Comanche
Since when do climatologists do 10 day forecasts? I'm guessing that you do not know what a climatologist does for a living.
Since when do climatologists do 10 day forecasts? I'm guessing that you do not know what a climatologist does for a living.
Yea, your right, maybe I should have said meteorologist. But the message is still the same. They don't even know what is happening now, let alone 10 days, 10 years, or even 100 years down the road. Which is the heart of the whole GW thing. When these guys who say they are climatologists, or meteorologists, or claim to be algore, can't predict the weather with accuracy 10 days from now, how are we to trust them with 100 years down the road?
Oh, by the way, stop guessing. Thats what the climatologists are doing.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I'm afraid I'm not inclined to give your opinion much credence given that (1) you don't even know the difference between a climatologist and a meteorologist, and (2) Gore gets his information from climatologists -- not the other way around contrary to your preposterous suggestion -- while your propaganda comes primarily from pseudo-scientists and industry shills.
Trust me, I'm not insulted. Factually, I have posted a lot of stuff in this thread, all of it just a pertinent as anything anyone else has posted. I still stand behind the idea that there is not consensus out there.
Even if there were, I would put this up. Mark Twain -- When ever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Is it me or is this whole global warming topic getting really really old? Let's agree to disagree and then stop spamming the forum with global warming threads.
Googer
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 12,576
- 7
- 81
Your argument is invalid; Einstein once said, that it only takes one person to prove thousands of (experts) wrong. There was once a time when the "expert" consensus agree that the earth was flat, draining blood from the body was a way to cure diseases, and flys spontaneously generated upon rotting flesh. Yep just because the "experts" agree, does not make them right.
As for global warming, CO2 is one of the least common gasses in the atmosphere at less than .0383% of the total atmospheric gas! The total amount of that CO2 produced by man is less than 0.001% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you know what the number one "greenhouse" gas is? If you couldn't guess, it's water vapor (at 0.25%)! So if you feel so strongly about this, then I suggest you stop drinking water, showering, and watering your lawn. Oh, and try not to urinate, because it releases warm water that adds to the greenhouse effect.
You greenies remind me too much of the Salem Witch Trials or those whom tried condemn Galileo and tortured his supporters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...atmosphere#Composition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...re_gas_proportions.svg
As for global warming, CO2 is one of the least common gasses in the atmosphere at less than .0383% of the total atmospheric gas! The total amount of that CO2 produced by man is less than 0.001% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. Do you know what the number one "greenhouse" gas is? If you couldn't guess, it's water vapor (at 0.25%)! So if you feel so strongly about this, then I suggest you stop drinking water, showering, and watering your lawn. Oh, and try not to urinate, because it releases warm water that adds to the greenhouse effect.
You greenies remind me too much of the Salem Witch Trials or those whom tried condemn Galileo and tortured his supporters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...atmosphere#Composition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...re_gas_proportions.svg
Comanche
Your ignorance on the subject is astounding.
Your comparison of a local forecast for 10 days down the road to an estimate of global climactic conditions decades in the future is worse than an apples to oranges comparison. It is more akin to comparing an apple to a bucket of sand. It is like saying there are no hairs on a football because there are no sleeves on a vest. Get the point?
There is no logical connection, no path of reasoning that can take you from your observations of local forecast accuracy to discarding future climate conditions out-of-hand because of your erroneous assumption that they are created from the same cloth.
Knowledge and understanding will broaden your horizons.
Your ignorance on the subject is astounding.
Your comparison of a local forecast for 10 days down the road to an estimate of global climactic conditions decades in the future is worse than an apples to oranges comparison. It is more akin to comparing an apple to a bucket of sand. It is like saying there are no hairs on a football because there are no sleeves on a vest. Get the point?
There is no logical connection, no path of reasoning that can take you from your observations of local forecast accuracy to discarding future climate conditions out-of-hand because of your erroneous assumption that they are created from the same cloth.
Knowledge and understanding will broaden your horizons.
Googer
You can't look at each piece of the puzzle as if it were an object of unique effect. Many factors are additive. For example, if gh gases can cause more sea ice melt, then the newly exposed sea water will absorb sunlight, evaporate, adding more water vapor to the atmosphere.
Of all of the possible factors involved in the increasing global temp, gh gases may be the only one we can have an effect on. It is certainly worth investigating whether or not any possible future actions would be beneficial.
You can't look at each piece of the puzzle as if it were an object of unique effect. Many factors are additive. For example, if gh gases can cause more sea ice melt, then the newly exposed sea water will absorb sunlight, evaporate, adding more water vapor to the atmosphere.
Of all of the possible factors involved in the increasing global temp, gh gases may be the only one we can have an effect on. It is certainly worth investigating whether or not any possible future actions would be beneficial.
To be fair, Al Gore is not trying to make up statistics or fabricate anything to prove mans part in global warming, he gets his information FROM the climatologists. He truly believe that if someone who is a popular face came forward to warn everyone of what we're doing, perhaps there would be a bigger response to it. Well, he was right, but half of that response has been negative. Seems everything goes two ways in our ridiculously charged political atmosphere these days, not at the fault of Gore, though.
To add to this, the entire issue with people denying the very existence of global warming stems from a belief that we as humans are so small that we couldn't possibly have any effect on the climate in the long term. This view stems from religion, which is part of the point dmcowen was making. Religious folk feel that the world was created and it is far to complex and strong for us to possibly change, the complexity and awesome size/scale of our environment puts them in a state of disbelief to the notion that we could easily change our climate. This is why myself, and others, really do believe that the religious are far more likely to NOT believe in a man made global warming pattern, it's simply beyond them. That's disturbing.
These people run our country, too. That's disgusting.
To add to this, the entire issue with people denying the very existence of global warming stems from a belief that we as humans are so small that we couldn't possibly have any effect on the climate in the long term. This view stems from religion, which is part of the point dmcowen was making. Religious folk feel that the world was created and it is far to complex and strong for us to possibly change, the complexity and awesome size/scale of our environment puts them in a state of disbelief to the notion that we could easily change our climate. This is why myself, and others, really do believe that the religious are far more likely to NOT believe in a man made global warming pattern, it's simply beyond them. That's disturbing.
These people run our country, too. That's disgusting.
IGBT
Lifer
- Jul 16, 2001
- 17,976
- 141
- 106
Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say ?we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.? It is a fitting retort to Al Gore?s new movie about global warming, ?An Inconvenient Truth.?
A friend invited me to attend a screening of ?An Inconvenient Truth? when it first arrived in Chicago a few weeks ago. The event was sponsored by an environmental advocacy group and the theater was filled with Gore fans. They seemed to love it. I found it disturbing.
The Real Al Gore?
The film is one part Al Gore biopic and one part pseudo-documentary about global warming. The parts about Gore portray him to be deeply thoughtful, committed to family and the pursuit of the truth--even unpopular truths--and still upset about losing the 2000 presidential election.
During the biographical parts we hear Gore talking softly about important moments in his life, lessons he learned, and values he holds dear. We hear about his son nearly dying in an accident, his sister dying of lung cancer, and his lost election. We watch as he walks through airports, onto stages before cheering crowds, and around the family farm, or sits in shadows, apparently deep in thought.
For those who already admire him, these parts of the movie are likely to build a deeper bond of trust and confidence in Gore as a man of good character. Even those who don?t like him may find him less wooden and doctrinaire than he appeared during the presidential campaign.
Credible on Climate?
Few people would want to watch a movie about Al Gore?s life, but substantially more are interested in global warming, the coming global calamity that could cause, or perhaps already is causing, droughts and floods, scorching hot summers and fierce winter storms, rising sea levels, hurricanes, species extinctions, deformed frogs, and a long list of other terrible things. At least, that?s what Gore thinks, and what newspapers serve up on an almost-daily basis.
I have difficulty taking Gore seriously on environmental issues ever since it was reported that Ted Kaczynski, the murderous ?Unabomber,? kept a heavily marked-up copy of Gore?s book, Earth in the Balance, in his tar-paper shack and liberally borrowed from it when writing his anti-humanity treatise. There?s even a Web site (http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html) that offers a quiz to see if you can tell Gore?s words from Kaczynski?s. I bet you can?t.
Was that a cheap shot? Maybe, but no more so than Gore?s repeated assertion that only oil company stooges dissent from his alarmist views on climate change. At one point he compares scientists who disagree with him with apologists for the tobacco industry.
So what are we to make of (in alphabetical order) Dr. Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Robert Balling at Arizona State University, Dr. Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia, Dr. Randall Cerveny at Arizona State University, Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama, Dr. Robert Davis at the University of Virginia, Dr. Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario, Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado, Dr. Wibjörn Karlèn at Stockholm University, and Dr. Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?
And what about Dr. David Legates at the University of Delaware, Dr. Henry Linden at IIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, Dr. Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph, Dr. Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia, Dr. Dick Morgan at the University of Exeter, Dr. Tim Peterson at Carleton University, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, Dr. Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth College, Dr. Willie Soon at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, and Dr. Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki? All are respected authorities on climatology, working at respected universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals ... and they all dispute Gore?s alarmist claims.
So who are you going to believe, politician Al Gore or real scientists?
Slick Propaganda
Gore?s movie substitutes vivid images of the alleged effects of global warming for an accurate account of the scientific debate. We see glaciers calving into the sea, giant storms sweeping through resort areas, burning deserts, and even a cartoon polar bear swimming aimlessly, searching for a place to rest.
Problem: All of the events pictured in this movie have been occurring since before human activities could possibly have caused them. Glaciers have calved into seas for millions of years, storms obviously predate modern civilization and our emissions, and real-life polar bears know better than to head out into open water during the Arctic summer. At any given time in Earth?s history, some glaciers have been expanding while others have been shrinking. (We have accurate information on only 42 of the approximately 160,000 glaciers presently in existence.)
Early in the movie, Gore shows us images of the disappearing snow cap atop Mount Kilimanjaro and blames the loss on global warming. Wrong. Scientists know temperatures at the top of Kilimanjaro have been falling, not rising, and the disappearing snow is due to changes in land use at the bottom of the mountain, causing drier air to rise up the mountain?s side.
Later we see ice melting in the Arctic, Greenland, and the Antarctic. More evidence of global warming? Not necessarily. Scientists say temperatures in the Arctic were higher during the 1930s and the current melting is probably part of a natural cycle caused by ocean currents, not greenhouse gases. And only small parts of Greenland and the Antarctic are melting: Snow and ice are accumulating as rapidly in other parts, for a net loss of around zero.
More Deceptions
Two of the worst deceptions in ?An Inconvenient Truth? involve the global temperature record and rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Gore walks across the stage as red lines plot temperature and CO2 concentrations, showing a close correlation across many years and a rapid increase in the past century. It is a triumph of data manipulation.
Viewers can?t tell from the film whether temperature increases follow or precede rises in CO2. If they precede, then Gore?s entire thesis is disproved. In fact, the historical record shows temperature increases often have preceded increases in CO2. No mention of that inconvenient fact in this movie.
Viewers also can?t see the scales Gore is using for his graph. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased over time, but by only 87 parts per million since 1870 (according to the United Nations Environment Programme). If the vertical scale of Gore?s graph started at zero, the increase would have been too small for viewers to see.
The temperature record Gore uses is the so-called ?hockeystick? graph produced by Dr. Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University. Mann?s methodology has been attacked in peer-reviewed journals, forcing him to issue a partial withdrawal of his findings. Other, more accurate, reconstructions of the historic temperature record show substantially more variation in the past, revealing that today?s temperatures are not unprecedented.
The Debate Is Not Over
There are plenty of other errors and exaggerations in Gore?s movie, which people more expert than I are documenting and exposing. Suffice it to say, ?An Inconvenient Truth? contains very little truth, and a big helping of propaganda.
Does Al Gore himself really believe the hype he tries to sell in this movie? Those who have watched him give his PowerPoint presentation and have discussed it with him say he does.
The Unabomber also was absolutely sincere in his belief that technological progress was an evil that had to be stopped, with violence if necessary. Fortunately, Kaczynski didn?t have access to the incredible powers of the Presidency of the United States. Unfortunately, Al Gore still aspires to that post.
A friend invited me to attend a screening of ?An Inconvenient Truth? when it first arrived in Chicago a few weeks ago. The event was sponsored by an environmental advocacy group and the theater was filled with Gore fans. They seemed to love it. I found it disturbing.
The Real Al Gore?
The film is one part Al Gore biopic and one part pseudo-documentary about global warming. The parts about Gore portray him to be deeply thoughtful, committed to family and the pursuit of the truth--even unpopular truths--and still upset about losing the 2000 presidential election.
During the biographical parts we hear Gore talking softly about important moments in his life, lessons he learned, and values he holds dear. We hear about his son nearly dying in an accident, his sister dying of lung cancer, and his lost election. We watch as he walks through airports, onto stages before cheering crowds, and around the family farm, or sits in shadows, apparently deep in thought.
For those who already admire him, these parts of the movie are likely to build a deeper bond of trust and confidence in Gore as a man of good character. Even those who don?t like him may find him less wooden and doctrinaire than he appeared during the presidential campaign.
Credible on Climate?
Few people would want to watch a movie about Al Gore?s life, but substantially more are interested in global warming, the coming global calamity that could cause, or perhaps already is causing, droughts and floods, scorching hot summers and fierce winter storms, rising sea levels, hurricanes, species extinctions, deformed frogs, and a long list of other terrible things. At least, that?s what Gore thinks, and what newspapers serve up on an almost-daily basis.
I have difficulty taking Gore seriously on environmental issues ever since it was reported that Ted Kaczynski, the murderous ?Unabomber,? kept a heavily marked-up copy of Gore?s book, Earth in the Balance, in his tar-paper shack and liberally borrowed from it when writing his anti-humanity treatise. There?s even a Web site (http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html) that offers a quiz to see if you can tell Gore?s words from Kaczynski?s. I bet you can?t.
Was that a cheap shot? Maybe, but no more so than Gore?s repeated assertion that only oil company stooges dissent from his alarmist views on climate change. At one point he compares scientists who disagree with him with apologists for the tobacco industry.
So what are we to make of (in alphabetical order) Dr. Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg, Dr. Robert Balling at Arizona State University, Dr. Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia, Dr. Randall Cerveny at Arizona State University, Dr. John Christy at the University of Alabama, Dr. Robert Davis at the University of Virginia, Dr. Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario, Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado, Dr. Wibjörn Karlèn at Stockholm University, and Dr. Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?
And what about Dr. David Legates at the University of Delaware, Dr. Henry Linden at IIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, Dr. Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph, Dr. Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia, Dr. Dick Morgan at the University of Exeter, Dr. Tim Peterson at Carleton University, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, Dr. Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth College, Dr. Willie Soon at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama, and Dr. Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki? All are respected authorities on climatology, working at respected universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals ... and they all dispute Gore?s alarmist claims.
So who are you going to believe, politician Al Gore or real scientists?
Slick Propaganda
Gore?s movie substitutes vivid images of the alleged effects of global warming for an accurate account of the scientific debate. We see glaciers calving into the sea, giant storms sweeping through resort areas, burning deserts, and even a cartoon polar bear swimming aimlessly, searching for a place to rest.
Problem: All of the events pictured in this movie have been occurring since before human activities could possibly have caused them. Glaciers have calved into seas for millions of years, storms obviously predate modern civilization and our emissions, and real-life polar bears know better than to head out into open water during the Arctic summer. At any given time in Earth?s history, some glaciers have been expanding while others have been shrinking. (We have accurate information on only 42 of the approximately 160,000 glaciers presently in existence.)
Early in the movie, Gore shows us images of the disappearing snow cap atop Mount Kilimanjaro and blames the loss on global warming. Wrong. Scientists know temperatures at the top of Kilimanjaro have been falling, not rising, and the disappearing snow is due to changes in land use at the bottom of the mountain, causing drier air to rise up the mountain?s side.
Later we see ice melting in the Arctic, Greenland, and the Antarctic. More evidence of global warming? Not necessarily. Scientists say temperatures in the Arctic were higher during the 1930s and the current melting is probably part of a natural cycle caused by ocean currents, not greenhouse gases. And only small parts of Greenland and the Antarctic are melting: Snow and ice are accumulating as rapidly in other parts, for a net loss of around zero.
More Deceptions
Two of the worst deceptions in ?An Inconvenient Truth? involve the global temperature record and rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Gore walks across the stage as red lines plot temperature and CO2 concentrations, showing a close correlation across many years and a rapid increase in the past century. It is a triumph of data manipulation.
Viewers can?t tell from the film whether temperature increases follow or precede rises in CO2. If they precede, then Gore?s entire thesis is disproved. In fact, the historical record shows temperature increases often have preceded increases in CO2. No mention of that inconvenient fact in this movie.
Viewers also can?t see the scales Gore is using for his graph. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased over time, but by only 87 parts per million since 1870 (according to the United Nations Environment Programme). If the vertical scale of Gore?s graph started at zero, the increase would have been too small for viewers to see.
The temperature record Gore uses is the so-called ?hockeystick? graph produced by Dr. Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University. Mann?s methodology has been attacked in peer-reviewed journals, forcing him to issue a partial withdrawal of his findings. Other, more accurate, reconstructions of the historic temperature record show substantially more variation in the past, revealing that today?s temperatures are not unprecedented.
The Debate Is Not Over
There are plenty of other errors and exaggerations in Gore?s movie, which people more expert than I are documenting and exposing. Suffice it to say, ?An Inconvenient Truth? contains very little truth, and a big helping of propaganda.
Does Al Gore himself really believe the hype he tries to sell in this movie? Those who have watched him give his PowerPoint presentation and have discussed it with him say he does.
The Unabomber also was absolutely sincere in his belief that technological progress was an evil that had to be stopped, with violence if necessary. Fortunately, Kaczynski didn?t have access to the incredible powers of the Presidency of the United States. Unfortunately, Al Gore still aspires to that post.
Googer
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 12,576
- 7
- 81
I am aware that one element has a direct or indirect effect on other elements of (so called) global warming.
Have you not considered the sun as a factor? After all it is the sun and not CO2 that warms the earth. Solar fluctuations happen and warm all planets at the same rate. I find it to be of no coincidence that the temperature of Mars and venus has risen at the same exact rate that Earth has. Also it's of little coincidence that the ice caps on Mars began to melt at about the Same Period they did here on earth.
Some Points Explaining it was once warmer in the past than today:
In the middle ages(i believe), it was warmer than today; so warm that the people of the English Isles used to grow grapes for wine, but as things began to cool people began to take notice that their crops were not growing like they did, rivers began to freeze earlier, their lifestyles began to change.
Somewhere in near Denmark (circa 8,000BC) as the ice retreats, archaeologists are discovering the remains of ancient villages. They have been discovering the people living then were in constant retreat to the south. This is because it was once warmer and the people lived far north. But as the CLIMATE changed and cooled (Ice Age) the their homes and edvidence of their lifestyle were frosted over just like a time capsule.
Also near Denmark or Scandinavia as the ice retreats, more ancient artifacts are being uncovered. Recently an old mine was discovered where the miners of the day were hard at work but suddenly forced to leave all their tools behind due to the encroaching ice that soon sealed the mine. No bones were found. Scientists and Archaeologists believe the men were planning on a return to the mine but never could and were forced to migrate south.
Sometime millions of years ago, the dinosaurs roamed the earth in a climate with higher temperatures and CO2 levels. It's common knowledge that life flourished at that time but mass extinction took place when the Earth COOLED!
Fossils of Plants (tropical?) have been found on Antarctica.
Some Points arguing against Mass Scientific Consensus:
In the early 1970s to the mid to late 1980s the general scientific consensus was GLOBAL COOLING! Scientists believed the earth would start cooling and we were destined for an ice age. I think it was Time Magazine who did an article on the topic at that time.
It was recently uncovered that the data recording the Global Temperatures were flawed. The flawed data suggested 1998 as the hottest year on record. But it was later discovered this particular increase coincided with repairs made to the weather station. As it turned out, HVAC contractors relocated the central air conditioner from the roof tops down to ground level with in a few feet of the highly sensitive thermometer used to record air temperatures. The result was an immediate spike in air temperatures that no one ever noticed until recently. Now that we believe 1938 (or was it 36) was the hottest year recorded.
That brings me to my next point. How accurate was the equipment of the 1880's? 1900s? 1920s? Most certainly not as accurate as it is today. Also can you really trust data coming from 3rd world countries like the former Soviet Union* or Haiti that were or are very poor and could not afford the best equipment and had to rely on a "happy face" thermometer purchased at a local market.
Don't get me wrong; I love science, but hypothetical scientific consensus has been wrong way too many times in the past to be considered a reliable source to depend on.
*Excuse the flappy details, I am pulling this from memory and will attempt to provide some links later or if you are familiar with my knowledge please feel free to post supporting links. My HDD crashed and all my bookmarks were destroyed.
*The Socialist Soviet Union was a 3rd world Nation economically but had a World Class Military that riveled the 1st world.
DangerAardvark
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 7,559
- 0
- 0
We have infinitely more to lose by ignoring GW than we have to lose by doing what we can. And even if you claim that scientists are split fifty-fifty on the issue, even if there isn't a consensus, then we still have to do something about GW. The stakes are too high.
Now shut up.
Now shut up.
DangerAardvark
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 7,559
- 0
- 0
Hey more time in your SUV means less time posting. I'm all for that.
I don't really care about the Earth anyway. I don't have kids. I care about hypocrisy and logical fallacy. The argument could be about the best gummi bear flavor (clear) for all I care.
Here Michael Asher posted a Blog, with references to dispute your claim.
Looks like its less than half...
Looks like its less than half...
man made global warming is a figment of the imagination of wackos.
global warming is real, we just are to egotistical to think we can change it, either by causing it or stopping it
PBS has Global Dimming a Nova program on right now. Please watch it and amend your ignorance. edit;; Oh, Shivey you are a laugh!
ZzZGuy
Golden Member
- Nov 15, 2006
- 1,855
- 0
- 0
@ original post.
You can tell lies from facts very easily.
Proof or STFU.
If they can not produce proof of what they are saying, then they can be ignored. If they give false evidence, do some digging on that "evidence" and apply the "Proof or STFU" theory to them as well.
You can tell lies from facts very easily.
Proof or STFU.
If they can not produce proof of what they are saying, then they can be ignored. If they give false evidence, do some digging on that "evidence" and apply the "Proof or STFU" theory to them as well.
Googer
Lifer
- Nov 11, 2004
- 12,576
- 7
- 81
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter