Computers - ya - you mean that thing that you used to type your response with and connect to the WWW with? Ya - useless aren't they?
West Coast Salmon Vulnerable to Climate Change, but Some Show Resilience to Shifting Environment
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Just a lot of the people who use them to guess into the future it seems. Just like the ones who projected COVID 19 .
I don't know if you realize that computers are used in everything humans do every day - and quite successfully - including locating and extracting oil and gas reserves.
It's just when the potential responses to our climate change involve reducing our carbon footprint and thereby threaten the sales and profits of the oil and gas and coal industries/multinationals that suddenly and ironically computers are not to be trusted; and the denier blogs (posted using computers) that are funded by those same entities are given equal footing in the denier religion but not in the available science.
And the climate deniers could instead challenge the science in the science journals rather than posting in their own controlled blogs - but even they know that the science is real and their paid opinions are not. It's too bad that their followers are so science-illiterate and easily manipulated and taken advantage of.
All of these dramatic environmental and biological changes we are collectively experiencing are real-life experiences - not simulations - unless we are all inside a computer animation ourselves. In which case - ya the simulation is faulty - esp in the denier camp.
It's just when the potential responses to our climate change involve reducing our carbon footprint and thereby threaten the sales and profits of the oil and gas and coal industries/multinationals that suddenly and ironically computers are not to be trusted; and the denier blogs (posted using computers) that are funded by those same entities are given equal footing in the denier religion but not in the available science.
And the climate deniers could instead challenge the science in the science journals rather than posting in their own controlled blogs - but even they know that the science is real and their paid opinions are not. It's too bad that their followers are so science-illiterate and easily manipulated and taken advantage of.
All of these dramatic environmental and biological changes we are collectively experiencing are real-life experiences - not simulations - unless we are all inside a computer animation ourselves. In which case - ya the simulation is faulty - esp in the denier camp.
Last edited:
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
All of these dramatic environmental and biological changes we are collectively experiencing are real-life experiences - not simulations - unless we are all inside a computer animation ourselves. In which case - ya the simulation is faulty - esp in the denier camp.
As shown by these facts, there is nothing new. Just politics.
www.ec.gc.ca
As shown by these facts, there is nothing new. Just politics.
Environment and Climate Change Canada - Weather and Meteorology - Top Weather Events of the 20th Century
Rogers Pass Avalanche - March 5, 1910. Sixty-two train men and labourers perished 2 km west of Rogers Pass, BC, when their engine was hit by an avalanche and hurtled 500 metres into Bear Creek. Over 600 volunteers used pick axes and shovels to dig through 10 m of snow in the search for survivors.
Dave H
Well-Known Member
All of these dramatic environmental and biological changes we are collectively experiencing are real-life experiences - not simulations - unless we are all inside a computer animation ourselves. In which case - ya the simulation is faulty - esp in the denier camp.
As shown by these facts, there is nothing new. Just politics.
Environment and Climate Change Canada - Weather and Meteorology - Top Weather Events of the 20th Century
Rogers Pass Avalanche - March 5, 1910. Sixty-two train men and labourers perished 2 km west of Rogers Pass, BC, when their engine was hit by an avalanche and hurtled 500 metres into Bear Creek. Over 600 volunteers used pick axes and shovels to dig through 10 m of snow in the search for survivors.
Listing weather events when the discussion is about global climate change is rather silly, one might think.
Of course, one might think that using THIS site as a source on another of your posts is also silly, very silly.
NoTricksZone - Bias and Credibility
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.
mediabiasfactcheck.com
But deniers got to deny I guess.
Sad.
Take care.
Well one HAS TO deny all the many thousands of peer-reviewed articles and 10s of thousands of researchers and people living with the realities of climate change, Dave H - because of this one blogger. I mean the blog is called "No Tricks" after all - right? Gotta trust something called that Orwellian name, and the guy who blogs over all the copious available climate science and real-life experiences:
davidappell.blogspot.com
insideclimatenews.org
Notice the ties to the "Heartland Institute" in the last link. Just follow the money:
www.theguardian.com
www.desmog.com
www.sourcewatch.org
Losing Climate Bet Will “Only Reinforce” Pierre Gosselin’s Denial
Almost ten years ago, Pierre Gosselin and the deniers at NoTricksZone blog made a bet with some of their “alarmist” counterparts at Skeptical Science: would 2011-2020 be warmer or cooler than 2000-2011? A couple dozen deniers pooled just over $5,000,...
www.dailykos.com
Another Sleazy Photoshop from Pierre Gosselin
When last we met Pierre Gosselin, a climate change denier in Germany who blogs at NoTricksZone.com , he was photoshopping pictures of the ...
davidappell.blogspot.com
Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists - Inside Climate News
ICN reporters Lisa Song and Zahra Hirji contributed to this story. In the months before the debut of the new documentary film “Merchants of Doubt,” long-time climate denialist Fred Singer contacted more than two dozen bloggers, public relations specialists and scientists asking for help in...
insideclimatenews.org
Notice the ties to the "Heartland Institute" in the last link. Just follow the money:
Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science
Libertarian thinktank keeps prominent sceptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry, papers suggest
Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute Background Stance on Climate Change Funding Key People Actions Heartland International Conference on Climate Change Related Organizations Contact & Address Resources Background The Heartland Institute is a Chicago-based free market think tank and 501(c)(3) charity that...
Heartland Institute - SourceWatch
Last edited:
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Well as almost of the articles shown are about weather not global warming. So as shown by the facts not some guesses the weather in Canada has been like this many times over the years.Listing weather events when the discussion is about global climate change is rather silly, one might think.
Of course, one might think that using THIS site as a source on another of your posts is also silly, very silly.
NoTricksZone - Bias and Credibility
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.
But deniers got to deny I guess.
Sad.
Take care.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
So, rather than accept the facts shown that the weather in Canada is just being normal, you defer to try and win your point.Well one HAS TO deny all the many thousands of peer-reviewed articles and 10s of thousands of researchers and people living with the realities of climate change, Dave H - because of this one blogger. I mean the blog is called "No Tricks" after all - right? Gotta trust something called that Orwellian name, and the guy who blogs over all the copious available climate science and real-life experiences:
Losing Climate Bet Will “Only Reinforce” Pierre Gosselin’s Denial
Almost ten years ago, Pierre Gosselin and the deniers at NoTricksZone blog made a bet with some of their “alarmist” counterparts at Skeptical Science: would 2011-2020 be warmer or cooler than 2000-2011? A couple dozen deniers pooled just over $5,000,...www.dailykos.com
Another Sleazy Photoshop from Pierre Gosselin
When last we met Pierre Gosselin, a climate change denier in Germany who blogs at NoTricksZone.com , he was photoshopping pictures of the ...
Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists - Inside Climate News
ICN reporters Lisa Song and Zahra Hirji contributed to this story. In the months before the debut of the new documentary film “Merchants of Doubt,” long-time climate denialist Fred Singer contacted more than two dozen bloggers, public relations specialists and scientists asking for help in...
Notice the ties to the "Heartland Institute" in the last link. Just follow the money:
Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science
Libertarian thinktank keeps prominent sceptics on its payroll and relies on millions in funding from carbon industry, papers suggest
Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute Background Stance on Climate Change Funding Key People Actions Heartland International Conference on Climate Change Related Organizations Contact & Address Resources Background The Heartland Institute is a Chicago-based free market think tank and 501(c)(3) charity that...
Heartland Institute - SourceWatch
The climate has always changed and always will. Believing man is largely responsible for this or is able to guess what might happen is naive.
Has man effected things, absolutely, it is pretty clear that man has managed to wipe out Steelhead . And that had nothing to do with Global Warming at all.
It is pretty sad that nothing has been done to really bring Steelhead back and looks like it never will. That is Man.
It will not be long at the present rate till Man wipes out Chinook Salmon and again nothing to do with Global Warming and a lot to do with Man.
So Man has defiantly effected fish and continues to do so.
Fish have lived through global warming and cooling for thousands of years and survived, this is a scientific fact.
Man has effected their demise.
Seven Years after Mount Polley Disaster, Mine Waste Still Flows into Quesnel Lake | The Tyee
A ‘temporary’ permit allows wastewater to be dumped in the water. That may not change anytime soon.
Last edited:
No computer modelling causing these realities:
thetyee.ca
BC’s Shellfish Farmers Struggle After Heat Wave Decimates Oysters | The Tyee
The heat dome exposed significant gaps in crop support, says an industry advocate.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
No computer modelling causing these realities:
BC’s Shellfish Farmers Struggle After Heat Wave Decimates Oysters | The Tyee
The heat dome exposed significant gaps in crop support, says an industry advocate.
View attachment 69004
Drought in 19th Century Alberta - Alberta WaterPortal
Figure 1: Drought in 19th Century Alberta Early Accounts of Drought in the 1700s Drought occurred in present-day Alberta throughout the 1700s. Drought became so extreme in the 1790s that […]
albertawater.com
same thing happened in the past except there were not massive populations of people and farmers dewatering it.
"
Early Accounts of Drought in the 1700s
Drought occurred in present-day Alberta throughout the 1700s. Drought became so extreme in the 1790s that the North Saskatchewan River ran so low – and even dry at one point – and fur traders were unable to move their goods down the river as a result [1]. Drought in 1850 had the same impact [2]."Thanks WMY for putting in the effort and sharing data. I think for me - the message I received some years back wrt global warming/climate change is that the extremely large additions of extra thermal energy from the effects of additional CO2 over time - eventually changes or increases the severity/intensity and the frequency of abnormal or extreme weather events (which operate over a shorter time frame).
That doesn't mean that extreme weather has never happened in the past or in Earth's past. But in that history EVERY SINGLE TIME the CO2 levels went up - so did the Earth's temperatures - and at NO POINT during at least the past 800,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now (400ppm plus). In addition, the five periods in earth is history with the highest levels of extinctions were all associated with climate change. Higher temperatures were linked to four of the mass extinctions in the last 525 million to 65 million years ago.
Only an extremely irresponsible or naïve person would ignore these scientifically-validated facts - or perhaps a very corrupt person.
That's where we are headed and why people following this stuff wanted a cap on emissions. And we are seeing the effects already. For the past 18 million years there has been more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland - and it's melting quicker and quicker. That's not a computer simulation. That's simply our reality.
So even if all the science were wrong (which it isn't) - we only have a finite amount of hydrocarbon reserves. We will run out of easily-accessible reserves sometime in the near future. And then what? once again: and then what? What's the argument against slowing down that eventuality? What's the argument against increasing our alternative energy portfolio?
There are no logical arguments; just greed, short-sightedness and irresponsibility.
And we loose salmon in the Southern parts of their ranges, we destroy forests and villages in fires, and we cost society way more by spending valuable time arguing against decreasing fossil fuel emissions and against beginning to change our infrastructure to cope.
All because the PR firms employed by the Koch Industries managed to prey on the greed and/or lack of science literacy of their supporters to generate doubt and thereby keep the high levels of sales of hydrocarbons & coal rewarding their shareholders while they are still alive - and screw the future of our kids and their kids. They can pay those costs. Quite the cartel.
That doesn't mean that extreme weather has never happened in the past or in Earth's past. But in that history EVERY SINGLE TIME the CO2 levels went up - so did the Earth's temperatures - and at NO POINT during at least the past 800,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now (400ppm plus). In addition, the five periods in earth is history with the highest levels of extinctions were all associated with climate change. Higher temperatures were linked to four of the mass extinctions in the last 525 million to 65 million years ago.
Only an extremely irresponsible or naïve person would ignore these scientifically-validated facts - or perhaps a very corrupt person.
That's where we are headed and why people following this stuff wanted a cap on emissions. And we are seeing the effects already. For the past 18 million years there has been more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland - and it's melting quicker and quicker. That's not a computer simulation. That's simply our reality.
So even if all the science were wrong (which it isn't) - we only have a finite amount of hydrocarbon reserves. We will run out of easily-accessible reserves sometime in the near future. And then what? once again: and then what? What's the argument against slowing down that eventuality? What's the argument against increasing our alternative energy portfolio?
There are no logical arguments; just greed, short-sightedness and irresponsibility.
And we loose salmon in the Southern parts of their ranges, we destroy forests and villages in fires, and we cost society way more by spending valuable time arguing against decreasing fossil fuel emissions and against beginning to change our infrastructure to cope.
All because the PR firms employed by the Koch Industries managed to prey on the greed and/or lack of science literacy of their supporters to generate doubt and thereby keep the high levels of sales of hydrocarbons & coal rewarding their shareholders while they are still alive - and screw the future of our kids and their kids. They can pay those costs. Quite the cartel.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Please show us where you got this information.Thanks WMY for putting in the effort and sharing data. I think for me - the message I received some years back wrt global warming/climate change is that the extremely large additions of extra thermal energy from the effects of additional CO2 over time - eventually changes or increases the severity/intensity and the frequency of abnormal or extreme weather events (which operate over a shorter time frame).
That doesn't mean that extreme weather has never happened in the past or in Earth's past. But in that history EVERY SINGLE TIME the CO2 levels went up - so did the Earth's temperatures - and at NO POINT during at least the past 800,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now (400ppm plus). In addition, the five periods in earth is history with the highest levels of extinctions were all associated with climate change. Higher temperatures were linked to four of the mass extinctions in the last 525 million to 65 million years ago.
Only an extremely irresponsible or naïve person would ignore these scientifically-validated facts - or perhaps a very corrupt person.
That's where we are headed and why people following this stuff wanted a cap on emissions. And we are seeing the effects already. For the past 18 million years there has been more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland - and it's melting quicker and quicker. That's not a computer simulation. That's simply our reality.
So even if all the science were wrong (which it isn't) - we only have a finite amount of hydrocarbon reserves. We will run out of easily-accessible reserves sometime in the near future. And then what? once again: and then what? What's the argument against slowing down that eventuality? What's the argument against increasing our alternative energy portfolio?
There are no logical arguments; just greed, short-sightedness and irresponsibility.
And we loose salmon in the Southern parts of their ranges, we destroy forests and villages in fires, and we cost society way more by spending valuable time arguing against decreasing fossil fuel emissions and against beginning to change our infrastructure to cope.
All because the PR firms employed by the Koch Industries managed to prey on the greed and/or lack of science literacy of their supporters to generate doubt and thereby keep the high levels of sales of hydrocarbons & coal rewarding their shareholders while they are still alive - and screw the future of our kids and their kids. They can pay those costs. Quite the cartel.
Can do OBD - all scientifically verifiable. Which parts (specifically) did you need references for - and thanks for asking - that's great by the way. Glad you are interested in checking things out for yourself. That's the whole intent of the science process verses the denier blogs.
Last edited:
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Let’s start with the graphs.
You do understand that China and India are building coal plants at a rate that makes everything that the rest of the world does a huge waste of time.
Also that neither of these countries are really interested in Global warming.
Well, at least that argument is 3 steps past denying that we are experiencing the effects of warming on a Global scale, and 2 steps past acknowledging that humans are largely responsible for this, and 1 step past denying that the cause is largely the burning of fossil fuels.
So, at least we are making some headway in dealing with this issue despite 20 years of Koch-funded denial PR firms, denial consultants, and spin doctors.
But I see you brought out excuse number 4: "Doesn't matter what we do - we are all screwed" argument - yet another delaying tactic from the Koch Industries.
The short answer is that we do what we can where we can in as many ways as possible as often as we can. Pretty simple, actually. Sorta like diversifying your stock portfolio. Effectiveness and bang for buck is entirely another conversation.
But there are some adaptation strategies out there. Those have also been known for about 20 years or so. More public transit investments, more investment in alternative energy sources, and certain small-scale adaptation strategies. That's where we should be in this debate - where to put the bang for the buck, even now 20 years late. It takes time to add and change infrastructure. We should have been doing that 20 years ago, as well.
And yes - China and India and coal are really big issues that need to be tackled. But we don't have to wait to solve that one before we start doing what we can. That is the whole & driving principle of the "Precautionary Principle": https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/precautionary-principle
So not buying that argument, neither.
So, at least we are making some headway in dealing with this issue despite 20 years of Koch-funded denial PR firms, denial consultants, and spin doctors.
But I see you brought out excuse number 4: "Doesn't matter what we do - we are all screwed" argument - yet another delaying tactic from the Koch Industries.
The short answer is that we do what we can where we can in as many ways as possible as often as we can. Pretty simple, actually. Sorta like diversifying your stock portfolio. Effectiveness and bang for buck is entirely another conversation.
But there are some adaptation strategies out there. Those have also been known for about 20 years or so. More public transit investments, more investment in alternative energy sources, and certain small-scale adaptation strategies. That's where we should be in this debate - where to put the bang for the buck, even now 20 years late. It takes time to add and change infrastructure. We should have been doing that 20 years ago, as well.
And yes - China and India and coal are really big issues that need to be tackled. But we don't have to wait to solve that one before we start doing what we can. That is the whole & driving principle of the "Precautionary Principle": https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/precautionary-principle
So not buying that argument, neither.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Then this is the answer to all your concerns.
nationalpost.com
What are small modular nuclear reactors, and why are three provinces uniting to build them?
SMRs could replace larger nuclear reactors when they are decommissioned as well as CO2-producing coal plants
In agreement that nuclear power needs to be part of that alternative energy portfolio (along w wind, solar, tidal and run of the river) investments - despite the complaints & resistance from some of the ENGOs. I don't think it is the answer to ALL of my (or anyone else's) concerns tho - but a part of that answer. Not every place is the best for each different energy source - obviously. Some places are more suitable than others for the production of energy and the site selection for different energy sources when mitigating against negative effects. And some energy sources are also more stable than others wrt energy output. That's the attraction for using nuclear along with other energy sources - it can come on stronger when wind or solar outputs decrease. An energy grid & input/output controls are critical to mixing energy sources. Lots of jobs available in all of these sectors, as well.
The graph can from a peer-reviewed study in Nature - Communications, Earth & Environment:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0010-1
and like all climate science - there is actually ton of studies and data on that ice sheet including:
www.nature.com
www.nature.com
www.nature.com
www.nature.com
www.nature.com
www.sciencepoles.org
www.vox.com
The graph can from a peer-reviewed study in Nature - Communications, Earth & Environment:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0010-1
and like all climate science - there is actually ton of studies and data on that ice sheet including:
Thinning of the ice sheet in northwest Greenland over the past forty years - Nature
Half a century of thinning ice leaves Greenland's future looking wet.
www.nature.com
Spatial and temporal distribution of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet since AD 1900 - Nature
Aerial imagery from the 1980s is used to calculate ice mass loss around the entire Greenland Ice Sheet from 1900 to the present; during the twentieth century the Greenland Ice Sheet contributed at least 25.0 ± 9.4 millimetres of global-mean sea level rise.
www.nature.com
Future of the Greenland ice sheet - Nature Climate Change
Ice-sheet loss is a likely effect of human interference with the climate system. Research shows that the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet could occur close to, or even below, the target of limiting warming to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels.
www.nature.com
Methane beneath Greenland’s ice sheet is being released
Glacial melt is a source of atmospheric methane.
www.nature.com
Hydrology and the future of the Greenland Ice Sheet - Nature Communications
Detection, attribution and projection of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet has been a central focus of the glaciological community, with surface meltwater thought to play a key role in feedbacks that could accelerate sea-level rise. While the prospect of runaway sliding has faded, much...
www.nature.com
Improving predictions of future Greenland Ice Sheet melt - SciencePoles: polar science magazine
Alexander Robinson from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid and his colleagues have devised a new model looking at future melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
Greenland’s ice sheet is melting at its fastest rate in centuries
The ice on Greenland would raise global sea levels by 20 feet if it were all to melt.
www.vox.com
Arctic Change: Ice - Glaciers
www.pmel.noaa.gov
Last edited:
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Good stuff, accept the alternative is much worse. The earth has warmed and cooled many times. Man did not control that,however the Sun had a huge effect. We could stop damming rivers and help fish..In agreement that nuclear power needs to be part of that alternative energy portfolio (along w wind, solar, tidal and run of the river) investments - despite the complaints & resistance from some of the ENGOs. I don't think it is the answer to ALL of my (or anyone else's) concerns tho - but a part of that answer. Not every place is the best for each different energy source - obviously. Some places are more suitable than others for the production of energy and the site selection for different energy sources when mitigating against negative effects. And some energy sources are also more stable than others wrt energy output. That's the attraction for using nuclear along with other energy sources - it can come on stronger when wind or solar outputs decrease. An energy grid & input/output controls are critical to mixing energy sources. Lots of jobs available in all of these sectors, as well.
The graph can from a peer-reviewed study in Nature - Communications, Earth & Environment:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0010-1
and like all climate science - there is actually ton of studies and data on that ice sheet including:
Thinning of the ice sheet in northwest Greenland over the past forty years - Nature
Half a century of thinning ice leaves Greenland's future looking wet.
Spatial and temporal distribution of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet since AD 1900 - Nature
Aerial imagery from the 1980s is used to calculate ice mass loss around the entire Greenland Ice Sheet from 1900 to the present; during the twentieth century the Greenland Ice Sheet contributed at least 25.0 ± 9.4 millimetres of global-mean sea level rise.
Future of the Greenland ice sheet - Nature Climate Change
Ice-sheet loss is a likely effect of human interference with the climate system. Research shows that the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet could occur close to, or even below, the target of limiting warming to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels.
Methane beneath Greenland’s ice sheet is being released
Glacial melt is a source of atmospheric methane.
Hydrology and the future of the Greenland Ice Sheet - Nature Communications
Detection, attribution and projection of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet has been a central focus of the glaciological community, with surface meltwater thought to play a key role in feedbacks that could accelerate sea-level rise. While the prospect of runaway sliding has faded, much...
Improving predictions of future Greenland Ice Sheet melt - SciencePoles: polar science magazine
Alexander Robinson from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid and his colleagues have devised a new model looking at future melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
Greenland’s ice sheet is melting at its fastest rate in centuries
The ice on Greenland would raise global sea levels by 20 feet if it were all to melt.
Arctic Change: Ice - Glaciers
www.pmel.noaa.gov
Diagnosing Earth: the science behind the IPCC’s upcoming climate report
The first assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change in eight years will sound the alarm on soaring temperatures, rising seas and extreme weather.
www.nature.com
Climate change made deadly heatwave 150 times more likely
Rising global temperatures probably contributed to a week of record-breaking heat in Canada and the United States.
www.nature.com
‘Code red for humanity’: Climate change spiraling out of control, U.N. report says - National | Globalnews.ca
Drawing on more than 14,000 scientific studies, the report gives the most comprehensive and detailed picture yet of how climate change is altering the natural world.
globalnews.ca
Landmark IPCC Report: Climate Catastrophe Ahead If Humans Don't Act Quickly
Landmark IPCC Report: Climate Catastrophe Ahead If Humans Don't Act Quickly
www.iflscience.com
Record-breaking winter winds have blown old Arctic sea ice into the melt zone
A particularly stormy winter has pushed perennial sea ice into the Arctic melt zone.
theconversation.com
Last edited:
Similar threads
