Dano

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Why is it the Encyclopadia Brittanica makes no mention of your solar emmissions global warming hypothesis?

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9037044/global-warming

Why is it that I can only find it on wikipedia and right wing blogs?

Why can't you except the reality of the carbon emmissions theory, and still puff out your stupid solar emmissions hypohtesis? Even if solar emmissions were changing, it's at a goddamn awful convenient time, just as carbon emmissions thorughout the world are at their highest.
 
eNG5769.jpg


It's a representation of grotesqueness.


Nice rack though.
 
Last edited:
How does the national gallery in london think it has a copyright on this picture? It's 400 years old. It's uncopyrightable. This is ridiculous.
 
Back
Top