The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
IPCC 2001 - Quote no longer popular due Political pressure

Few Videos of respectable people about this topic

Freeman Dyson, Institute for Advanced Studies - Very great Mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHhDxRuTkI

Patrick Moore – The Sensible Environmentalist - Co-Founder of Greenpeace left it after 15 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHX526NPbE

Sun-Climate Connection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KazGXAqgkds

If you still wan decrease C02 sensible solution that improve human life.

How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

"Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level."

4 years ago

Comment has been collapsed.

Do you believe in man made climate change ?

View Results
Yes
No
Yes - I make my research and analyse available statistic data from last 1mln years
No - I make my research and analyse available statistic data from last 1mln years
I do not care

I think I would agree with 99% scientists.

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Very interesting links. Thank you. Well laid out arguments and data, at least from my layman's point of view. Only halfway through Soon's material - he's a funny guy (sugar made me laugh), but I'll get back to it later. What I'm not seeing here is refutation based on anything other than statistical data, consensus gathering and journalism, but no actual science, though I would be interested to see that too if anything turns up.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

As is often the case with real life problems that have become political issues used for political gain, on both side of the aisle, it seems everybody is debating the wrong thing.

Whether it is man-made or not, can we at least all agree that alarming changes are taking places and that we, the cretins who are living on this little planet, should at least try to change things we are doing that may contribute, or at least make the situation worse, in case it changes anything?

I'm perfectly ready to accept the scientific validity of all theories regarding the reasons for the climate change (except the one that seems to be floating around about farts being responsible, no pun intended), because ok, it's hard to know for sure and everyone will always find one scientist to validate their theory somewhere.
However, I think the only way we can know for sure IF we, as a species, have an impact, is to try and make changes, big ones, and convince nations who are refusing to do so, and see if there's any impact on the problem(S)

When I see people using the "hey it's not man-made so whatever" excuse, I'm bound to wonder if they would stake their kids and grandkids lives on it. Because that's where we are right now, folks. It's not a matter of "in a few thousands years" anymore.

My favorite excuse though is "as long as that other guy is not doing anything, then neither am I". Right. That's definitely going to help.

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Maybe it'll keep us alive until Elon Musk invents a time machine and goes to back to the 70ies to become a media guru and convince everyone to live better?

No idea is a bad idea right? :P

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The thing is we will have to make big changes that the majority we will not want to do, nor companies.

Will the population and supermarkets stop using plastics for every little thing? Stop eating meat? Will the huge areas of monocultives stop and change to a more diverse and enviromental friendly but less profitable cultives? Can we stop the misuse of water? Will we stop using cars and instead, buses? Stop using planes? Will the goverments limit the number of childs a family can have to reduce the evergrowing number of humans?
Can we change that fast?

There is a lot of commodities we have that are difficult to get rid off that have a huge impact, having in mind all our numbers. Even the better solutions like renewable energies, have a great impact on its manufacturation at a large scale.

There is a lot of things to take into account. I, myself don't think we will make it on time. In the mean time, we better act in consequence and try to limit our impact as we can.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I agree the task ahead is daunting, and perhaps impossible. But we have to start somewhere and soon, and to do more than lecture people on how bad the opposite side is being in order to look good.

I'm not optimistic but if we have to have any chance, we should stop debating and begin massive changes, and yes pass laws, that's unavoidable, and that's where we are screwed of course.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Desertification is major issue, due dessert tend to have wide range temp difference in 24H cycle this can case to generation stronger winds, and more unpredicted weather.
Check this video because this guy in my opinion doing a lot good.
How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Wow that's fascinating. Never heard of him before.
How far have we strayed from our own path when we actually need to start terraforming our very own planet earth, eh?

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

We already brake few thing on our planet, we learning now how to fix things ;)

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Totally agree with your first point. But what is the gain in dismantling energy infrastructures that benefit massive amounts of people and the quality of thier lives based on an uncertainty? If CO2 turns out to be a bugbear and just another fear mongering political football and the cause of climate change turns out to be something out of our control, like sunspots, then we would be misdirecting time and resources that might better be spent in building seawalls and developing and deploying technologies to prevent and contain destructive fires and protect people and property from superstorms.
You may convince Europe and even the US to make those big changes - which I assume are the phasing out of fossil fuels - but I doubt developing nations or Asia are going to fall into line. These countries have only recently experienced the benefits of modern industrial infrastructure that we in the West have enjoyed for quite a while. I can't blame them. And let's face it, Russia is happy about global warming. Siberia!
Meanwhile the harm to the planet that I am 100% sure is caused by humans - like the depletion, poisoning and mismanagement of all our natural resources will probably kill us first and it doesn't seem to be getting as much attention lately.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh I completely agree. I wasn't talking about only CO2. I think we should, even just to see if it helps, reduce CO2 emissions but there is a tremendous amount of other things we need to be doing. Including, and perhaps first and foremost, manage our resources more efficiently and with less damage to the very nature that produces them.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

We'll blow up the Earth soon anyway. Why to bother about climate?

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Do you believe in man made climate change ?

i stopped caring.
this made me feel better rather than reading and refuting what some idiots keep repeating because they think they are more educated than scientist dedicated to studying weather changes and manmade pollution repercussions.

besides, i won't be here to "enjoy" the aftermath. 🙋 30 more years to live? 50? 60?
yeah, i have no reason to care at all. not that i would be burning coal in my rooftop just to pollute or be happy when a multinational company spills oil, but i stopped getting angry or frustrated and it improved my mood and quality of life. 🤷

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Do not been surprise if you live a much longer we are probably generation thaw will see ours 200+ birthday.
I cheeking some research about age reversing and in 30 years wee will probably see first clinics that will reverse our age back to 20"
Currently they manage reversed mouse age :)
Because this I concern about climate change topic because I will probably see results :)

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

99% of scientist agree, but you got 1% and posted it to confirm your bias. yay!

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

We all know that 86% of stats are created on the spot, so, whatever dude.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

what? you're not clear.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If I have to spell it out...

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

don't, because i am sure whatever else you will write will also be nonsensical.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's all they need. Can we all agree on one thing? Specially with so much research.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

At one time 99% of scientists agreed that the sun revolved around the earth. Consensus proves nothing, and scientific theories change as hypotheses are confirmed or discarded based on interpretation of ever changing data.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

you are totally wrong. religious leaders believed the sun revolved around the earth. Consensus proves everything. yes science changes, but little by little it is improved upon.

when the house is burning down you don't need to wait for the 1% crackpots to agree it is burning. you take action to save it.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That goes without saying (although some religious leaders like Pope Clement were very interested in Copernicus' heliocentric theory). I was referring to the scientific community of the time who largely rejected the theory - with the exception of a few crackpots, like Kepler and Galileo.
Yes, knowledge can be improved upon incrementally. But scientific method just doesn't work that way. Time and again throughout history, major theories have been thrown out, subverted and turned completely on their heads by new and better ones.

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"scientific community" in the 1500s? any "scientist" in the 1500s was afraid of being killed or locked up by the church!
and comparing them to modern scientists? you are seriously distorting history!

scientific method is "consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." some things were rejected because not testable. later methods were created for testing.
this happens in science. ideas are rejected because no way to test. some ideas are accepted as the most plausible, but still not testable.

climate change is testable and has had rigorous review and predictions due to scientific models starting in 1980s, that have come true.
and then reviewed, new models tested, and again, true, repeated over and over.

you are conflating testable vs non-testable.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

when 99.9% of scientists who study the issue are in agreement, I don't pay attention to the handful of crackpots who disagree

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Since when are agreements scientific? You just turned it into a popularity contest.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that's twisting what I said. At this point, the science is that climate change is real. Unfortunately, there will always be some people who refuse to acknowledge reality - which is why the flat earth society exists.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Climate change at-lest data from past 3mln years shows it but how much contribution is form humans is different mater.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

true. It is absolutely debatable how much of climate change is due to humans and how much is natural. What's not debatable is that climate change is happening. While the rate of change cannot easily be projected, it can be estimated based on existing data.

The question two questions whether or not climate change is bad for humans, and what can/should we do about it.
It's also a matter of perspective - the Maldives are sinking, but Greenland is thriving. Canada will undoubtedly be a winner of global warming.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Your post was a talking point of the "science is settled" anti-science crowd. I am not twisting anything.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

the science is settled. when 99.9% of specialists reach the same conclusion, it's pretty much settled
The few people who disagree are crackpots. May as well be members of the flat-earth society.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The same so called " experts" that said most of the planet was suppose to be under water by the year 2000.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

those were actually a small but vocal minority.
Most geologists will warn that the polar caps are at risk of melting and that would cause sea levels to rise by several meters, which would be catastrophic. Many geologists will say we need to start making changes now to prevent that from happening. But only a few say it's imminent.

Unfortunately, the press only reports on the most extreme predictions, not the most common or the most likely. this is not just for climate change, and not even just for science. It's also true for economic predictions, crime rates, whatever
A prime example of this is the "hockey stick" prediction on global warming, which was only mentioned in one particular scientific paper, based on a new (and unproven) statistical technique. The graph and the predictions were widely published in the general media, whereas the later papers which criticized the technique or results, and later refined the outcomes, did not receive the same attention. the general consensus is that the concept is right, but the sharp spike was too acute

As for the history, n the 1950s a geologist named Mercer wrote about the dangers of polar caps melting. However, he didn't indicate a timeline, just what would happen if the caps melted. Over the next few decades, other scientists wrote how it could happen - i.e. the mechanics of melting. By the 1980s advanced ice-sheet models tended to downplay the risk or rapid melting and in 1995 a panel of scientists declared that Antarctica was stable.
The general consensus for a very long time is that while it is a long-term risk, we won't all be swimming in the next few years

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

we live in a society

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

we gotta rise up, its the only solution

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Good, good...anything to stop overpopulation, let plants take over
i feel a majority has come to an agreement, and yet i dont expect a major corporate and collective change. So i decided not to care about something that wont affect me, it might even be a positive for the planet

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Considering this thread uses server space, and a server generates heat, this thread actually contributes to global warming.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

When a person is having a serious conversation with another while using ":)" to end their sentences, I immediately start doubting everything they say. Imagine talking with someone standing before you and while you make your point they just smirk constantly. It could be the case that they are trying to act friendly and all, but that just come off as irritatingly condescending.

This comment would be consider an ad hominem, but I just want to explain why I would probably not change my opinion with this thread, at least not from OP.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

When a person is having a serious conversation with another while using ":)" to end their sentences, I immediately start doubting everything they say

Or when he starts his argument with with "more reliable data" or "a more reliable source". Like yeah right, more reliable since it fits your narrative... Ever checked the dates of some of your links?

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

As someone that studied meteorology and actually went through climate data, it's complete fair to say that climate change is a thing, in fact, that quote where they say that the concentration of CO2 changed along the millenia clearly shows that climate and the atmospheric composition can change and lead to different climates. Also, just because a species could survive the climate of 400k years ago back then doesn't mean the current version of said crops after millenia of selective breeding through agriculture would have the same resistances as its distant progenitors.

And the climate isn't "chaotic". It's a fluid system and is always looking for balance and any meteorologist will tell ya that there's several cyclical systems in the world's climate that wouldn't be a thing in a "chaotic" system, like La Niña, El Niño and Monsoons in general..

The dangers of climate change is about the extremes, since the system will always try to compesate. The current changes the climate has been going through is leading to stronger extremes, hot places getting hotter and cold places getting colder.

The argument you CAN have is if climate change is a something we even can influence. Human work can influence the weather at a regional level, you can see that just by any heat spots in any urban area, how certain chemicals and gases produced by several types of human activities can lead to acid rain, faster condensation leading to rains happening earlier than the natural course. IF you want to make it political, you can just argue this current climate change is something that would have happened anyways, just another cycle in the world's biosphere, rather than just outright denying it.

Since I'm already typing, might as well explain the difference between weather and climate. Weather is the term when you talk about what's happening in the now or in the near future. There are very accurate mathematical weather models and due to several research facilities all around the world, the weather reports have been at its most accurate ever, being able to predict things with high reliability up to one week in advance. Climate, on the other hand, is the "average" weather and is calculated after years and years of data. Using the current record dry seasons in many points of the world in the last few years, while alarming, doesn't necessarily means that climate changes is a thing, BUT continously discrenpancies in readings in the last decades or so clearly show a fast tendency in temperatures reaching new extremes in a constant manner.

The reason why it's hard to make accurate climate models its because everything can influence the climate in the long terms: Sea Currents, shifts in the tectonic plates, solar radiations, etc. Making a climate model would require a level of inter-disciplinarity and partnership between several organizations and institutes, many which are normally underfunded and-or don't get enough resources due to being considered non-essential when compared to stuff like military and social expenses. Which is a fair judgement from the part of the governments, but still it's like wondering how we can't have a completely accurate map of all the seafloor when it really isn't a global priority to spend that much money to get that done.

TL;DR: Climate Change is indeed a thing, it's a natural part of the world's cycle and we might as well be into one right now. IF you think we can't really influence that, that's an argument you can make, since this has happened before, but outright denying it is simply putting your head in the sand. You either should discuss ways to prevent it from worsening if you think people can influence it or you should discuss way to diminish its inevitable consequences if you think we aren't really in control of it.

References if you want to actually read the data:

https://public.wmo.int/en

http://www.inmet.gov.br/portal/

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

unless I'm mistaken, climate is not the "average" weather, but the weather pattern. e.g. hot humid summers and freezing dry winters vs mild dry summers and mild but wet winters.

Summed up:
Weather is that it's snowing now
Climate is that it snows a lot this time of year

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sorry, english isn't my first language, so some terms might feel weirdly worded. Your definition is much more accurate.

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If co2 is our enemy ,we gotta change USA & China they produce 50% of the co2 nowadays .
But we had more co2 back in the day but we had more trees and bigger trees ,so USA and China can start planting some trees :P

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think you formulated the question incorrectly as it boxes people into a certain mindset without understanding the specifics. If I go to a vast beach and pick up a single grain of sand and bring it home, then I will have had an effect on the size of the beach. Will anyone ever notice that I had an effect on the beach? No, but I did have an effect. The same thing is the case if I light up a match......it can be stated that I will have an effect, but nobody is going to notice that effect over the long term.....they might only notice some of its effects if they stand in close vicinity when I do that.

As such better questions would be:

1) What are the coldest and warmest temperatures this planet has experienced in its history and what scientific evidence supports that?
2) Is the current temperature relative to its historical extremes a problem and what scientific evidence supports that?
3) What are all the factors that can affect the climate?
4) Have all factors that can affect the climate been accounted for in scientific models?
5) How good is the quality of climate research if it does not account for water vapour and the effect of the sun to name but two potential variables, and why suggest solutions such as wind and solar energy that depend upon the sun when the sun is not taken into account in climate models?
6) What is the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how does it differ from historical highs and lows?
7) On what data are those historical carbon dioxide levels based and are these measurements accurate?
8) Are tree rings and ice cores proper proxies for historical carbon dioxide levels and if not, are there better ways to measure historical carbon dioxide levels?
9) Why are the stomata of plants not more widely used as indicators of historical carbon dioxide levels?
10) The chart from the IPCC report in 2001 (page 134) significantly diverges in its findings for the historical temperature of the last thousand years compared to the IPCC report from 1990 (page 202). Can this difference reasonably be explained and if, not why not?
11) How accurate can these assessments be if the IPCC report from 2001 diverges so much from the one in 1990?
12) Is there any climate model that accurately account for the carbon dioxide levels on Mars and Venus (with approximately 96% carbon dioxide in their atmospheres) besides other planets and moons of our solar system, whilst still holding true for the Earth, and if not, is that not a huge problem?
13) How would such a model fare against the non-climate change models for our solar system and how valuable is such a model if any carbon dioxide climate change model has problems outcompeting a temperature model that requires but two variables to calculate the temperature of planets and moons?
14) What scientific evidence is there to support the green house model?
15) Often in climate change discussions, there is talk about fossil fuels. How can the people who are proponents of this theory explain that other planets and moons have more hydrocarbons than the Earth?
16) How can the moon of Saturn called Titan have more hydrocarbons than the Earth?
17) How come the primary source of human helium supplies are oil fields when these clearly were not derived from plant matter?
18) What effect does carbon dioxide have for life on Earth and at which minimum threshold of carbon dioxide do plants die out?
19) How do carbon dioxide levels affect plant stomata and the heat resistance of plants?
20) What are the historical minimum and maximum sea levels and is there an issue in respect to these minimum and maximum sea levels?
21) If the temperature of sea water increases, does that pose a problem for corals? Can we for example see that when comparing the biosphere of the Great Barrier Reef to that of Papua New Guinea where the sea water is 2 degrees Celsius warmer, yet largely has the same biosphere? How does it differ?
22) Do people who talk about coral bleaching truly understand what it is? Can all roughly 15 causes of coral bleaching be mentioned? How does one conduct proper scientific research into this when it involves a symbiotic relationship between algae and corals?
23) Why are solar and wind energy pushed as solutions, but not nuclear energy, especially if they are next generation like thorium reactors?
24) Are solar and wind energy all that climate friendly when accounting that birds and insects might be killed in great quantities, besides requiring vast quantities of rare earth metals for setups that might require replacing in 10 years time, what the mining of those rare earth metals does to the environments where they are mined and the effects of infrasound on health, its economic costs and its indicated marginal benefits?
25) Who benefits from altered energy flux densities for a society? What happens if it gets lowered? Likewise what happens if it increases?

Ultimately what obfuscates this entire discussion is that it is one question that actually consists of multiple questions,namely:

1) Does climate change exist? Historically this answer is clearly yes.
2) What causes climate change? To answer this one needs more than merely correlations......it requires the establishment of causal relationships and it can be extremely difficult to conduct such research where experimental settings are not possible. Anyone who confuses a correlation with causation is not a researcher by default. Research is always ongoing in search for the truth and in science there is no such thing as 'the science is settled'. We can assume to know something, but we can never be entirely certain.
3) Do humans play a role in climate change and is it significant and if so, how significant is it? Humans have an effect just like volcanoes, animals, the sun, the trajectory of the planet and its tilt have besides many other factors. The question of real importance is whether it is significant and how significant. This is extremely difficult to answer when no proper causal research has yet been conducted that seeks to map out all factors of influence. Proper scientific research in my opinion nowadays also needs to focus on power structures and underlying agendas behind any idea. Without it, it is too easy to manipulate people one way or another.

I will make two predictions that I expect to come to pass:

1) In 100 years time or less, people will come to realise that most hydrocarbons are a primordial substance that formed during the creation of the Earth. The words 'fossil fuels' will no longer be used except to describe brown coal and peat, but not oil, gas and black coal.
2) In 100 years time or less, people will come to realise that a vast sphere of life exists within the Earth, consisting large of archaea whose biomass probably is ten to one hundred times as large all life on the surface. It will also become understood that the first life on Earth actually came from within Earth and not on Earth itself. Many of these lifeforms feed on hydrocarbons. As a result of this understanding, mankind will also discover life IN other planets and moons in our solar system which will become much more common than finding it ON other planets and moons.

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Who controls the funding, controls the "science". The ship has long sailed, they got away with faking data and selling an narrative which is known since roughly a decade/10 years or more. Unless as a scientist you're in field that might impact your career (just about any), you're looking to commit suicide of sorts, you better tag along. You can't win AN argument when the data/premise is manipulated/rigged from the get go! Never mind it being "incentivized".

A trillion $ (energy) industry sees itself transitioning, thus a new narrative must be sold to ensure smooth sailing - namely, prepare for your living standards to be diminished. As a meme in a nutshell, its the humble beginnings of: "eat the bugs enjoy the rat milk, live in a pod, accept your overlord backed interests, pushed by thugs and useful idiots alike." Oh how convenient the stage was set in the last 20-30 years, aren't we all a jolly bunch of globohomo's, interchangeable like nuts and bolts straight out of the packaging. Only difference is the coat of paint - AMIRITE? Power outages in EU/US and likely elsewhere are already being forecasted. Maddening yet that nuclear plants are supposedly going to be be shut down? Its not like they are the cleanest and best source that is known to be RELIABLE. You can't flip a on/off switch on them though.

No doubt, man turns habitable patches of land into "inhabitable" ones - there can't be a free pass. To what extent does that make climate and how do you convince the biggest current polluters to clean up their act (CN, IN, soon more developing countries to follow)? Personally i'm all in on the sun activity ... suns radiation and magnetic influence predominantly making climate. Supposedly its about to change in the next 5 - 25 years? Comparatively seconds for big hot blob like the sun. Who knows ... they sure don't, but are willing to sell you and your loved ones in a hand-basket. So whats the solution you ask? Getting fucked. Not just any way though, but the neo-feudalistic way - NO QUESTIONS ASKED, else to the proverbial firing squad you go!

Since i know you aren't qualified to read, let alone able to discern whether you're being bullshitted or not.
Have at least some decent 2nd/3rd hand knowledge bestowed up on you and never lose sight of the bigger picture.

https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1500-marc-morano-debunks-a-decade-of-climategate-lies/
https://www.corbettreport.com/big-brother-science-temperature-adjustments-and-climate-change/

View attached image.
View attached image.
View attached image.
View attached image.
4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Globalism isn't real because the earth is flat.

Globeheads smh

4 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

one sousan dorra!!!

QUIT BERATING ME, I'M NOT YOUR FLAT EARTHER FRIEND! LOL

4 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.