|
crazypenguin posted:Climate change pessimists are a plague. Don't worry too much about the Eeyores. A plague? Look I was pretty optimistic a few years ago but I can't say that recent efforts have filled me with hope. I often see worrying stuff like this and it makes me suspect that the real efforts to combat it will only come when it starts to clearly pinch most of the world's population. Besides its not really the doomsday scenarios that get to me so much as the thought that we're degrading the earth's awesome biosphere and likely letting an awful lot of people hang out to dry, I don't really want a situation where I'll be explaining to my children that X animal was pretty awesome but, welp, its dead now, or the Maldives were once a fascinating place to visit, but, welp its drowned now and its inhabitants aren't going to ever get home. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Oct 8, 2014 |
# ? Oct 8, 2014 22:27 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 08:28 |
|
khwarezm posted:A plague? Look I was pretty optimistic a few years ago but I can't say that recent efforts have filled me with hope. I often see worrying stuff like this and it makes me suspect that the real efforts to combat it will only come when it starts to clearly pinch most of the world's population. Besides its not really the doomsday scenarios that get to me so much as the thought that we're degrading the earth's awesome biosphere and likely letting an awful lot of people hang out to dry, I don't really want a situation where I'll be explaining to my children that X animal was pretty awesome but, welp, its dead now, or the Maldives were once a fascinating place to visit, but, welp its drowned now and its inhabitants aren't going to ever get home. It is extremely likely that any species that goes extinct will not be something you heard of or something you will find interesting if you did. Plus, having kids is the most ecologically damaging thing a single person can do anyway.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 22:34 |
|
computer parts posted:It is extremely likely that any species that goes extinct will not be something you heard of or something you will find interesting if you did. Nope, This is a Baiji its a large intelligent animal that has not been seen since 2007 and even if there are a few left is very unlikely to have enough individuals for a viable population. This is a Javan Rhino, a large impressive animal of which high estimates of the amount of individuals around are a whole 40 individuals, again its questionable that this is a viable population even if nothing more happens to them. This a Vaquita a cute intelligent porpoise from the California Gulf that is under serious pressure and is continually dropping numbers, now below 100 individuals and I think it would take some sort of miracle at this point to keep it alive. This was a Gastric-brooding frog A frog that cared for its young by swallowing its eggs and using its stomach as a makeshift womb, not eating for weeks until mini-frogs hopped out of its mouth, that's pretty loving interesting, but I had to write that sentence in the past tense because its went extinct in the 80s, and many more amphibians have followed it since! The problem is that for tons of creatures you can't just leave some of them in a zoo and the species will at least survive even if it goes extinct in the wild, some are really elusive or are so rare that they are already at death's door, breeding in captivity is often difficult and lots of creatures, especially Cetaceans are really, really difficult to keep in a captive setting. However if you read the Gastric-brooding frog article it does give me some hope we might be able to clone some species in the future, but that probably won't be much good if their habitat is already destroyed. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Oct 8, 2014 |
# ? Oct 8, 2014 22:56 |
|
Kurnugia posted:You mean the it's up to the people with the power to do something about it. Which isn't "us". I can't help but to be pessimistic about our chances to do very much about climate change because I know I have no power to do anything about it, and the people who do have the power are not interested in doing much anything but spout rhetoric and get re-elected. Believing you're powerless isn't sense, it's just depression. khwarezm posted:A plague? Look I was pretty optimistic a few years ago but Well, sure. See? You've been infected! But seriously, did you do anything with that optimism? (I don't mean to insult with this question. It's not like I've done, well, much.) I recently read a meh book by a meh person, but it had one interesting idea I hadn't seen before. "Definite" versus "Indefinite" optimism. The first are people who want to make the world a better place, and they find a way to do it, no matter how small. The second are people who think the world will get better. Somehow. Probably? Other people will do it, right? Who knows how... but they believe it's coming. I think there's a lot of former indefinite-optimists in the "depressed about climate change" camp. They get distracted by the sheer scale of the problem, and don't think their small efforts could do anything at all. Which is wrong, really. Everything starts small.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 23:11 |
|
crazypenguin posted:Believing you're powerless isn't sense, it's just depression. Well the usual stuff really, support Nuclear, try to live somewhat sustainably (cut down on meat, stop driving, stop using so much power that sort of thing), convince others that its an issue (re: gruelingly long and stupid conversations with my dad) I mean I'm not a slave to total depression and inaction and I really do recognize that that's nothing but self defeating but, well... as you can see from my above post I'm pretty enthusiastic about the natural world and I've studied marine biology and really things sort of suck in that regard in way I think a lot of people are unaware of and that gets to me. And add to that the fact that it really seems very difficult to prevent a lot of people from suffering at this point and its... daunting to say the least. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Oct 8, 2014 |
# ? Oct 8, 2014 23:20 |
|
http://www.pedestrian.tv/news/arts-and-culture/greg-hunt-was-briefed-by-bom-still-cited-wikipedia/e0391272-0e4d-49f3-814f-c155b3998f65.htm I really wish I could speak publically about this as I'm very close to this issue in my current job. Let me just say that these political climate change denialists are amazingly dishonest and nasty people, and they are REALLY pushing hard to have our researchers silenced and defunded. The CSIRO is like a ghost town of sullen people wondering who gets fired next. My contract ends at the end of the year. If its not renewed, remind me to do a write up. All I can say now is that our grandchildren will want to know who to hold accountable. Take notes.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 23:22 |
|
khwarezm posted:Well the usual stuff really, support Nuclear, try to live somewhat sustainably (cut down on meat, stop driving, stop using so much power that sort of thing), convince others that its an issue (re: gruelingly long and stupid conversations with my dad) I mean I'm not a slave to total depression and inaction and I really do recognize that that's nothing but self defeating but, well... as you can see from my above post I'm pretty enthusiastic about the natural world and I've studied marine biology and really things sort of suck in that regard in way I think a lot of people are unaware of and that gets to me. Few of these things would actually do anything to help mitigation or adaptation besides convincing the ignorant. Only concerted effort from powerful actors will work now. That means organizing and political action. The "everybody do their small part" is an engagement myth. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Oct 8, 2014 |
# ? Oct 8, 2014 23:34 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Few of these things would actually do anything to help mitigation or adaptation besides convincing the ignorant. Only concerted effort from powerful actors will work now. That means organizing and political action. The "everybody do their small part" is an engagement myth. Well sure, but the thing is this doesn't gel well with what crazypenguin and many others have been saying about the little efforts that add up to make to make a difference. And political action is tough, the opposing side has powerful resources as Duck Monster has just reminded us and, from the link I posted earlier, its proving difficult to mobilize people on this particular issue.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 23:45 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Few of these things would actually do anything to help mitigation or adaptation besides convincing the ignorant. Only concerted effort from powerful actors will work now. That means organizing and political action. The "everybody do their small part" is an engagement myth. Living well is its own reward and it DOES help. It might make the problem .000000000001% better but our choices do matter.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2014 23:46 |
|
I'm just saying giving up air travel will do more than giving up meat or angrily shaking your fist at grid planners ever will. But the I can't escape to my tropical fantasy and why would I do that?
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 00:19 |
|
Salt Fish posted:Living well is its own reward and it DOES help. It might make the problem .000000000001% better but our choices do matter. One thing I need to keep reminding people of is that one person's actions matters simply because there are 7 billion one persons on this rock. If everybody in America each individually recycled one more can every year that's 300,000,000 more cans getting recycled. How much effort does it take for a single person to recycle one can? Not much, really, but it gets even bigger if it gets into the multiples. Suddenly that one tiny bit of effort from each person compounds into a massive change. It can even be as simple as "I turn lights off in rooms I'm not using" or "I do not live alone in a three bedroom house." The issue is that Americans really, really hate being inconvenienced at all. Some people refuse to put forth the effort to put recyclables into a separate container while others simply must eat meat every meal of every day. Then you get people that don't care how inefficient their gigantic SUV is "because I feel safe in it." Even so, a tiny effort is better than no effort and people doing little things really, really adds up. Even so, it isn't all that hard to convince most people to think about things they normally don't. If memory serves a neat statistic is that recycling one aluminum can saves enough electricity to power a television for a year. That's pretty big when a poo poo load of people recycle more cans.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 00:37 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm just saying giving up air travel will do more than giving up meat or angrily shaking your fist at grid planners ever will. Sorry, did somebody desperately defend air-travel here? I thought that would be a given that that's a pretty impactful mode of transport so anybody with the least bit of Cognitive Consonance would cross this off their list pretty quick.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 00:49 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One thing I need to keep reminding people of is that one person's actions matters simply because there are 7 billion one persons on this rock. If everybody in America each individually recycled one more can every year that's 300,000,000 more cans getting recycled. How much effort does it take for a single person to recycle one can? Not much, really, but it gets even bigger if it gets into the multiples. Suddenly that one tiny bit of effort from each person compounds into a massive change. It can even be as simple as "I turn lights off in rooms I'm not using" or "I do not live alone in a three bedroom house." And currently the US recycles 40+ Billion alluminum cans a year. Your example kinda proves my point.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 01:13 |
|
I think it's a bit of a mistake to focus too much on sacrifices. It's part of why deniers... deny. It plays into the pessimism. By all means, go vegetarian yourself to reduce environmental impact, but don't insist its absolutely necessary for everyone. It's almost certainly not. But there are still small things everyone can do. If everyone who understood climate change worked on changing one denier's mind (you know the family member I'm talking about, right?) We'd have 124% public support for action!
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 02:18 |
|
crazypenguin posted:I think it's a bit of a mistake to focus too much on sacrifices. It's part of why deniers... deny. It plays into the pessimism. By all means, go vegetarian yourself to reduce environmental impact, but don't insist its absolutely necessary for everyone. It's almost certainly not. Except that rampant, unrepentant consumerism is actually a major part of the problem. Americans are frequently absolutely gluttonous about the resources we consume and a significant portion of the rest of the world wants to consume as much as we do.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 02:32 |
|
If you talk about meat somebody will bring up their sister who can't process plant protein and if you talk about children somebody will talk about stupid hippies who care about plants more than people. How to get around this? Your guess is as good as mine.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 02:45 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Except that rampant, unrepentant consumerism is actually a major part of the problem. Americans are frequently absolutely gluttonous about the resources we consume and a significant portion of the rest of the world wants to consume as much as we do. Are we talking about climate change or something different? Because American consumerism isn't a major part of the climate problem. We can be as consumerist as we are now and meet all our carbon goals.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 03:23 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Are we talking about climate change or something different? Because American consumerism isn't a major part of the climate problem. We can be as consumerist as we are now and meet all our carbon goals. Really, consumerism is absolutely part of the problem, not just because of how wasteful and polluting American lifestyles ultimately are but a lot of the rest of the world looks at how Americans live and want to live just as well. The other snag is the ridiculous inequality. One of the major pieces of fallout from American lifestyles is how much of the pollution and garbage we end up exporting to poorer nations that are happy to have god awful environmental laws to get American businesses to build factories there. Part of getting American carbon down was just sending it elsewhere.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 04:34 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Are we talking about climate change or something different? Because American consumerism isn't a major part of the climate problem. We can be as consumerist as we are now and meet all our carbon goals. it's more a symptom of the actual problem, the system of capitalism and its inability to account for externalities. which is a bit of an issue when the externalities threaten worldwide devastation
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 04:35 |
|
A big flaming stink posted:it's more a symptom of the actual problem, the system of capitalism and its inability to account for externalities. which is a bit of an issue when the externalities threaten worldwide devastation Except since we don't have a pure capitalism we can force it to account for externalities. A tax is an example. We just don't have time to finish global socialism before we start dealing with climate change.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 05:46 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except since we don't have a pure capitalism we can force it to account for externalities. A tax is an example. look i'm well aware that socialism and capitalism have gone at it and capitalism won. i'm simply highly skeptical that government reg will not be subverted by capital interests. which it kind of has been so far.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 10:28 |
|
A big flaming stink posted:look i'm well aware that socialism and capitalism have gone at it and capitalism won. i'm simply highly skeptical that government reg will not be subverted by capital interests. which it kind of has been so far. Incidentally, this is part of why right wings tend to hate the idea of world governments or any sort of regulation that the entire planet must hold. Strong international law means that it's suddenly illegal to just move your factories somewhere that's unstable enough that laws aren't enforced, desperately poor enough that they'll let you puke coal ash into the air as much as you please, that has a puppet government that will do whatever you want it to, or is corrupt and easy to bribe to hell and back.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 11:39 |
|
We're warming faster than expected according to new studies.quote:Results suggest that global upper-ocean warming has been underestimated by 24 to 58 percent. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2389.html Accepted paper: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/staff/Durack/dump/oceanwarming/140926a_Duracketal_UpperOceanWarming.pdf Media release: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/staff/Durack/dump/oceanwarming/140930_Duracketal_UpperOceanWarming-MediaRelease.pdf http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2387.html
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 12:00 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Except that rampant, unrepentant consumerism is actually a major part of the problem. Americans are frequently absolutely gluttonous about the resources we consume and a significant portion of the rest of the world wants to consume as much as we do. Hmm, sort of agree. But rather than talking about how we'll have to make sacrifices, we should be talking about accurately pricing externalities. The thing is, the tradeoffs people will want to make won't be the same tradeoffs you want to make. When you pick one particular tradeoff, and argue that it has to go one way, you're never going to convince people who refuse that tradeoff, and would prefer another one. There's absolutely some price for meat that accurately prices in externalities, that is fully sustainable, and a whole lot of Americans will much prefer to pay over going veggie.
|
# ? Oct 9, 2014 16:41 |
|
Oh, that reminds me, being as it's October - it's time for king tide again in Florida. It should be today and tomorrow in Miami Beach. It floods annually already, and it's gonna keep on getting worse every year, as sea levels rise. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Oct 9, 2014 |
# ? Oct 9, 2014 19:25 |
|
crazypenguin posted:Hmm, sort of agree. But rather than talking about how we'll have to make sacrifices, we should be talking about accurately pricing externalities. Pricing externalities, in this case carbon emissions, requires a subjective, value-laden view on biophysical quantities. The climate helps us here - thanks to the "robust near-linear relationship between global warming and cumulative CO2 emissions" - we simply need to chose an acceptable level of warming and distribute the carbon budget accordingly. However note that pacific island states strongly favour 1.5 degrees rather than 2, and expect the latter target to shift again as the difficulty of achieving it becomes apparent, so accurately pricing externalities is still somewhat fraught. But to get to my point, I suspect fully assigning this task to the market is fundamentally an uncertain venture: 1. The principal advantages of allocating emissions rights though the market are in efficiency (least cost mitigation) and (as you emphasise) choice. Latterly, we must recognise that every long-haul flight now constrains choice in the future by removing a portion of the carbon budget that may be safely emitted by all present and future persons. As noted earlier in the thread, concerns over future constraints on choice are washed away by discounting - i.e. by assuming an improvement in technological capacity. Suffice to say therin lies a question mark (perhaps in thermodynamic terms, as well as the social desirability of say geo-engineering), not to mention the ethical dimensions of discounting mitigation costs. 2. Markets also assume all interactions are equal (pareto improving). This amounts to weighing up "luxury" emissions (on positional goods, for instance) against emissions that may be necessary for basic needs and development (such as the construction of healthcare & sanitation facilities). This is the trade-off that concerns me, since I would very much expect a market based system to facilitate business as usual for the wealthy, albeit at a greater cost that will likely recovered by means of grandfathering or spending elsewhere, as the political economy of such things go. Meanwhile we risk commensurating necessary emissions with superfluous emissions, with consequences for inequality across social, geographic and intergenerational space. 3. Concerning efficiency, I haven't thought about this in much detail (perhaps someone can help me flesh this out?), but price theory assumes interactions at the margin: i.e. incremental change. Mitigation requires non-marginal, radical change (beyond 10% per year reductions in emissions for high emitters). Throw in business and investment cycles and you find a significant portion of future emissions are already "committed". To illustrate, a coal power plant built now will continue emitting for 20-30 years; similarly, airports and planes are hard to retrofit and more or less commit us to a certain level of emissions. If we don't stop building these things, you can throw price theory out of the window, as the cost of carbon will rapidly fluctuate as assets become stranded and certain technologies prove underwhelming or overly expensive (carbon capture). My feeling is the market will neatly disguise these issues until they manifest as a rude awakening that we don't have enough emissions left to smoothly transition based on current technologies. Consequently the temperature target will be re-framed as "economically implausible" and costs socialised to Bangladesh et al. Non-market based solutions: strict quotas on an individual & national level, ban certain high-emitting technologies and practices, and introduce a timetable for incremental efficiency standards for appliances & vehicles (which by the way I think most companies will prefer to the uncertainty of a fluctuating carbon price). Thoughts?
|
# ? Oct 11, 2014 21:07 |
|
rivetz posted:Arkane, you seem to know an awful lot about the oceans, but you of course are not an oceanographer. On the off chance that you missed my question somehow: are you aware of any scientist or researcher whose primary area of focus is the world's oceans who disputes the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change (namely, that the planet is warming, the predominant cause is human activity, and the consequences are potentially severe)? Arkane posted:Not aware of any, no. I read a lot about climate science. Arkane reads a lot about climate science. Most folks posting in this thread read a lot about climate science. The Ocean Sciences division of the American Geophysical Union claims ~6,600 members as of 2014. The Cryosphere Sciences division numbers around 1,000. I can probably name 3/4 of the entire membership of the NIPCC by heart (in itself a dismaying indicator of how small the skeptic scientific community actually is.) The oceans are...pretty important to our understanding of the earth's climate. So are the poles, and the earth's glaciers. Not one? Out of 7,000? Well, 97% would leave 210 oceanographers and cryoscientists; 21 would be a third of a percent. I guess that at this point I would accept two. And that's just the AGU alone. In fact, the Department of Labor estimates 31,000 oceanographers currently researching in the United States. Not one (that anyone here is aware of) who formally disputes the scientific consensus on climate change? Not even one? I thought you read "hundreds of climate papers," Arkane. Sorry to belabor the point, but that's objectively odd that, out of tens of thousands just in the U.S., you don't have a single oceanic expert in your pocket who shares your position that sea level rise as a result of polar/glacial melt (and thermal expansion) is not a legitimate concern between now, and say, 2040 (though as you have pointed out, that's two-and-a-half decades, offering ample time to vacate coastal areas and send everyone to Mars with Elon Musk.) rivetz fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Oct 14, 2014 |
# ? Oct 14, 2014 07:59 |
|
Myotis posted:Pricing externalities [...snipping a long and excellent post...] All true, and good points. For what its worth, my feeling is that the policy can appropriately deal with "discounting" and sunk costs, extra troubles and costs though they may be. (And as an aside, most of the people who use discounting in economic analysis I think are making a mistake (except when speaking about political or consumer decision making), confusing is/ought. I don't know of any business person who actually pretends future costs will somehow cost less when working out a spreadsheet. The whole point is to overcome that kind of human cognitive bias in business decision making...) Regarding inequality, this is certainly the biggest concern. Part of my response is simply the heartless suggestion that this is nothing new. We're all already choosing to pay for internet access instead of feeding the hungry. Climate change will make things worse, but I think most of that horror is just aggregating 100 years of potential human suffering into one big "consequences of climate change" lump, instead of the 100 years it actually is. Another part is that a lot of this assumes things won't get better, economically speaking. Energy use right now leads to economic growth and climate change. But, as we shift to cleaner (and cheaper!) energy, it'll start biasing more to economic growth. I think the moral problems here are actually quite murky. We can say "climate change will make things worse than they would be without it" with certainty but I don't think that automatically means "things will be worse." I think we're headed to a future where even the poorest will be a lot better off on the balance, due to economic growth, despite having to deal with climate change disproportionately. (And that's not some lolbertarian trickle-down argument. There's actually some recent economic analysis of rising wages among the world's poorest. They think some (but not all!) of that rise is offset by higher energy costs, but if we keep those wages rising and bring them cheaper, clean energy...) And perhaps more importantly, I think there's things we can do to make that future more certain. Just to reiterate my central point here: I don't think the depressive rut a lot of climate activists are in is rational at all. The window to create a brighter future is still open, I think, and we're actively creating climate denialists when we (irrationally) pretend that climate change means everything will suck.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2014 20:42 |
|
Why should I, as an American, give a poo poo about raising the Global Poor's wages when mine are decreasing?
|
# ? Oct 14, 2014 21:53 |
|
Why should I, as a Finn, give a poo poo about Climate Change when the largest economy on Earth is doing nothing about it?
|
# ? Oct 14, 2014 21:57 |
|
Kurnugia posted:Why should I, as a Finn, give a poo poo about Climate Change when the largest economy on Earth is doing nothing about it? Don't poo poo on the EU that hard, its hard getting that big a group of people to do anything! Radbot posted:Why should I, as an American, give a poo poo about raising the Global Poor's wages when mine are decreasing? This fundamental attitude is basically why the globe was never going to respond to climate change quickly enough. Why should Canada, Russia, Finland, et al care? Why should the US, Europe, China pay now instead of paying later? Sure Vanuatu wants to stop climate change , but more people live in Anchorage AK, and this "global warming" idea doesn't sound too bad to them.
|
# ? Oct 14, 2014 22:00 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Don't poo poo on the EU that hard, its hard getting that big a group of people to do anything!
|
# ? Oct 14, 2014 22:25 |
|
The US is one of the few nations not to break their Kyoto commitments! because we never made any! Checkmate Europe!
|
# ? Oct 14, 2014 22:31 |
|
Thought this little blurb was an interesting point, given the Pentagon's recent report.quote:"Our military leaders have for years warned of the serious threat climate change poses to our national security," Sen. Whitehouse told VICE News. "The military's new climate adaptation roadmap presents another opportunity for Republicans in Congress who deny or ignore climate change to reassess their priorities. They face a simple question: Do they trust the big polluters, or do they trust our nation's military sworn to defend us from harm?" Maybe it's time to get some use out of that old "You're Not Patriotic Enough" flag we put away after everyone agreed to invade Iraq.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2014 01:23 |
|
i am harry posted:Thought this little blurb was an interesting point, given the Pentagon's recent report. Sheldon Whitehouse is such a stud on climate change. For anyone who missed this: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/07/30/sheldon-whitehouse-on-climate-denial-in-us-congress-full-speech/. Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of Congress who actually loving gets it posted:To say the government is colluding…that’s a fairly tough word to use.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2014 02:32 |
|
i am harry posted:Thought this little blurb was an interesting point, given the Pentagon's recent report.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2014 03:32 |
|
They are a pretty experienced at training nuclear engineers.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2014 05:02 |
|
Nevvy Z posted:They are a pretty experienced at training nuclear engineers. Last I heard, Kirk Sorensen and his company trying to get LFTR reactors off the ground were trying to sell their idea of reactors to the military to bypass the huge amounts of crap they'd have to deal with trying to market a civilian nuclear reactor.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2014 05:27 |
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Last I heard, Kirk Sorensen and his company trying to get LFTR reactors off the ground were trying to sell their idea of reactors to the military to bypass the huge amounts of crap they'd have to deal with trying to market a civilian nuclear reactor. I just looked to see if I could find some recent info on how that's going and now I really regret seeing Kirk Sorensen's twitter.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2014 06:01 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2024 08:28 |
|
White dude from Alabama with an engineering degree, par for the course.
|
# ? Oct 15, 2014 06:25 |