34 of 35
34
Science, science, science.
Posted: 03 December 2017 06:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 496 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2297
Joined  2016-12-24

Oh but since you asked:

October 15, 2017
Considering a contrarian’s “Global Warming Pathways”
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-contrarians-global-warming-pathways.html

CC responds: Yes grasshopper, there are many pathways, …

There is one physical Global Warming pathway unfolding.
 
It’s controlled by thermodynamics and the geophysics of the matter.
Greenhouse gases hold a key regulating position in this process. 
The physics is understood in exquisite detail.

In the day to day world we are becoming ever more familiar the current transitional weather regime’s destructive realities,
namely cascading consequences such as the California fires,
and the past ten hurricanes in ten weeks, not to mention what’s happening in the rest of the world.

The longer term future of that trajectory will be impacted by how much greenhouse gases are ultimately added to our atmosphere, although nothing will change our short term momentum and I fear its going to knock us off our pins.


There is one scientific pathway, the map makers.

Observing, recording and understanding what is going on within natural processes.

It’s been pursued for centuries now and the results are a coherent internally consistent understanding, that the likes of Mikie do everything to confuse, dismiss and avoid looking at.

A summation is clearly spelled out and open for constructive honest critique - the IPCC reports.  Though the overall evidence is there to be found within decades worth of thousands of papers and observed Earth changes.


There is one political oligarch driven pathway of disinformation.

Hate mongering and denunciation against climate scientists and the work they produce, Mikie here has echoed their nonsense often.

It’s supported by massive funding and mega-media outlets dedicated to misrepresenting, false-equivalence and personally attacking anyone or
organization that represents the scientific understanding being gathered in real time.

Just need to listen to the likes of Seitz, or Singer, or Lindzen, Watts, Delingpole, the Lord M, r. Cohen, Steele and all the rest,
to understand what I’m talking about.
Science by insinuation, slander and libel in the service of avoidance.


There is the I’m the one and only religious pathway.

Where all too many people have adopted the incredible notion that they - petty, scared, selfish, self-interested humans that we are - understand the billions of years old “true” God of Time and Creation, Life and Love. 

It’s an appalling conceit and indicates a profound disconnection with the real flow of our lives and time and the biosphere that created and sustains us.

It demonstrates an unhealthy self-absorption into one’s own mindscape and disconnect from the physical world that surrounds and sustains us.

It’s a terrifying thing to behold because this Faith has allowed them to totally tune out the real physical world, we depend on, to a stupefying extreme.


There is the I want mine pathway of single-minded dedication to consumerism.

Hollyworld Fantasizing, and the proposition that too much is never enough.

This one consists of humans who never evolved past their adolescent me-me, self-interest phase and never matriculated into the adult enlightened-self-interest phase.

Where we think past oneself towards community and cooperation with others for collective and personal benefit.  No it’s not communism, it’s community.  An appreciation that none of us knows everything, we all have blind spots, we need each other to keep ourselves honest.  That was the great thing about America, we as a people used to understanding that, okay not always.

Very sad to see its truly gone.  I can see how that encourages a complete disconnect from all that’s uncomfortable or inconvenient to an easy embrace of facade and fantasy. 

It works when you’re a teenager and others covered for you, it doesn’t work in the long run.  But, seems few learn that anymore, most people are media saturated and there’s little room for true curiosity, learning, contemplation and genuine personal growth.

So profoundly sad.  Guess that’s what my writing is really all about, me trying to process this collective insanity so I can continue functioning in a world and beautiful old life that I see dissolving around me.  As a high school grad the world was open and beckoning, okay it helped that I was a nice white boy, if broke, but that’s means nothing today.  The opportunities no longer exist, the innocence and acceptance of strangers has also wilted, everyone is a threat today.

How fortunate I feel to have started down my road less traveled while there was still some time left to experience the last days of Earth being what it had been for all of humanity’s rise to society, what a tragedy we wasted all these decades and all that knowledge.  We knew, I knew.  Why did so many ignore it all these decades?  That I will never comprehend, no matter how much I grapple with it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2017 06:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 497 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2297
Joined  2016-12-24

Mike, I’m bringing this to the top because I don’t want you to miss it.
My challenge stands.

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 December 2017 06:40 PM

Also worth pointing out is that here again you totally avoid the questions being asked of you.

You have claimed Michael Mann is a bad scientist and that he has committed research fraud.
You have provided no evidence, simply blanket primal condemnation -
You’ve provided what-ifs and fabricated stories made up by non-expert politically motivated writers and reporters.
Hell you find nothing wrong with misrepresenting reporters and pretending they were scientists -
those are disgusting scumbag tactics that you feel very comfortable with - they reveal a lot about your ethical standards, or lack thereof.

Oh and
Where is the evidence that supports the malicious things you have said about Dr. Mann?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2017 02:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 498 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 December 2017 06:47 PM

Mike, I’m bringing this to the top because I don’t want you to miss it.
My challenge stands.

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 December 2017 06:40 PM

Also worth pointing out is that here again you totally avoid the questions being asked of you.

You have claimed Michael Mann is a bad scientist and that he has committed research fraud.
You have provided no evidence, simply blanket primal condemnation -
You’ve provided what-ifs and fabricated stories made up by non-expert politically motivated writers and reporters.
Hell you find nothing wrong with misrepresenting reporters and pretending they were scientists -
those are disgusting scumbag tactics that you feel very comfortable with - they reveal a lot about your ethical standards, or lack thereof.

Oh and
Where is the evidence that supports the malicious things you have said about Dr. Mann?

 
Just like Climate Science, you can’t keep the facts straight. I said the Hockey Stick was bad science. And it must have been, because it was only used one year. Is that what you expect of science, to only last one year? It could not be tested by his peers because Mann would not release the data. Now, most of the time this is no big deal, because there are many of these reports coming out all the time. But what happen here was Al Gore picked up Mann’s work and used it as the main scientific point to push the CO2 movement. That CO2 movement was and is more political than scientific. It was wanting to tax every American thousands of dollars per year to send around the world to combat Climate Change. Now that is not Mann’s fault. What Mann did was to take a ride on this political money wagon and he fought anyone wanting to review the science work on the Hockey Stick. Those battles are still in the legal courts.
 
After the Hockey Stick, I have no idea about what Mann has been doing. Good work I hope. But that is not the issue. The issue here is the Hockey Stick only.
 
Of all the science articles and books written about, and the court cases that are still ongoing, it is amazing that you think that I am the one creating this. Grow up, look up and follow up on what the Hockey Stick has costs the taxpayers today.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2017 10:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 499 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2297
Joined  2016-12-24
MikeYohe - 04 December 2017 02:03 PM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 December 2017 06:47 PM

Mike, I’m bringing this to the top because I don’t want you to miss it.
My challenge stands.

Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 03 December 2017 06:40 PM

Also worth pointing out is that here again you totally avoid the questions being asked of you.

You have claimed Michael Mann is a bad scientist and that he has committed research fraud.
You have provided no evidence, simply blanket primal condemnation -
You’ve provided what-ifs and fabricated stories made up by non-expert politically motivated writers and reporters.
Hell you find nothing wrong with misrepresenting reporters and pretending they were scientists -
those are disgusting scumbag tactics that you feel very comfortable with - they reveal a lot about your ethical standards, or lack thereof.

Oh and
Where is the evidence that supports the malicious things you have said about Dr. Mann?

 
Just like Climate Science, you can’t keep the facts straight. I said the Hockey Stick was bad science. And it must have been, because it was only used one year. Is that what you expect of science, to only last one year? It could not be tested by his peers because Mann would not release the data. Now, most of the time this is no big deal, because there are many of these reports coming out all the time. But what happen here was Al Gore picked up Mann’s work and used it as the main scientific point to push the CO2 movement. That CO2 movement was and is more political than scientific. It was wanting to tax every American thousands of dollars per year to send around the world to combat Climate Change. Now that is not Mann’s fault. What Mann did was to take a ride on this political money wagon and he fought anyone wanting to review the science work on the Hockey Stick. Those battles are still in the legal courts.
 
After the Hockey Stick, I have no idea about what Mann has been doing. Good work I hope. But that is not the issue. The issue here is the Hockey Stick only.
 
Of all the science articles and books written about, and the court cases that are still ongoing, it is amazing that you think that I am the one creating this. Grow up, look up and follow up on what the Hockey Stick has costs the taxpayers today.

Actually you’ve said a lot worse than that in this thread.  But even here, you spout nonsense, and yet again provide no objective facts, no references, no links to information to support your claims.  Nothing objective. 

You speak of court cases that don’t exist, and misrepresent court cases that do exist.
This explains why you won’t provide specifics.

You say the Mann et al Hockey Stick was used for only one year. 
Explain why you think that was so strange?
Don’t you understand Earth Sciences is all about gather continually better information so that data can be improved?
It was always a work in progress.  It never disappeared it just melded into the past (except for malicious contrarians milking a fraudulent meme).

You claim the data wasn’t available - but it was.  I’ve provided the evidence for my claim.

One more time you lout

Thursday, July 18, 2013
Discovered and revealed! - Where the climate codes and data have been hiding

While compiling my previous post I came across this interesting list.  I know that a lot of folks have been talked into believing that climatologists are hiding data - I think a review of the following list makes clear that such talk is political dirty tricks - and not a reflection of reality or the situation within the climate science community.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Data Sources
Filed under: — group @ 27 November 2009
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/07/discovered-and-revealed-where-climate.html

So MikeYohe, you have shown up empty handed again, and once again all you offer is wind up my skirt. REJECTED… INSUFFICIENT…

Come back when you can come up with some authoritative, substantive, evidence to support your malicious trash talk (which amounts to amoral calumny)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2017 10:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 500 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2297
Joined  2016-12-24

NH_Temp_Reconstruction.gif
see that there red line at the right - that my friend is the hockey stick toe, as screamingly alarming today as it was back then.

If you had the intellectual integrity to face what’s happening in every corner of our world, you couldn’t play this malicious disingenuous game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZHfefCGhQ0
Paul Beckwith - Nov 27, 2017

[ Edited: 04 December 2017 10:16 PM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2017 06:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 501 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2297
Joined  2016-12-24

Speaking of science, science, science,

Despite the insults and absolutist claims to the contrary, my claims certainly are supported by down to Earth facts.

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans

ZEKE HAUSFATHER | November 13, 2017 | CarbonBrief.org


The extent of the human contribution to modern global warming is a hotly debated topic in political circles, particularly in the US.

During a recent congressional hearing, Rick Perry, the US energy secretary, remarked that
“to stand up and say that 100% of global warming is because of human activity, I think on its face, is just indefensible”.

However, the science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear.

Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950,
according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report.

Here Carbon Brief examines how each of the major factors affecting the Earth’s climate would influence temperatures in isolation –
and how their combined effects almost perfectly predict long-term changes in the global temperature.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans


Carbon Brief’s analysis finds that:

*  Since 1850, almost all the long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities.

*  If greenhouse gas emissions alone were warming the planet, we would expect to see about a third more warming than has actually occurred.
They are offset by cooling from human-produced atmospheric aerosols.

*  Aerosols are projected to decline significantly by 2100, bringing total warming from all factors closer to warming from greenhouse gases alone.

*  Natural variability in the Earth’s climate is unlikely to play a major role in long-term warming.

. . .

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2017 06:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 502 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2297
Joined  2016-12-24

The bottom line is:

Conclusion

While there are natural factors that affect the Earth’s climate, the combined influence of volcanoes and changes in solar activity
would have resulted in cooling rather than warming over the past 50 years.

The global warming witnessed over the past 150 years matches nearly perfectly what is expected from greenhouse gas emissions and other human activity,
both in the simple model examined here and in more complex climate models. The best estimate of the human contribution to modern warming is around 100%.

Some uncertainty remains due to the role of natural variability, but researchers suggest that ocean fluctuations and
similar factors are unlikely to be the cause of more than a small fraction of modern global warming. ...

Analysis: “Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans”
ZEKE HAUSFATHER | November 13, 2017 | CarbonBrief.org

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2017 07:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 503 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2297
Joined  2016-12-24

Perhaps it would be good to make a conclusion to this thread with a quick summary.

MikeYohe - 02 September 2017 11:35 AM

Behind the debate are two pathways.
If CO2 is the main driving force.
Then regulations, carbon credits, population control, alternative energy sources are needed. 
If the sun is the main driving force.
Then infrastructures are needed. 

As the previously mentioned article explains, yet again.

Increasing our planet’s atmospheric insulation is the cause of the abnormal increasing global warming we have been witnessing.
It has been observed on may levels including direct measurements and it’s demonstrated by a host of modern marvels
that would be impossible without scientists having achieved an exquisitely exact level of understanding.

The Sun is the overall driver of our climate engine which regulates our planet’s biosphere,
still, it has not appreciably changed it’s output of direct radiant energy nor the fluctuating stream of charged particles the sun emits.
This has been know for quite some time.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2017 10:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 504 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 14 December 2017 07:45 PM

Perhaps it would be good to make a conclusion to this thread with a quick summary.

MikeYohe - 02 September 2017 11:35 AM

Behind the debate are two pathways.
If CO2 is the main driving force.
Then regulations, carbon credits, population control, alternative energy sources are needed. 
If the sun is the main driving force.
Then infrastructures are needed. 

As the previously mentioned article explains, yet again.

Increasing our planet’s atmospheric insulation is the cause of the abnormal increasing global warming we have been witnessing.
It has been observed on may levels including direct measurements and it’s demonstrated by a host of modern marvels
that would be impossible without scientists having achieved an exquisitely exact level of understanding.

The Sun is the overall driver of our climate engine which regulates our planet’s biosphere,
still, it has not appreciably changed it’s output of direct radiant energy nor the fluctuating stream of charged particles the sun emits.
This has been know for quite some time.


The CO2 levels keeps rising and is going to keep rising for decades to come. The CO2 pathway claims this will cause the earth’s temperature to rise. Is that not correct? The ice would melt, and the sea level would rise 20 feet by the end of the century. Is that not correct? Now that a little time has passed, the sea level rises are not being pushed. Why???? For the last two and a half years the sea level has actually went down. Why???? What is your consensual science on this? In the last 2,000 years we have had the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period where it was as warm as it is today.
 
“Scientists likely won’t be able to determine what scenario will play out on Earth until the 2060s, according to a study published Thursday in the journal, Earth’s Future.” Newsweek, 12/15/17
Robert E. Kopp, lead author and Earth and planetary sciences professor at Rutgers University, said in a statement. “We could end up with 8 feet of sea level rise in 2100, but we’re not likely to have clear evidence for that by 2050.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 December 2017 07:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 505 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7992
Joined  2009-02-26

If we ever get clear evidence, then it will be too late. An ounce of prevention…......

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 December 2017 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 506 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2013-06-01
Write4U - 18 December 2017 07:51 AM

If we ever get clear evidence, then it will be too late. An ounce of prevention…......

That’s one side of the story. Throw out the political money and you get a different picture of where we are at today. All’s we know is that we are in the Lag of a warming spot of Ice Age weather and moving into the cooling cycle. What is never talked about is the Lags and Jumps. Just like today might be shorts and Tee shirts and tomorrow might require a coat. That’s weather. We damn well better be sure of the direction of the weather before we spend what resources we have on the wrong direction. Paris talks gave no new data. The computer models now are all being agreed upon. Agreed that they are all running hot and not worth a dime due to human management. The actual temperature readings are not matching the computer models at all. The IPCC thinks that the best thing to do is to discard the actual temperature readings and go with the computer model’s numbers. Now why would that be? One should remember that the IPCC’s original numbers were not created by climate scientists, but economists building a system to distribute American wealth. Yesterday’s news stated that 41% of American’s live in poverty. It is just a lot of crazy talk to cover-up political actions of more spending. A fact is that poverty nations do not give a damn about climate change. 
 
To answer your question. No. We should not be spending money on prevention. If anything, we should stop the flow of money and shut down the dollar science. CC was right about the CO2 science being completed in 2010. After spending hundreds of billions on CO2 science, of course a point of completion was bound to be reached. We have a great understanding of how CO2 works in the laboratory and can’t explain why the laboratory data does not work so well in nature. We did the same scientific steps with the aether winds. And we did not accept the results of the science because it was contrary to all consensual science. And the scientific data was to validate the aether winds theory. But the data showed that aether winds really did not exist. But it still took decades for the consensual scientists to change direction of thinking and keep their dignity. And isn’t that what we have going on today? Go back five years and every other word was denier. Clouds and the sun changes were of no importance. They had so little affect on climate change that they were not to be deal with. Today, the story is changing and CO2 we are told works with the clouds and sun changes. You say, “then it will be to late.” Hey, you just lost two decades on costly educating the political driven scientists. You failed, and no you should not be able to tell us to borrow more money for you to spend. I get tired of hearing about the wealth belonging to the 1%. Where do you think that major wealth is? In the bonds used for borrowing money.
   
The Hockey Stick basically said that our main stream scientists were dummies because they did not understand the affects of CO2. The movement was world-wide and politically backed and run by a politician. I backed the IPCC because we do need a world-wide management of air and water controls by scientists and not the UN. We should have been doing prevention a decade ago for the hurricanes for example. The hurricanes were predicted by Dr. Moon a decade before. But CC has stated that Dr. Moon is a denier and knows nothing. So, who are the real dummies? A couple years ago Dr. Moon said that this year we should have a couple of record early snow storms in the upper mid-west. I have been waiting to see if he is correct. Dr. Moon works with the connection between the earth and the sun. Had we listened to Dr. Moon, we could have been ready for the hurricanes. Instead of saying, we screwed up. We are saying that the hurricanes are caused by climate change. Which is false, and the blame is to fall on our government. The government job was to protect us. The government failed. The government was managed by political goals and not scientific goals. Hopefully that is changing today.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 December 2017 07:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 507 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2297
Joined  2016-12-24

A constructive dialogue between intelligent humans requires the good faith exchange of ideas,
the exchange of ideas, requires absorbing and addressing the ‘others’ opinions and facts and incorporating new information into one’s thinking as it gets introduced and processed.

A civil constructive dialogue requires honestly representing the known facts along with honestly listening to and responding to what the ‘other’ has to share.

MikeYohe seems to have zero interest in honestly representing what others have said and he’s demonstrated zero interest in learning what climate science has achieved.
Now he cuts and pastes the same garbage as ages ago as though he lives within a bubble, which perhaps he actually does.


MikeYohe continues to repeat the same false claims no matter what objective contra-information he’s been offered.
What’s the answer to this mystery?

Perhaps the answer to this ‘science, science,science’ thread conundrum is that, in fact, it’s a TURING TEST.

I hope some of the bystanders might have gotten something out of it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 December 2017 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 508 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 19 December 2017 07:15 AM

A constructive dialogue between intelligent humans requires the good faith exchange of ideas,
the exchange of ideas, requires absorbing and addressing the ‘others’ opinions and facts and incorporating new information into one’s thinking as it gets introduced and processed.

A civil constructive dialogue requires honestly representing the known facts along with honestly listening to and responding to what the ‘other’ has to share.

MikeYohe seems to have zero interest in honestly representing what others have said and he’s demonstrated zero interest in learning what climate science has achieved.
Now he cuts and pastes the same garbage as ages ago as though he lives within a bubble, which perhaps he actually does.


MikeYohe continues to repeat the same false claims no matter what objective contra-information he’s been offered.
What’s the answer to this mystery?

Perhaps the answer to this ‘science, science,science’ thread conundrum is that, in fact, it’s a TURING TEST.

I hope some of the bystanders might have gotten something out of it.


Saying it and doing it is two different things. What you say about intelligent dialogue, that is what I would greatly like to have. What I get is data dumps, name calling and the SOS over and over again. If you really believed what you say, then why not answer my questions to you? I ask you what happened to the 20-foot sea level rise. I ask you why for the last two and a half years the sea level has actually gone down. Everything you say, and post would require sea levels rising. What I am seeing is if the scientists can’t put numbers on the stuff they are telling us, then it is most likely the report is just a money dipper. The natural sea level rise for the century is 10 inches. Today we are getting numbers from 16 inches to 8 feet. And that’s down from the 20 feet a year ago.
 
The question you will not answer is the mathematical paradox. If the CO2 is the driving force. And the CO2 stays in the air for up to 1,000 years with an average of 300 years. Then we are doomed. The ice would have melted by now. We were given a date and CO2 number that had to be reached or we crossed the line of no return for mankind being able to be doing anything to stop the warming and rapid melting of all earth ice. The date has passed, and we went right by the CO2 number of no return. 
 
For twelve years now, we have been paying vast sums for research on CO2 as the driving force of Global Warming. Everyone agrees that CO2 and the other gasses are the driving force of Climate Change. And Climate Change is about 1 to 3% of Global Warming. And the claim is that this 3% will make the difference of sea levels and life on earth. Now, it seems they are claiming we will have to wait until 2050 or 2060 to know for sure if this 3% will cause major problems. The other pathway is that the 1 to 3% will make some changes but nothing we can’t handle. And that the increase in CO2 will increase crop production. It is also claimed that history has shown that mankind has done better in the warmer weather. Plus, we know we are now in the cooling cycle and headed into a time of ice sheets. And maybe this manmade warming will make the weather better in the long run and keep the ice sheets from forming.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 December 2017 04:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 509 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2017-09-24

a boy and his sock puppet…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 December 2017 10:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 510 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2297
Joined  2016-12-24

cool smirk

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19724/

Profile
 
 
   
34 of 35
34