It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump sums up Global Warming in one Savage Tweet

page: 34
74
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


Which reinforces my long standing theory that the Earth is warming from the bottom up, or the center out.


Thats an interesting theory that I have not given much thought. There are just so many things that we don't know.

Wonder how long it would take to melt the Antarctic Ice Sheet if a whole bunch of volcanoes started popping off underneath it. What a sight that would be!

I'm certain you have seen articles like this in the MSM, do you have any further evidence you can share, I'd be interested in looking at it. The IPCC models do not account for volcanism at all as far as I know.


Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet

www.theguardian.com...


edit on 5-1-2018 by EvidenceNibbler because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 09:48 PM
link   
The planet is a living entity and may be adjusting to the temperatures.



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
do you have any further evidence you can share, I'd be interested in looking at it. The IPCC models do not account for volcanism at all as far as I know.



Regretfully, I do not. I did have many years worth of data I was collecting, but when my hard drive crashed on my old computer I lost quite a bit of it. Though I have backups of it, to recreate that data would take me awhile and I haven't had a real need to. With that said though, I CAN get new sets of data easily enough if you're interested that much and provide some of my own conclusions.

Yet, I'm more one that believes in the "show a warrior how to make a sword and he can raise an army" type mentality. So let me get into a little bit about where I drew the conclusions and why I drew the conclusions and maybe you might simply want to do some legwork yourself and see what you come up with.

There are many repositories (some now defunct regrettably) that aggregate temperature/salinity data. To me the oceans tell an almost complete story of climate shifting, and there is no better teacher. With that said, I'm not certain how familiar you are with either the north atlantic oscillation or the el nino southern oscillation so if I'm telling you things you already know, don't be offended...the way the hemispheres typically get their warmth and temperate climates are two ways, prevailings winds and ocean oscillations. The latter of those two I find to be a bit more telling than the former as prevailing winds at the surface can be a bit random based upon air pressure systems. With that said, the basics of that oscillation or "conveyor belt" is that at the colder regions the water becomes more dense and falls below the warmer less dense water repeated ad infinitum. A great indicator of sea level rise from melting intrusion would be a desalinization (the salinity is part and parcel to what makes the water dense) and thus slow or interrupt the oscillation process. If this alone were solely responsible for the climate shifting what we would see is colder constant temperatures in the hemispheres and not what we do see now, which is an overall warming trend. Now CO2 (along with a greater suspect, sulfur dioxide) comes along with almost all volcanic events...including undersea volcanism, except that in undersea events one wouldn't really have to be too concerned with sulfur dioxide in the strato/meso/thermosphere.

We are currently woefully ignorant as a people as to what extent undersea volcanism plays a part in the current warming trend. I suspect, that it is far more significant than is being investigated. Couple this possibility with even the slightest anthropogenic influence, and a large degree of evaporation, along with strato-volcanism and we could well have the recipe for serious warming surface temperatures. The odd part about this theory is, that eventually it WILL lead to cooling events if enough desalinization occurs from meltwater intrusion.

If you wish to do some research on your own, look at place like the national climatic prediction center, Coriolis project, the SVS project by Nasa for sea surface temperature salinity and density...basically any governmental (Coriolis is French) site that aggregates temperature salinity data.




Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet

www.theguardian.com...



I've seen many over the years but I tend to ignore them because they are meaningless to me...in that, simply because they discovered them does not mean they are new nor do they add or detract from relevant data.

ETA: This is all meant as a means for process of elimination. If we can eliminate the NAO/ENSO as suspects in the current trend, and we can eliminate the solar output, there is truly only 2 places left to point our fingers at, us mankind (highly unlikely given that I believe we give ourselves way too much credit in that regard) and the Earth itself creating warmth...and lets not forget how our planet was formed in the first place.
edit on 5-1-2018 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


Well, because, our punchlines don't have 300+ million lives and the well-being of them hanging in the balance. Our President should always be serious when talking about serious matters that his/her constituency cares about or is scared/concerned about coupled with an effort to put their minds at ease and show strength and never make light of it no matter which side you choose to espouse. To do otherwise shows a basic lack of common decency for other people in general.

That's just not going to happen. Human beings do not have the capacity to be serious all of the time, regardless if they're baking pizzas or leading the nation. To ask for that is to ask for the impossible.

In addition, a sense of humor is indicative of a well-balanced psyche. I saw an interview with a defector from North Korea some time back, a comedian. Under Kim Jong Un, humor he does not agree with is punishable by death; all jokes have to be approved by the state. Personally I do not want to live in a country where anyone is forbidden by law form cracking a joke. That is a horrendous thing IMO and only exists under strict dictatorships like North Korea.

Incidentally that is one of my biggest worries about political correctness in general... it directly attempts to remove humor from society because some one might get offended at a joke. If they do, I say suck it up buttercup. Do you have any idea how many 'offensive' redneck jokes there are? If I can shake them off, so can anyone else.

But I digress...

The difference between Trump's sense of humor and, say, Obama's is that Obama was very careful to make sure his jokes were all made in private, except for the few exceptions where they aided a political agenda. Trump is more open, more transparent, more human. I like that, sorry. I remember a time not so long ago when the big concern was a lack of transparency. You have transparency with Trump, but it is not free. The cost of having a transparent administration is being able to realize that everyone else is human, too.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 5 2018 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Just an aside, Phage: That graphic is for anomalies, not averages. I know the trendline appears clear, but I felt the need to point that out. It is entirely possible for anomalies to be on the high end and yet the average be on the low end (although highly unlikely taken over time).

And it's not just you; it seems to me more and more information to support Global Warming is based on anomalies rather than averages lately. Coincidence?

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 6 2018 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


Which reinforces my long standing theory that the Earth is warming from the bottom up, or the center out. Climate shifting can be explained over long periods by solar cycles, vegetation, volcanism and the like. But relatively short-term climate shifting has to be explained by other means. Normally I would suspect some disruption or acceleration in the NAO and that may still be the case for cooling bringing less warmth to the northern hemisphere as that too has been in decline for some time now...however in conjunction, there could well be magma movement that we are unaware of beginning to create hotspots that never existed before. It's a theory I've had now for almost 15 years, but it's a real tough one to nail down for obvious reasons.

That is quite the theory.

Your observation on the difference between long- and short-term fluctuations is apt. The ecosystem is extremely complex and difficult to comprehend in detail, but we do know that minor disturbances in one location can be amplified orders of magnitude in other locations (aka the 'butterfly effect'). I find no stretch of the imagination is needed to believe that tectonic changes could easily be releasing extra heat, and that release could be bringing rapid changes in typical weather patterns.

I believe I mentioned earlier the anomaly that currently has the eastern US buried in ice and snow (and the rest of us shivering in extreme cold). It is a shift in the Jet Stream, from a general west-east flow across the country to an 'N' shaped pattern. This same system diverts moisture from the Pacific from California, instead sending the warm moist air masses north toward the Arctic (inducing Arctic melt), then plunging the cold air masses down southward. This has been happening sporadically for years now; I have been keeping track of local weather patterns and the results are interesting. It gets more press during the winter months, but also occurs at all times of the year. The result is colder temperatures in the east, more rain in the Southeast (due to the Jet Stream meeting warm Gulf air), dry conditions in California, warming temperatures in the Arctic, and warm dry weather in the Southwest from the high pressure locations that tend to become trapped. This also appears to coincide with warmer ocean currents through the Bering Strait.

I do not know what causes this to happen. It is not happening at a regular interval, either based on frequency or intensity. I have even attempted Fourier analysis to determine such a pattern but to no avail. I have been told (and this is unverified at this point) that there is a correlation with volcanic activity in the South Pacific. That itself would be a tectonic connection, but my first concern is that there is little direct interaction between oceanic currents between hemispheres.

However, there is a tectonic link. It is well known that earthquakes move around the ring of fire, although in irregular patterns. The same forces that produce earthquakes can produce volcanic activity, and this tectonic link could explain how tectonic activity in one hemisphere can correlate to oceanic anomalies in the other. it is easily possible for there to be undetected underwater volcanic activity in the northern Pacific.

Yes, quite the theory indeed. I would love to hear more if you have done any research on this possibility.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 6 2018 @ 12:21 AM
link   
How can we be dumping a heinous amount of air polutents into the armosphere and not do damage?



posted on Jan, 6 2018 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghostsinthefog

Can I ask, how much of all the C02 released into the atmosphere each year is from man made vs natural sources?



posted on Jan, 6 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
However, there is a tectonic link. It is well known that earthquakes move around the ring of fire, although in irregular patterns. The same forces that produce earthquakes can produce volcanic activity, and this tectonic link could explain how tectonic activity in one hemisphere can correlate to oceanic anomalies in the other. it is easily possible for there to be undetected underwater volcanic activity in the northern Pacific.

Yes, quite the theory indeed. I would love to hear more if you have done any research on this possibility.

TheRedneck


I actually have a substantial amount of research on this particular topic and if you can bear with me to do a little forensics (on my old hard drive) and maybe add some updated data, I will get it to you and we can discuss some of the conclusions I've drawn. Admittedly some of them are going to be erroneous and likely flawed as, well, when the plausible is exhausted sometimes we need to reach for the implausible.



posted on Jan, 6 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Bearing with you as we speak.


As for some of it being 'erroneous'... there's one thing much worse than being wrong: not trying at all.

I await your dissertation.


TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

We are currently woefully ignorant as a people as to what extent undersea volcanism plays a part in the current warming trend. I suspect, that it is far more significant than is being investigated.



Cannot agree more.



If we can eliminate the NAO/ENSO as suspects in the current trend, and we can eliminate the solar output, there is truly only 2 places left to point our fingers at, us mankind (highly unlikely given that I believe we give ourselves way too much credit in that regard) and the Earth itself creating warmth...and lets not forget how our planet was formed in the first place.


Finally, someone with an educated point of view. Can't imagine how refreshing that is.

I'd like to point out the outlet of "fresh water" into this. During the little Ice Age, there was an underglacier volcanoism in Iceland that let a lot of glacier freshwater into the north atlantic. This could have "shifted" NAO, and been a cause for the little ice age OR vice versa. Currently, the melting is far less than then. This is the "Vatnajokull" Glacier, which at the time of settlement was much, much bigger than today. Also during this period, several major volcanic eruptions occurred in the area ... which I would point out as being a very big suspect as the starting point of current "warming" climate, as this did not change the water levels. But the under glacier activity ceised, stopping the "fresh water" into the Atlantic. Furthermore, just a few years ago further volcanic eruptions occurred near the Vatnajokull glacier, and may be a far bigger causality to the NAO than given credit for, because following these different activies ... there have been real, physical changes in the currents.

We need to collect a lot more data on this, than we have done.
edit on 7/1/2018 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Just an update TRN (and anyone else interested), while I know you tend to focus a lot of activity on the Bering Strait, I want to change gears a little bit and focus for the time being on the Antarctic.

Going through some of my handwritten notes (yea I keep those too) it seems back in 2006 or so I had multi-starred 2 things, Marie Boyd mantle plume and and OSU's continuing sea floor mapping.

To address the latter first, we need to put into perspective what a lot of folks may or may not know. There is an estimated 4000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean. If we extrapolate that (accuracy seriously suspect on this one) for all oceans, that would roughly give us over a million submarine volcanoes worldwide. Equally, they are some of the most productive volcanic systems on Earth (to the degree of 70 to 75% of all erupted magma). Again to put that into some perspective, it is estimated (currently) that annualy 0.7 cubic miles or 3 cubic kilometers are ejected. We can't possibly know if this number is rising or falling (of course I presume rising) due to the amount of effort to map these systems. To gain some insight as to why it's so incredibly tough, if you take a single mapping vessel that employs mapping technology 24/7/365, it would take roughly 100 to 200 ship years to map these systems to an approximate of 32 feet worth of resolution. We actually have greater resolution of Mars which is over 100 million miles away. The costs are astronomical and to deploy more ships only exacerbates these costs....ie., to most communities it isn't justified.

Now to the former, Marie Boyd mantle plume. If mapping open water submarine volcanoes is tough, then mapping submarine volcanoes under kilometers of ice becomes the high resolution mapping of Pluto. For those that don't know, gaining an understanding of eruptable magma versus more viscous unlikely to erupt magma. Mapping eruptable magma is no real mystery and has been around for quite a long time....by sonar. Sonar at various angles and using the return time of the "pings" helps us to determine size of magma chambers and where eruptable magma is "pooling" if at all. But through kilometers of ice, so much noise is created that a comprehensive 3-D picture can't really be attained. Also, the average thickness of that ice is around 2.16 kilometers, with maximums reaching over 4 kilometers. Some background on the Marie Byrd mantle plume and underlying magma chamber, it is estimated (again margins for error) that the chamber is likely as large as yellowstones magma chamber which, if all of the magma were eruptable magma could easily contain 35 cubic kilometers of magma (fortunately most of it is not). Yet, one has to question why, if there is such a massive heat source sitting under the ice sheet, how is it NOT preventing an accrual of ice? Well, some numerical models exist for constraining ice melt and based upon how the ice itself is melting right now, the model suggests that the heat from the chamber is being constrained to 150 milliwatts per square meter. Any number higher than that produced results that ended with more melting than is currently being seen. Again, for some perspective, the average flux of Earth in general is approximately 40-60 milliwatts per square meter and some parts of Yellowstone reaching as high as 200 milliwatts per square meter. Now why is all this fascinating? Well, the chamber and plume has an estimated formation date of around 100 million years ago, before the antactic was covered in ice. If we want to ask ourselves what is more likely to be accelerating fresh water intrusion, one likely needs to look no further than what has existed LONG before we were even thought of as creatures. It's been sitting there working its magic as Earth tends to do. It's also very likely that what some people perceive as a warming climate (at least with respect to seeing massive ice sheet melt) is in fact, not so much warming climate from the top, but warming climate from down below as outlined here. And bear in mind, that this is simply one example of what is potentially thousands.


I think of this much in the same way I think of the frog analogy, put a frog in a pot on a stove in cool water and he will let himself boil to death...throw that same frog into an already boiling pot of water and he will jump out. We are the quintessential frogs in the cool water waiting for it to boil and mother nature it seems, is turning up the burner a bit.


At some point, we need to start talking, too, about the marianas trench.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: bjarneorn
We need to collect a lot more data on this, than we have done.


I agree! But, it seems most would rather not spend the time/money on finding the real answers. It's a shame, really.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Thank you for your post.
Well presented and informative.

Whenever you have time, I'd like to hear about the Marianas trench.

Can I ask you to expound upon "the average flux of Earth in general is approximately 40-60 milliwatts"?

I think I can safely say that none of this is modelled by the IPCC?



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
I agree! But, it seems most would rather not spend the time/money on finding the real answers. It's a shame, really.


Want to start by saying, that it's really nice to hear an educated mind on this stuff. Someone who sees it from a philosophical point of view, something that is really missing in the modern world.

Since I live in the north Atlantic, the north Atlantic part is mostly interesting to me. What I can see, is that when things are "warmer" here, it's colder on the other side. So, to me, it's obvious that it's the effect of the gulf stream, which you refer to as NAO that is the reason. To me, the south pacific side, is the source for "heating" for us. But the oscilation between the two, to me, is also essential ... for life itself. I see life, as an oscillation, rather than a constant.

So, to my question. Can we see some major changes occurring in the south pacific, or antarctic, that relates to the climatic events? Or, which could be symptoms, that would show some linear correlation?



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler
a reply to: alphabetaone

Whenever you have time, I'd like to hear about the Marianas trench.

Frankly, so would I! But few in the positions of power to affect thorough study believe that it is worth investigating. To me, it's folly to assume that a dynamic system like the Earth and her ecosystems and geophysical attributes are going to continue doing what they have always done, simply because some lack the foresight to ask the simple questions.




Can I ask you to expound upon "the average flux of Earth in general is approximately 40-60 milliwatts"?


The heat being emanated from any point on Earth (aveaged, not real) is approximately 40-60 milliwatts per square meter.
For my purposes, it simply means the transfer of energy.



I think I can safely say that none of this is modelled by the IPCC?




I think it's well safe to say that! The IPCC, regrettably, is as much bound by budgets and constraints as any of us. I think if the IPCC could have their way, they certainly would love a broader picture to help draw more refined conclusions. Sure there is corruption and payoffs EVERYWHERE in our world, but let's not forget that a vast majority of scientists ARE scientists for a good reason, they love science. We on the outside can speculate to our hearts content, but seriously lack the political clout to affect any real change. The IPCC has the political clout, but, like scientists do, they present their findings and are bound to let lawmakers and politicians determine if that science warrants budgets / further investigation. And, lets face some facts, while scientists may or may not be prone to lobbying, politicians have a clear track record of doing exactly that more often than not.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: alphabetaone
I agree! But, it seems most would rather not spend the time/money on finding the real answers. It's a shame, really.


Want to start by saying, that it's really nice to hear an educated mind on this stuff. Someone who sees it from a philosophical point of view, something that is really missing in the modern world.

Also, really nice to have a reasonable discussion on the topic as opposed to the aggrandizing that often accompanies this topic no matter on which side you throw your hat. We all want answers, not inflammation of egos.




Since I live in the north Atlantic, the north Atlantic part is mostly interesting to me. What I can see, is that when things are "warmer" here, it's colder on the other side. So, to me, it's obvious that it's the effect of the gulf stream, which you refer to as NAO that is the reason. To me, the south pacific side, is the source for "heating" for us. But the oscilation between the two, to me, is also essential ... for life itself. I see life, as an oscillation, rather than a constant.

Well, I try not to conflate Weather events with Climatic data. In meteorology there is an old coined phrase, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get". So unless the pattern is pervasive enough to be considered a shift, it's just that, a weather event, as wild as it can sometimes be.



So, to my question. Can we see some major changes occurring in the south pacific, or antarctic, that relates to the climatic events? Or, which could be symptoms, that would show some linear correlation?


Honestly, from my perspective only as well as my honest opinion, the answer is twofold. Yes and No.

No because there isn't enough relevant data to actually suggest any major changes are imminent.

Yes because of theory...one thing that is certain is that, with melting ice and undersea volcanism, will come CH4 release into the atmosphere. The undersea eruptions concern me a bit more than the melting ice gas release. Since the melting ice release is easily measurable, we can draw decent conclusions on what the impact will / could be. But we lack the necessary data to draw any reasonable conclusion on the eruption events, and couple that with not knowing the exact amount of time the trapped gas bubbles take to make their way to the surface, honestly, concerns me. We can guess, but frankly, so could an ape. But more to the point, a / many large releases of CH4 into the atmosphere could easily cause a major shift in climate, and we simply don't know if that's already happened or is happening right now.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone
Yes because of theory...one thing that is certain is that, with melting ice and undersea volcanism, will come CH4 release into the atmosphere. The undersea eruptions concern me a bit more than the melting ice gas release.


I remember the Bermuda Triangle ... the suggested reason for it, was escaping methane gas from the undersea bed. Between that, and a lot of mumbo jumbo, I lean towards the logical explanation. Same applies to the Malaysian airline that vanished.

If there is indeed, something occurring on a ongoing larger scale, of this sort ... yes, that would explain the entire climate change. I think.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone


Just an update TRN (and anyone else interested), while I know you tend to focus a lot of activity on the Bering Strait, I want to change gears a little bit and focus for the time being on the Antarctic.

I was about to say that I only appeared to focus on the Bering Strait because... and then I realized that's not quite right. So yeah, guilty as charged, because the thing is apparently affecting me directly through the 'Polar Vortex' thing I mentioned earlier. I am always interested in other areas as well, though, because the whole planet is connected.


There is an estimated 4000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean. If we extrapolate that (accuracy seriously suspect on this one) for all oceans, that would roughly give us over a million submarine volcanoes worldwide.

That is not difficult to believe. Mars is sexy; mention going to another planet and people will fall at your feet. Mention diving to extreme depths and most people are unimpressed. Yet, the challenges between the two are similar. We as humans are unable to exist in either environment without extreme technology, and there is no infrastructure of any kind should something go wrong.

A spacecraft heading to Mars can be destroyed by something the size of a grain of sand; such an object has the ability to punch a microscopic hole completely through the craft. That's not likely to affect the operation of the craft, but it does create a slow air leak. As precious as air is in space, that becomes deadly over a short time span.

A capsule diving to the bottom of the ocean undergoes such extreme pressure that almost any defect in the pressure vessel surrounding it can cause a catastrophic collapse... and that goes for something as simple as a dent from hitting a few rocks on the ocean bottom. That isn't as slow as the air leak from a speeding grain of sand... it results in first a groaning, then a rather rapid collapse as the structure, already weakened, will weaken even further as it begins to deform.


To gain some insight as to why it's so incredibly tough, if you take a single mapping vessel that employs mapping technology 24/7/365, it would take roughly 100 to 200 ship years to map these systems to an approximate of 32 feet worth of resolution.

I don't think many realize just how vast the ocean is.


If mapping open water submarine volcanoes is tough, then mapping submarine volcanoes under kilometers of ice becomes the high resolution mapping of Pluto.

Ah, a subject I know something about! Yes, you are correct.

Sonar depends on timing of returning sound waves. Under water, the conditions are fairly well known as they pertain to sound wave propagation, because water is more or less a homogeneous mixture. But under ice and then water? The boundary is not a flat sheet... the bottom of any ice mass is typically rugged and irregular. Because of that, the ice will create echoes from unknown boundaries that are not representative of the sea floor boundary, and effectively creates ghosts on the image that function just like noise on a radio. The real difference is that a radio can be made with a workable signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)... but the SNR of mapping beneath ice is much, much higher.


At some point, we need to start talking, too, about the marianas trench.

I'm listening. Thus far, everything you have said makes sense.

We also need to talk about the chemistry of volcanoes. They belch much more than magma and carbon dioxide. You mentioned methane, but not sulfur dioxide... that is another major exhaust component. While carbon dioxide will eventually bubble out of the water at the surface (as will nitric acid formed by nitrates and nitrides), sulfur does not become a gas. Sulfur is a solid and will remain in the water for a very very long time. The ocean acidification we are seeing in various locations is real enough, but I have a hard time attributing such changes to carbonic acid. I have much less trouble attributing them to sulfuric acid.

For those not well-versed in the chemistry, sulfuric acid is commonly called battery acid... it is what is inside your car battery and is extremely strong. Carbonic acid is what you drink when you drink a carbonated soda. The fizz that bubbles out is the carbon dioxide escaping. It requires a great amount of pressure to get enough carbon dioxide to dissolve enough in water to create carbonated water, which we can drink, and no pressure to get sulfur dioxide to combine with water to form sulfuric acid, H2SO4, which is deadly.

"Poor, poor Johnny,
We'll not see Johnny more,
For what he thought was H2O
Was H2SO4!
"

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler




How can you say it any better than that?


Well. That's easy: covfefe.



a conspiracy to implement the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich


Privatisation or which neocon conspiracy are you getting at?







 
74
<< 31  32  33    35  36 >>

log in

join