, BBC1 broadcast a series on the British countryside presented by Alan Titchmarsh. The last programme presented a deeply pessimistic view of future global warming and before it was transmitted its producer, Dan Tapster, asked Prof Hulme to vet the script.
Id be grateful if you could send me your hourly/daily rate as a script consultant so that I can budget your time, he wrote. Prof Hulme said he remembered going through the script, adding that he was not being paid, and was certainly not an official adviser.
Mr Harrabin knew that if he was seen to be too closely associated with green campaigners in earlier years CMEP had accepted funding from activist organisation WWF the impartiality he was supposed to demonstrate as a BBC reporter could be jeopardised.
In July 2004, in an email to Prof Hulme that asked him to continue funding CMEP seminars, Prof Smith explained: The only change I anticipate is that we wont be asking WWF to support the seminars: Roger particularly feels the association could be compromising to the neutral reputation should anyone look at it closely.
Prof Smith told Prof Hulme that the seminars purpose was to influence BBC output.
He spoke of finding ways of getting environmental issues into mainstream stories by stealth, adding: Its very important in my view that research feeds directly back into decision-maker conversations (policy and above all media). I hope and think that the seminars have laid the ground for this within the BBC... There is senior BBC buy in-for the approach I want to pursue.
Yesterday he said he had always ensured there was a range of views at the seminar, while by using the phrase by stealth he simply meant that sustainability stories are elements of mainstream stories, but the complexity and uncertainty inherent in them make them difficult to report in isolation.
In September 2001, another email reveals, Mr Harrabin and Prof Smith wrote to Prof Hulme, asking what the BBC should do to mark a climate summit the following year.
They said his suggestions would be circulated among relevant BBC decision-makers, while instead of confining himself to news and current affairs, he should also feel free to recommend ideas for drama, music, game shows.
Labour MP Graham Stringer last night said he would be writing this week to BBC director-general Mark Thompson to demand an investigation into the Corporations relationship with UEA. The new leaked emails show that the UEA scientists at the Tyndall Centre and the CRU acted more like campaigners than academics, and that they succeeded in an attempt to influence the output of the BBC, Mr Stringer said.
Conservative MP David Davis said: Using research money to evangelise one point of view and suppress another defies everything I ever learnt about the scientific method. These emails go to the heart of the BBCs professed impartiality... its actions must be investigated.
But the BBC insisted its relationship with UEA had never been unhealthily close, saying it was always impartial. A BBC spokesman said: We would reject the claim that the Tyndall Centre influenced BBC editorial policy.
As for Mr Harrabins place on the Tyndall board and the advice he gave, he said: The idea was for him to look out for potential stories for the BBC and to offer academics a media perspective on climate change and policy. We do not believe that compromised impartiality.
Mr Harrabin added: It was right that the BBC decided not to give sceptics parity on climate change, saying there was a cross-party consensus. But he said he had maintained they should still be given some air time.
Prof Jones was not available for comment last night.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ientists-economy-drama-music--game-shows.html
BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music... and even game shows
By David Rose
Last updated at 12:29 AM on 27th November 2011
Britains leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked Climategate emails has revealed.
The emails part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the universitys scientists, which goes back more than a decade.
They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.
Like the first Climategate leaks two years ago, they were placed last week on a Russian server by an anonymous source.
Again like their predecessors, they have emerged just before a United Nations climate summit, which is to start this week in Durban.
BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEAs two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.
Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate, one journalist said. If you disagree, youre branded a loony.
In 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
The document says the policy was decided after a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts including those from UEA.
The Climategate 2 emails disclose that in private some of those same scientists have had doubts about aspects of the global warming case.
For example, Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, admitted there was no evidence that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting because of climate change, and he and his colleagues agreed there were serious problems with the famous hockey stick graph the depiction of global temperatures that suggests they were broadly level for 1,000 years until they started to rise with industrialisation.
But although there is now more scientific debate than ever about influences on climate other than CO2, prompted by the fact that the world has not warmed for 15 years, a report from the BBC Trust this year compared climate change sceptics to the conspiracy theorists who blame America for 9/11, and said Britains main sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, should be given no air time.
The man at the centre of the BBC-UEA web is Roger Harrabin, the Corporations environment analyst, who reports for a range of programmes on radio and TV.
Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed that in 1996, he and his friend, Professor Joe Smith of the Open University, set up an informal two-man band to organise environment seminars for BBC executives.
Known as the Cambridge Media Environment Programme (CMEP), it operated until 2009, and over three years (2002 to 2005) received £15,000 from the Tyndall Centre. Mr Harrabin did not derive personal financial benefit, although Prof Smith was paid.
Yesterday Mike Hulme, UEAs Professor of Climate Change, who set up the centre in 2000 and was its director until 2007, said he planned to fund CMEP from Tyndalls outset, as an integral part of our outreach and communication strategy.
Mr Harrabin was also appointed to the Tyndall advisory board an unpaid position he held for five years until 2005.
The Climategate 2 emails suggest Prof Hulme expected something in return the slanting of BBC coverage to exclude global warming sceptics.
On February 25, 2002, the climate change sceptic Philip Stott, a London University professor, debated the subject with John Houghton of the Met Office on the Today programme.
This prompted an angry email to colleagues from Prof Hulme. Did anyone hear Stott vs Houghton on Today, Radio 4, this morning? he wrote.
Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media Environment Programme, to starve this type of reporting at source.
Last night Prof Hulme denied he was trying to deny space to sceptics, saying: What I wanted to starve at source was this type of reporting in which the important and complex issues raised by climate change are reduced to an argument between two voices representing different positions on climate science, as though there is one right and one wrong answer to climate change.
Far from wanting to narrow it, he said, he had tried to widen debate about the issue for years.
This was not the only time there was talk of sceptics being shut out. On December 7, 2004, the BBCs then-environment correspondent Alex Kirby wrote to Prof Jones.
He had, he said, succeeded in blocking one sceptic from the BBC, claiming his work was pure stream of consciousness rubbish. But to his regret, he had been unable to stop a group of scientists who said there were flaws in the hockey-stick graph being featured.
I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece, he wrote.
But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all... and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.
Prof Jones commented: I thought you exercised some caution with crackpots.
Mr Kirby replied: Oh Phil, what can I say...I hope youll still talk to me despite this.
Yesterday Mr Kirby explained his joke, saying that editors often asked him to include sceptic views in his stories, in order to provide balance.
I felt then and I feel now that its not our job to inject artificial balance into an unbalanced reality, he said.
He believed scientists such as Prof Jones had got the subject mainly right, while those who rejected their conclusions were often not worth hearing.
In November 2008, in an email to his UEA colleague Claire Reeves, Prof Jones expressed his satisfaction that the reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, ie the counter argument is rarely made.
But alas, there was still a vociferous and small majority [sic] of climate change sceptics... who engage the public/govt/media through web sites.
He suggested UEA should set up a project to curb their influence, writing: Issues to be addressed include: should a vociferous minority be able to bully mainstream scientists? Should mainstream climate scientists have to change the way they have worked for generations?
Mr Harrabin shared his UEA contacts throughout the BBC.
For example, in October 2003 Vicki Barker, a presenter on the World Service, wrote asking to visit Prof Hulme, saying: My colleague Roger Harrabin suggested I contact you. I am about to spend several months attempting to answer the following question for senior BBC managers: If we were to reinvent economics coverage from scratch, TODAY, incorporating what we now know (or think we know) about global environmental and economic trends, what would it look like?
She said she had noticed environmental undertow that was beginning to tug at economies around the world... I have wondered if current newsgathering practices and priorities are conveying these phenomena as effectively as they could be. Is this a question you and some of your colleagues feel like pondering?
The same year, BBC1 broadcast a series on the British countryside presented by Alan Titchmarsh. The last programme presented a deeply pessimistic view of future global warming and before it was transmitted its producer, Dan Tapster, asked Prof Hulme to vet the script.
Id be grateful if you could send me your hourly/daily rate as a script consultant so that I can budget your time, he wrote. Prof Hulme said he remembered going through the script, adding that he was not being paid, and was certainly not an official adviser.
Mr Harrabin knew that if he was seen to be too closely associated with green campaigners in earlier years CMEP had accepted funding from activist organisation WWF the impartiality he was supposed to demonstrate as a BBC reporter could be jeopardised.
In July 2004, in an email to Prof Hulme that asked him to continue funding CMEP seminars, Prof Smith explained: The only change I anticipate is that we wont be asking WWF to support the seminars: Roger particularly feels the association could be compromising to the neutral reputation should anyone look at it closely.
Prof Smith told Prof Hulme that the seminars purpose was to influence BBC output.
He spoke of finding ways of getting environmental issues into mainstream stories by stealth, adding: Its very important in my view that research feeds directly back into decision-maker conversations (policy and above all media). I hope and think that the seminars have laid the ground for this within the BBC... There is senior BBC buy in-for the approach I want to pursue.
Yesterday he said he had always ensured there was a range of views at the seminar, while by using the phrase by stealth he simply meant that sustainability stories are elements of mainstream stories, but the complexity and uncertainty inherent in them make them difficult to report in isolation.
In September 2001, another email reveals, Mr Harrabin and Prof Smith wrote to Prof Hulme, asking what the BBC should do to mark a climate summit the following year.
They said his suggestions would be circulated among relevant BBC decision-makers, while instead of confining himself to news and current affairs, he should also feel free to recommend ideas for drama, music, game shows.
Labour MP Graham Stringer last night said he would be writing this week to BBC director-general Mark Thompson to demand an investigation into the Corporations relationship with UEA. The new leaked emails show that the UEA scientists at the Tyndall Centre and the CRU acted more like campaigners than academics, and that they succeeded in an attempt to influence the output of the BBC, Mr Stringer said.
Conservative MP David Davis said: Using research money to evangelise one point of view and suppress another defies everything I ever learnt about the scientific method. These emails go to the heart of the BBCs professed impartiality... its actions must be investigated.
But the BBC insisted its relationship with UEA had never been unhealthily close, saying it was always impartial. A BBC spokesman said: We would reject the claim that the Tyndall Centre influenced BBC editorial policy.
As for Mr Harrabins place on the Tyndall board and the advice he gave, he said: The idea was for him to look out for potential stories for the BBC and to offer academics a media perspective on climate change and policy. We do not believe that compromised impartiality.
Mr Harrabin added: It was right that the BBC decided not to give sceptics parity on climate change, saying there was a cross-party consensus. But he said he had maintained they should still be given some air time.
Prof Jones was not available for comment last night.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
Attic
Diamond Member
- Jan 9, 2010
- 4,282
- 2
- 76
This is out of line.
Character assassination and insisting the opposing view is removed is a weak approach to use when one has given up on arguing facts. Unfortunately this tactic, commonly used by those on the left, has proven a worthwhile approach for politicians to use in the court of public opinion when legitimate debate does not bring about a demanded conclusion.
actually he is arguing with a troll... which never leads anywhere and is totally useless.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
"Open debate?" What are the criteria for which views should be entertained during an "open debate?"
During a scientific discussion on AIDS, should the views of those who insist that AIDS was created by the U.S. government during biological warfare research be given significant time on the podium? During discussions on the search for extraterrestrial life, should the floor be opened up to those who want to talk about crop circles and alien abductions and UFOs? During symposia on anthropology, should time be set aside for those who cite the bible as proving that human history cannot possibly date before 3000 BC? During a prime-time presidential debate, should the candidates from every political party be given a podium and equal air time as the Democratic and Republican parties?
The fact that there are "opposing views" does not automatically mean that those views should be treated as having equal stature with consensus or strongly-supported minority views. And despite your misinformed, willfully ignorant posts, the scientific argument against ACC is essentially a fringe view. To give such views significant air time would amount to a dereliction of journalistic duty to the truth, in the same way that giving significant air time to Holocaust deniers during an on-air discussion of Nazism would be.
But you're too stupid or too dishonest - or both - to understand the principle here, so keep on trolling.
Last edited:
SparkyJJO
Lifer
- May 16, 2002
- 13,357
- 7
- 81
I've called him out on doing that before. He doesn't care. If you don't agree with his point of view, you're an idiot, moron, or whatever he wants to call you that day.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter