okay, let's take this one at a time:

Quote:

"Sea level is rising. During the 20th century, sea level rose 10-20 cm (4-8 inches) due to melting glacier ice and expansion of warmer seawater. In the next 100 years, sea level may rise as much as 85 cm (33 inches). This is a threat to people living near the coast, wetlands, and coral reefs."

@!#$ 'em. New wetlands will be creatred, new coral reefs formed, but i can give 2 @!#$s and a squirt of piss about some trouser stain who's not smart enough to build his home in an area that won't get flooded.

Quote:

"Arctic sea ice is melting. The summer thickness of Arctic icebergs is about half of what it was 50 years ago. This melting ice may someday cause changes in the world’s ocean currents."

Continental drift also changes ocean currents, and that is something we are NOT causing. Same with orbital wobble. Ocean currnets have been changing since we had oceans. Earth is a dynamic equillibrium, meaning tht it always changes. Trying to keep things the same is like trying to have a meaningfull, intelligent conversation with Ann Coulter--it will never happen. If we had greenpeace at the time that animals were trying to take their firstn steps on land, they would have probably thrown them back in the ocean.

Quote:

"Sea-surface temperatures are warming. Some animals, such as corals, cannot live in warmer seas. Over the past few decades, about a quarter of the world’s coral reefs have died."

Animals are far smarter and adaptable than humans realize. Even in a "hothouse" earth scenariom, corals and the like moved closer to the poles. Right now, we are focusing just on existing reefs in warmer climates, not reefs staring in colder climates.

Quote:

"Heavier rainfall causes flooding in many regions as warmer temperatures speed up the water cycle. In the last ten years, floods have caused more damage than in the previous 30 years."

Again, in the realm of humans...@!#$ 'em. If we worked with nature rather than against it, we wouldn't have the calamities we do nowadays.

Quote:

"There have been changes in where we can farm: As climates warm, some mid-latitude places, like Europe, are getting a longer growing season, while some tropical places are becoming too hot and dry to grow crops."

Again, Climate changes neccesitate US to change, not vice-versa. The only thing this really does is shift the agro-economic balance of the world, and that in the grand scheme-of-things is small potatoes. The only reason we care is that places like Canada, Europe, and Russia may become the bradbaskets of the world, while the U.S. midwest becomes a desert. We only care because it will shift the balance FROM us. Tough rocks.

Quote:

"The amount of drought may be increasing. Higher temperatures lead to a high rate of evaporation and very dry conditions in some areas of the world. Researchers are not sure if drought has increased as a result of current warming."

All the water in the world has always been here--it doesn't "go away". If one area gets plagued by droughts the rain will fall somewhere else. We either change and adapt to the trends or we die out.

Quote:

"Ecosystems are changing. As temperatures warm, species may migrate to cooler places or die. Species that are in particularly danger include endangered species, coral reefs, and polar animals such as penguins, polar bears and seals."

No specie has survived from Day 1 of life being on earth. All species, including us (thank every deity ever conceived) face extinction. Numerous times in history cold weather species have died out because earth chanced from icehouse to hothouse, and vice-versa. Whether were the direct, or indirect cause of it, species will die, Ecosystems will changes, and species will adapt, or die out--including us.

Quote:

"Severe weather events may be more common and stronger. Some researchers say that the number and strength of hurricanes, tornadoes, and other events has increased over the last 15–20 years. However, scientists are still looking into this."

The weather cycles in complex, multi-tier cycles, and our recorded history can only tell us so much about this. Really, though, ANY weather system, or even natural disaters do more good than harm in the long run. It's just human ignorance and arrogance that consider them disasters because someone either dies or has to miss an episode of freinds. Wah. Cry me a river.

The real fact of the matter is that the only thing that really scares us is that we will be collectively inconvenienced by wholesale environmental changes, and that we as a specie won't be able to adapt. Sucks to be us. But Earth will be fine with or without us.

And no, there is no santa. it was all a lie started about 150 years ago when some kid's grandpa tried to explain to his kid why he was rolling aound in a white mink coat covered in menstural blood.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

What bother me is that Science, media, and the general public keep focussing on the cause of global warming. The fact is that the process is in motion and while conservation, recycling etc will be benefitial, we need to worry about how to survive it, not what caused it. It really doesn't matter why it happening, only what we need to do to minimize the damage. Planning to relocate port cities, better insulations, dyverse food crops that kind of thing. We should figure out how to live in caves growing plants with artifitial lighting and geotheric heating.

Regardless the world as we know it is changing, the enviroment is slowly becoming hostile and that should be the primary concern.


PAX

Hahahaha wrote:The fact is that the process is in motion and while conservation, recycling etc will be benefitial, we need to worry about how to survive it, not what caused it.

Regardless the world as we know it is changing, the enviroment is slowly becoming hostile and that should be the primary concern.


PAX

People are lazy, just look at how many people waited until December 28th, 1999 to check their PC's for Y2K issues.

We'll change when we're forced to change, and not before. Someone will invent sunblock pills, severe-duty UV blocking contact lenses, effective geothermal cooling, etc etc... when it becomes a necessity to have these items.

Remember when dark tans were the rage in the 70's? You couldn't find spf anything until tanning and skin cancer were linked. Now spf is in most sun products. When people start to die from exposure and all they did was go outside and wash their car, capitolism will be there to sell the rest of us what we need.


.


John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Actually, SPF is a rating, not an ingredient. A heliophobe like myself needs to be well-versed on these things. All It means is that While wearing that product, based on how much time it would take for your skin to burn (in my case, 10-15 minutes), the SPF is the factor that says how much longer I could stay in the sun without burning. For example, my sunscreen is SPF 60--thus, i can theoretically stay 600-900 minutes in the sun without burning--read: all day . This will of course vary with the UV index, time i'm out (times +/- 2 hours of astronomical noon (for most people in the summer, this is 1:00pm due to Daylight Savings Time). But even the "old" suntan oils and sunscreens had an SPF factor--along with clothing. It's just not always published. Taning oils are likely between 1 and 5 spf. I think a white t-shirt is about 30. My trechcoat is something like 100,000 . Anyhow, All the 70's and 80's were in regards to the sun was the pposite end of the spectrum from the 1870-80's when the "aristocracy" would stay indoors too much and wouldn't get enough sun, so the doctors of the time (rightfully) said to go outside and get some sun. Cue the 50's, 60's 70's and 80's beach culture after the wars when not only were people baking themselves, but they were also wearing little clothing to protect themselves (in the 20's and 30's people wore more clothing at the beach). In other words, we took it to excess. Kinda like eating too many carrots for Vitamin A and wondering why your skin turns orange.

Further, recent studies show that wearing sunglasses increase the risk of sunburn and decrease the effect of tanning (not that tanning is healthy, but some people insist on doing it). Your pineal gland senses the ambient light picked up from your eyes and relagates the hormones that produce melanin, so while sunglasses are good for your eyes' protection, it makes your brain think it's darker and less solar-intense than it is, and as such, won't produce enough melanin and put you more at risk.

The thing is--everything in moderation, and sorry for the digression .

Hahaha: you're right on this. We may need to search for the "why" so as to not repeat history, but the biggest thing is that as a specie (and unfortunately propogated by most western religions) we tend to think of ourselves as separate from nature, rather than a part of it. We try to control it rather than working with it--usually to our detriment. Katrina is the best example: Turn of the century when this was a BIG problem with our attitude (just read anything on the Galveston hurricane), we built sediment retention structures and channels to stop the annual flooding of the mississippi, rather than telling the people to not build on the floodplain. As a result, the annual floods that carried sediment to feed the delta no longer did. The delta started to wash away. So, we built dikes and leevees to keep out the impeading sea and didn't upkeep them. Recipe for disaster.

If we don't start working with nature, being the harsh mistress that she is (just ask anyone in Indonesia), we're going to lead to our own extinction.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

If the sun was getting hotter it would be a process that would take thousands if not millions of years to occur. That being said, it would be impossible for us to detect it seeing as we've only been keeping meteorological records for what.. 100.. 150 years? The sun can't change that quickly, the earth , on the other hand, can. And that's what we're doing .. just accelerating the inevitable.



Lui

Hahahaha wrote:What bother me is that Science, media, and the general public keep focussing on the cause of global warming. The fact is that the process is in motion and while conservation, recycling etc will be benefitial, we need to worry about how to survive it, not what caused it. It really doesn't matter why it happening, only what we need to do to minimize the damage. Planning to relocate port cities, better insulations, dyverse food crops that kind of thing. We should figure out how to live in caves growing plants with artifitial lighting and geotheric heating.

Regardless the world as we know it is changing, the enviroment is slowly becoming hostile and that should be the primary concern.


PAX

i disagree. planning to avoid the upcoming effects of a worsening global warming situation is of course a good and practical thign to do.

but it is equally important to know WHY because then you can attempt to make preemptive actions to NOT further the condition. that way as we are on our way developing new technologies to save us, we arent at the same tiem digging our own grave.

the best possible actions to take to make things better can not be known unless we know WHY it is happening in the first place.




Creative Draft Art Media Forums

^^^In a changing ecosystem that has changed since day 1, why are we trying to keep things the same? The intelligent solution is to be come as adaptable nd dynamic as the ecosystem itself.

In other words, instead of changing floodable rivers not to flood, or building dikes and leevees to keep the ocean from going where it wants to go--maybe we should modify our lives, and structures to cope with those changes. work with the world rather than expect it to revolve around us.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Quote:

Animals are far smarter and adaptable than humans realize. Even in a "hothouse" earth scenariom, corals and the like moved closer to the poles. Right now, we are focusing just on existing reefs in warmer climates, not reefs staring in colder climates.

That's true... massive colonies of coldwater corals have recently been discovered the continental shelf off of Newfoundland. It was a big finding; aparently it wasn't believed corals could live in that environment.

Of course foreign trawlers are raking the ocean floor and destroying the reefs, but that's another story...





"i promise we won't get drunk, and go out in boat in the dark, stand up in the boat and fire the gun into the air unless we have life jackets on."

I didn't mean to sound like we should ignore the causes. I meant that it seems the entire focus is on the causes and that is folly. Knowing all the history is only a piece of what we need to know if we intend to survive.

We need to focus a little less on damage done over the last 150 years and work toward a survival plan. That's all I meant.

PAX

i concur with the last 3 posts

lets have a group hug




Creative Draft Art Media Forums

except for keeper, i hear he smells like spf 9,999 sunscreen




Creative Draft Art Media Forums

Ok, heres the deal...the earth is getting hotter....and yes...its our fault, and by "our" I mean America. I'll get to that in a second. First off, let me clear up what is actually happening in the environment. There are greenhouse gases in the air. Greenhouse gases consist of carbon dioxide, along with several other gases. Now, these gases are GOOD...we have to have SOME...they let heat in, but not out. These gases are measured in the atmosphere by a unit called PPM (parts per million). A good level for them to be is around 250 PPM...one time they droped to 100 PPM....then we had an ice age....in 2006, they are at a beautiful 380+ PPM, not good at all. Here is where America comes in. We make up 4% of the world's population, yet we are responsible for 25% of the emission of these gases. Not a good ratio to start with. What can we do, you ask? There is a protocol called "The Kyoto Protocol", it is an agreement that is made my the leaders of countries to LOWER that countries gaseous emmisions by a set year (something like 2009).....163 country's leader's have agreed to this, guess who hasn't...thats right...your's truly. President Bush refuses to agree to this, for whatever reason. So, we're gonna sit here and watch the rest of the world do their part even though they can't really get anywhere without us. It's really sad.

BMG

There ya go... Proof of global warming from a 200 year sample.

Back on topic, to do a 150 year study on a climate with billions of years of history is too short of a sample. It would be like saying that "humans are more sleepy" because of a 1/10th of a second study done at 3am, it's not enough time to verify a trend, especially since we know that climates go through warm and cold cycles just like humans go through awake and sleep cycles.

Yes, pollution is bad and I'm for finding cleaner ways to do things. But to look at 150 years just isn't enough. Show me research that documents the last 10,000 years and I'll buy in to this. Maybe there's a geologist who can establish what the averages were compaired to today, or even the length of the climate cycles. But those aren't popular facts with the alarmist "Al Gore" crowd.


.




John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

C'mon man, you have to see this....Earth is the ONLY planet we can live on....it is a very, very delicate situation, and we're messing with it. Also, I believe the research you're looking for is called glacial drilling. They look at ice patterns of glaciers that have been around longer than 150 years...yes the earth goes through cycles...its called seasons...no cycle is this dramatic. I mean...a freakin chunk of Anarctica fell into the ocean a couple years ago...a chunk of a continent...not so sure thats normal behavior. More occurances like that, from either of the poles or even Greenland, will start putting beaches or even coastal cities underwater. The only ''study'' you need is this...1) Greenhouse gases hold heat in the earth's atmosphere...PROVEN 2) We, as humans, put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere....PROVEN 3) There are way too many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as of 2006...PROVEN. You do the math. Cyclic or not, it can be stopped.

BMG wrote:C'mon man, you have to see this....Earth is the ONLY planet we can live on....it is a very, very delicate situation, and we're messing with it. Also, I believe the research you're looking for is called glacial drilling. They look at ice patterns of glaciers that have been around longer than 150 years...yes the earth goes through cycles...its called seasons...no cycle is this dramatic.

Not true. Cycles happen, this is taken from Wikipedia:

Quote:

The other mechanism was orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles): slow changes in the tilt of the planets axis and shape of the orbit change the total amount of sunlight reaching the earth by a small amount and the seasonality of the sunshine by rather more. This mechanism is believed to be responsible for the timing of the ice age cycles, and understanding of it happened to be increasing rapidly in the mid-1970s.

The idea that ice ages cycles were predictable appears to have become conflated with the idea that another one was due "soon" - perhaps because much of this study was done by geologists, who use "soon" to refer to periods of centuries to tens of millennia or more. A strict application of the Milankovitch theory does not allow the prediction of a "rapid" ice age (rapid being anything under a century or two) since the fastest orbital period is about 20,000 years

Google "global cooling". It was the battle cry of 70's hippi-tree huggers against pollution. The best and brightest scientific minds believed we were headed for another ice age. They were wrong then, and I have to question if the best and brightest scientific minds today are any smarter or just guessing with fancier tools.

BMG wrote: I mean...a freakin chunk of Anarctica fell into the ocean a couple years ago...a chunk of a continent...not so sure thats normal behavior. More occurances like that, from either of the poles or even Greenland, will start putting beaches or even coastal cities underwater.

Some Hawaiian islands have gotten bigger from volcanic eruptions. Mount St. Helens erupted and shrank by a few hundred feet. There's a fault line in Cali that could dump a good part of the state into the ocean. Things change from natural occurances, which is my stand on this *brief* snippet of history you're calling a trend.

BMG wrote: The only ''study'' you need is this...1) Greenhouse gases hold heat in the earth's atmosphere...PROVEN 2) We, as humans, put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere....PROVEN 3) There are way too many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as of 2006...PROVEN. You do the math. Cyclic or not, it can be stopped.

So you're saying that the only possible explaination for global warming is humans causing pollution. Then how do you explain the end of the ice age? What happened to cause the planet to thaw? It wasn't methane from dinosaur farts...

And what of the time before the ice age? Were there polar ice caps, or are those remnants from the ice age? Maybe we're still in "defrost" cycle from the ice age. Or maybe when the atmosphere is clouded enough with pollution, it will block out sunlight and we'll get colder. We don't know, and that's my position... WE DON'T KNOW what will happen.


.


John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Ok, that part is right...we DON'T know what could happen, but here is my thinking. Say the entire population believes your side's theory that the world will just fix itself....so we all do nothing. If that theory is wrong, however, then we basically just sat back and watched the world get destroyed (lose/lose situation). Now, say the entire popluation goes with the other theory that global warming is caused by pollution...so we lower emissions and create a healthier environment. If that theory is wrong, however, then the planet just "fixed itself'' on its own, but we still have a much cleaner environment (win/win situation). All I'm saying is.....is it worth it to just do nothing?? Cause if it's not a cycle, then we're majorly screwed.

Here, look at it with the help of an analogy. A doctor tells you that he has reason to believe you have contracted a fatal disease. He also says that he has the vaccine to cure it. He isn't totally sure that you have it or not...but the vaccine has no side affects, nothing bad can come from it. WHY WOULDN'T YOU??? Yea, it could be a cycle or it could be pollution, but don't use that as an excuse to be lazy and watch things worsen. There is absolutely no reason NOT to try and lower emissions. Why chance it? We would be doing nothing but bettering ourselves...

BMG, I'm all for finding cleaner, less polluting ways to do things. Where I get my boxers in a twist is when pollution is blamed for something it may not have caused.

To use your medical analogy, would you rather the doctor make a diagnosis of a fatal disease and offer a possible solution, OR keep looking for the real cause and a definite solution?

We may be the cause, we may be in a "warming orbit" or there may be yet another reason. Rather then joining the hippi-tree huggers and jump on the popular target without any real proof, let's look at all options and make an informed decision.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no certain answer why the planet is warming. Aerosols (without CFC's) cloud the atmosphere and cool the planet. Other pollutants cause the greenhouse effect. Volcanos emit chemicals that eat the ozone layer, which warms the planet. Lightning and all electric sparks produce ozone which eventually finds it's way back to the ozone layer. The earth's orbit changes distance from the sun (see link above) to cause warming trends and cooling trends over thousands of years. And Al Gore blames all our problems on factories and gas powered engines.

There are too many conflicting theories to say that one is the total cause.


.




John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Yes, there are Milankovich cycles, changes in the Earth''s tilt, orbit, etc. and one studying recent geologic history can see that there have been numerous cycles of hot and cold. This happens over the millenia and it is true.

BUT, it is also true that humans are accelerating that natural cycle with the burning of fossil fuels and other pollution and it IS causing a global trend in warming. I studied the phenomenon in physical oceanography and in the past 200 years of industrialized society, the average temperature of the Earth has risen much more, and at a faster rate, than ANY period since the last major Ice Age. It is factual data, not made up numbers, and if you graph it against the hot/cold cycles in the last few thousand years, it is a drastic change from our Earth's normal cycles.

You all know that stupid movie, the Day After Tomorrow, which blows the general idea of global warming WAAAAYYY out of proportion. But the idea is correct. Our use of fossil fuels, especially in this century, will raise the average temp. of the Earth by a few degrees. This is catastrophic because this will lead to melting of the ice caps. Continental ice doesn't really matter as much as sea ice because loss of sea ice will affect the sea levels. As the sea ice disappears, the fresh water they melt into will enter the oceans. Now on a tangent, the climate of mnay areas of the world is dependent on Deep-sea currents (thermohaline circuulation). This is caused by cold, salty water at the poles sinking to the bottom and this water travelling by temp. and salinity gradients through the deep oceans starting from the N. Atlantic and ending in the North Pacific. This thermohaline circulation is the major mover of heat energy in the oceans, and thus the world.
If we melt the ice caps and warm the average temp of the Earth, the polar waters will neither be as cold or as dense (greater freshwater input from melting ice). Thus the water will not sink or not sink as fast and eventually (over decades, centuries, millenia?) the thermohaline circulation will stop. This will then prevent heat transfer in the oceans which will effect all of the major SURFACE currents (i.e. Gulf Stream) and thus affect weather (oceans directly influence weather) and then temperature. Thus global warming will directly lead to global cooling over time (long time). The data shows that the last Ice Age was caused by a shutdown in the T.H. circulation. So the whole premise of that movie is solid science but the timetable is wacky to say the least. They will not be any of the crazy crap that went down in that movie.

Conclusion: humans are negatively impacting the world and they are throwing Earth's natural cycles out of wack. So, yes, the sun and Earth do cause warming to happen naturally, but we are just accelerating and enhancing it.

Well, the planet is getting warmer, but the jury is still out on whether we humans are the cause. The rapidness of the warm up is what is causing concern, but no one is sure that it isnt cyclic. No proof that it isnt natural event. Period. The scientific community as a whole loves to predict the worst case senerios without being clear it is only an educated guess about a future trend and that there are many more things to consider that can and will alter that prediction. Of course, the press almost never names who the experts are that predict doom and gloom senerios and instead present the senerios as scientific fact. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can remember in the 1970's the scientific community was absolutely sure we were headed for an Ice Age. Cutting down forest and putting in concrete parking lots would cause the light from the sun to be reflected back to space and we would basically all freeze to death. Well, this hasnt happened. We used to have vehicle emission testing in the city I live in and when the Governor and the legislation did away with it, there was a huge out cry from the environmentalists and local scientists that we would see a huge drop in air quality and smog would increase exponentially. The local newspaper insisted we were doomed. Guess what? Nothing happened. The air quality actually improved without the emission testing. Cars burn cleaner, that is simply a fact. Turns out the newspaper was a major emission polluter and didnt want to have to meet the industrial standards, instead tried to make it look like it was the cars causing the smog. Go figure.

"...nevermind maneuvers lieutenant, just go straight at them!"
-Admiral Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar

You'll have to show actual data from a scientific source that backs up what your saying SPITfire, as I'm sure someone else can find multiple studies that would show differently. Also why only the last 200 years? We've been using coal and oil alot longer than that, a true study would compare at least a 400 year period against previous periods.

Blue Shark wrote: Turns out the newspaper was a major emission polluter and didnt want to have to meet the industrial standards, instead tried to make it look like it was the cars causing the smog. Go figure.

Same is happening here in Cleveland, but we know it's the dirty steel mill. At least the bridge on 90 over the river doesn't have that red grit coating on it anymore...

"Cause-effect" relationships can be misrepresented too easily. Ambulances don't cause people to need to go to the hospital, and tow trucks don't cause cars to break down. For just a moment, pretend pollution has zero effect on the environment. What would be the next best answer for why the avg temps have risen? Could it be a natural occurance? Could it be from the millions of miles of electric lines radiating heat? How about all the open mine shafts that vent to the atmosphere? Or volcanos? There's a lot of "maybes" that could be the real cause. If you're really concerned about global warming, then you must look at all possible causes and then find a solution.

What we really need is a tinted ozone layer. Fly a satellite up there with a few million gallons of 20% liquid tint and spray away.


.


John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Quote:

You'll have to show actual data from a scientific source that backs up what your saying SPITfire, as I'm sure someone else can find multiple studies that would show differently. Also why only the last 200 years? We've been using coal and oil alot longer than that, a true study would compare at least a 400 year period against previous periods.

what part of my answer are you questioning? Man's use of fossil fuels and global warming? The part I wrote about thrmohaline circulation is proven fact. Google that term and you'll get plenty of stuff. They have mapped out the global deepsea currents and all of the major water masses of seawater based on temp and density. They have also found where the polar water sinks and where they link up with surface currents...

only a quick search found a graph showing temperature change in the last century is greater than any change since the last millenia

A few things to remember:

It's not the Earth we're trying to save, it's ourselves. The earth is way more resillient than we are, along with many oth the species that inhabit it. It quote George Carlin, "The Earth isn't going anywhere...WE ARE!"

Based on Spitfire's graph: Keep in mind that in the majority of the Palezoic, Devonian, and Mesozoic eras, There were no polar ice caps, and no humans could be to blame. Further, how can they correlate that graph with some remote accuracy? Ice cores and tree rings deal with more than just pure temperature, and historical records are only based on where they were taken. Before approx. 1500--that would only include Euriope and Asia (possibly Africa), and then only the parts of them in which records were kept, and then the question of the accuracy of those instruments comes into play.

Then you have to consider that everything on earth, including pollution, has always been on earth.

Now, am I denying that we're getting warmer? No. I think more of it has to do with us coming out of an ice age than with us polluting--even though pollution is a factor. Further, it's not what we're killing the planet--it's that we're killing ourselves. The planet will be here a lot longer than we are.

and as for my reason as to why we ned to stop polluting--see the previos posts--we need to work WITH nature rather than against it.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.