Crisis on high
July 24, 2016 8:00 PM   Subscribe

 
If you're debating whether to give this a click or not; give it a try - there's some excellent pictures accompanying the article.
posted by smoke at 8:41 PM on July 24, 2016 [5 favorites]


This is very well-researched and written article.
posted by My Dad at 8:44 PM on July 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


The photos are gorgeous. The article is very interesting and quite terrifying in the picture it paints.
posted by kitten magic at 8:50 PM on July 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


It could've been thrice as long, I still would've kept reading. Captivating and, to my western perspective, startlingly novel.
posted by an animate objects at 8:54 PM on July 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


My introduction to this area was The River at the Center of the World -- the conceit is, as the author goes further west into China, he goes further back in time as he gets to more and more rural areas where people live more and more traditional lives, and he talks about the intersection of those traditional lives with modern needs for energy and agricultural products and so on and how they're being squeezed out (as well as their traditional and historical roots). It's 1994 (Three Gorges hasn't been built yet) so it's slightly pre-global-warming-as-an-international-issue, but it does nice job giving you the lay of the land, and has helped me contextualize all later articles on the ecology of the area, especially w/r/t global warming.

(You have to follow it up with more comprehensive, scholarly works on the ecology and culture of the Yangtze if you want to really dig in, but as a storytelling introduction that's accessible to Westerners it's pretty fascinating.)

Anyway great article!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:58 PM on July 24, 2016 [11 favorites]


I'd never heard of the Third Pole. Fascinating and scary article.
posted by infinitewindow at 9:07 PM on July 24, 2016 [8 favorites]


Worth reading.
posted by boilermonster at 9:48 PM on July 24, 2016


The rather good news here (comparatively speaking) is on the importance of black carbon as a driver of glacial melting, along with rising temperatures. It's really hard to fix the temperatures quickly, but it's relatively (relatively!) easy to fix black carbon. That's another word for soot, in essence, and it's a product of incomplete combustion -- think truck exhaust and poorly controlled smokestacks. That's the sort of thing that large economies can address fairly quickly, buying time for bigger fixes.
posted by SandCounty at 10:31 PM on July 24, 2016 [7 favorites]


there needs to be more coordination between scientists around the region, and that can be difficult because countries in the area are often in conflict

and then a little later:

in a region where tension between countries over shared water resources is becoming increasingly common, the environmental threat is likely to spark a political one


That's as good a summary as any of the despair and hopelessness I feel increasing in me every fucking day. We'll continue in circles, chasing our tail, passing the buck down the line. We'll only pay the bill after both our legs have been broken and we can't walk away anyways.

Fucking fuck.
posted by mannequito at 12:13 AM on July 25, 2016 [15 favorites]


Tibet: An Environmental Challenge a little bit more background. It's a pdf produced by the Australia Tibet Council by Dr Simon Bradshaw. He's Oxfam's Climate Change guy.


Also, smoke, thank you. Thank you.
posted by taff at 12:34 AM on July 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


Smoke is part of the problem did you not even read the article.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:07 AM on July 25, 2016 [34 favorites]


I want to put all the articles like this in a time capsule so that historians in the future will understand that we knew what was coming and did nothing to stop it.
posted by tobascodagama at 3:09 AM on July 25, 2016 [18 favorites]


I want to put all the articles like this in a time capsule so that historians in the future will understand that we knew what was coming and did nothing to stop it.

When the cockroaches evolve into a sentient species, their professors will point to this period in history in the same way we point to the Easter Islanders chopping down all their trees. (Presumably there were commentators on Easter Island who pointed out that doing so was probably a bad idea, and they got called names and told to shut up, or were just ignored.)
posted by acb at 3:36 AM on July 25, 2016 [6 favorites]


This article doesn't make sense to me. The implication is that the melting of the glaciers will, in the long term, significantly reduce the quantity of water flowing downstream.
Today water from the glaciers has been harnessed into an extensive irrigation system that sustains a population of 5 million in what's known as the Hexi Corridor. It's made the desert bloom with fields of sunflowers, corn, and wheat, but the glacier melt means the desert will eventually reclaim this land.
I don't see why this is. If precipitation falls as rain rather than snow, or the snow melts away completely over the summer, this would seem to make little different to the average downstream flow.

Since my ignorance of climate dynamics is pretty much total, there is a very good chance that I've misunderstood something. If so, I'd appreciate it if anyone could explain this to me.

[Of course this is a terrifying example of rapid climate change, and we're in serious trouble as a species. My question is specific to the logic of this article]
posted by Touchstone at 3:40 AM on July 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


  … truck exhaust and poorly controlled smokestacks. That's the sort of thing that large economies can address fairly quickly

You can if you control the economy. If your economy relies on being the cheapest source of manufacturing labour, there will always be some other country further down the economic ladder who will happily pollute to clamber up that one rung. As pollution doesn't obey national boundaries, enforcement is at international treaty level, the drafting of which always goes smoothly and effectively.
posted by scruss at 4:18 AM on July 25, 2016 [7 favorites]


I believe it's a bit like this:

Glaciers drop off a month's worth of water on the first of each month. Precipitation drops off six months worth of water for two consecutive months, and then goes away. Unfortunately, a lot of that will be lost in the delivery, spread out across a large territory instead of focused into the outlets of a relative few glaciers. Plus you really don't have the ability to store more than one extra month's worth at any one time.

Furthermore, if there is extra water one year, glaciers simply bank it against a year when there is none. Extra precipitation just means an even larger gush of water, most of which will simply flow out to the sea.
posted by maxwelton at 4:23 AM on July 25, 2016 [10 favorites]


Furthermore furthermore, assuming pure white ice (not a given any longer), the summer sun will do relatively little damage to the ice-stored water; contrast that to reservoir- or lake-stored water, which will absorb much more of the energy delivered and hence evaporate.
posted by maxwelton at 4:27 AM on July 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


Put simply, touchstone, the glaciers are melting far far faster than they are being replenished. In fact we are losing water that accumulated over literally thousands of years in decades; it's not sustainable. And once they melt, they are gone forever in our warming climate.
posted by smoke at 4:28 AM on July 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


Put simply, touchstone, the glaciers are melting far far faster than they are being replenished. In fact we are losing water that accumulated over literally thousands of years in decades; it's not sustainable. And once they melt, they are gone forever in our warming climate.

This is false. Consider two regimes: a steady-state regime in which the glaciers are not retreating, and a steady-state regime in which the glaciers have disappeared. In both regimes, the amount of water reaching the region each year is the same, and equivalent to the amount of regional precipitation that year. But as maxwelton points out, although the local residents might receive the same amount of water each year, the temporal distribution of water received can change. In particular, residents would receive more water in the summer under the first regime (when snow and ice melt) and more water in the winter under the second regime (when such precipitation would no longer be stored in glaciers). This might have adverse effects upon agriculture, which may depend upon a large summertime influx of water.

However, the article is overly alarmist, as there is no reason to believe that the grasslands of the region (which are not irrigated and therefore not dependent upon water stored in glaciers) will be affected.
posted by Abelian Grape at 4:42 AM on July 25, 2016 [2 favorites]


It is not false, abelian. You are presupposing the amount of water the mountains receive is the same as what they shed on a yearly basis. In fact for most of human history they have shed less than they received, for a comparatively brief time they have been a rough equilibrium, and for the last hundred or so years, they have been shedding more than they annually receive.

You are further discounting the broader climactic effects at play. these experts don't share your optimism .

Nor these ones:
"We were surprised to find that at 6,050 metres [the height at which the glacier is located] there had been no net accumulation [of ice] since the late 1940s," he told IRIN.... "It means that the glaciers are wasting much faster than just the loss of area, but they are also wasting from the top down, which means they are losing ice volume rapidly. Thus, we expect to see the area of ice loss to accelerate in the near future if these conditions hold, so it is very hard to predict when the glacier will actually disappear. In this case, the past behaviour of the glacier is not likely a good indicator of the future."
An interesting story of how this has played out in one area.
posted by smoke at 5:26 AM on July 25, 2016 [13 favorites]


Thanks to maxwelton, smoke and abelian grape for your replies.

I did a bit of research in my lunch break. This journal article is interesting background in the context.

Not sure I understood the whole article, but some points were very clear:

- As others have pointed out, it seems that the main effect of the glaciers is to shift water flow to 1-2 months earlier in the season, for some catchments.

-Evaporation does not seem to be a significant issue in this area, although might be a lower altitudes.

So it seems to me that very serious flooding over the next half century, and significant changes in water flow that agricultural communities may rely are the foreseeable consequences of glacial melting.

However the idea of large scale downstream desertification, with which the author opens and closes the article, seems like a misunderstanding. After the glaciers have gone, waterflow should be slightly higher, and changes in timing of water flow are not radical.
posted by Touchstone at 6:02 AM on July 25, 2016 [1 favorite]


It is not false, abelian.

As an explanation of why the retreat of glaciers threatens agricultural productivity, it is incorrect. Many practices, such as the extraction of hydrocarbons from the ground and the over-extraction of water from aquifers, are unsustainable but have positive short-term effects on agricultural productivity. Why should the drawing down of glacial resources be any different? The correct explanation, to reiterate, involves the temporal distribution of glacial water flows.

You are further discounting the broader climactic effects at play. these experts don't share your optimism.

I see no reason to believe that those experts don't share my optimism. As glaciers continue to retreat, industries that depend upon concentrated flows of water (e.g., the agricultural and hydropower industries) will experience declines in productivity (after an initial increase in productivity). However, non-irrigated parcels of land (such as the grasslands mentioned in the original article) will be unaffected. The original article claimed that such parcels would experience increasing desertification -- an alarmist and unsubstantiated claim.
posted by Abelian Grape at 6:20 AM on July 25, 2016


From my earlier link- report by the Oxfam Climate Change guy Simon Bradshaw:

"The Tibetan Plateau as a whole is warming at least twice as fast as the global average.
Temperatures have risen 0.4°C per decade since the 1960s.94 Moreover, higher altitude
regions of the Tibetan Plateau are warming faster than lower regions,95 meaning
glaciers are losing ice even at high elevations.96

The rapid warming has caused Tibet’s glaciers to reduce in area by 15% over the last
three decades, from 53,000km2 to 45,000km2.97 As annual runoff from glaciers has
“Safeguarding the plateau environment is crucial not only for sustainable
development of the region, but also to social stability and international
relations.”
Professor Yao Tandong, Director of the Institute of Tibetan Plateau
Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences88
“Changes to climate, glaciers and snow cover in the high mountains of Asia
are of vital importance for water supplies to a fifth of the world’s population.”
Professor Hayley Fowler, Professor of Climate Change Impacts,
Newcastle University89
24
increased (from 61.5km3 to 79.5km3 over the same period), so too has the size of
Tibet’s lakes.98 This has inundated some pastures and increased the risk of floods and
landslides.99 At worst, a glacial lake may burst, causing a devastating flash flood.
As explored in chapter 1, rivers that begin their life on the Tibet Plateau, including
the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Irrawaddy, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze and Yellow,
support about 1.4 billion people.100 The melting of Tibet’s glaciers significantly affects
the flow in these rivers. While the overall hydrological cycle is dominated by the
monsoon systems, meltwater from snow and glaciers provides an important source of
flow pre and post the monsoon seasons.101 In the short term, glacial melt will increase
river flow. While in the longer term there will be a large impact on water availability
during the dry seasons.102"


And " The four-month long South-West Monsoon season accounts for three-quarters of
India’s total rainfall. It is so fundamental to India’s economy that a delay in its arrival
sends the stock market into jitters.21 More importantly, it underpins India’s very ability
to feed itself. The South-West Monsoon is one of a number of monsoon systems
influenced by the Tibetan Plateau, and upon which billions of people depend.22"


Possibly doesn't seem that bad to some. But I"m not happy with 1) fucking with monsoon or 2) displacing oppressed nomadic Tibetans or 3) breaking the eco system in the area.

[Or 4) allowing China to get away with genocide.] But.... your mileage may vary.
posted by taff at 6:26 AM on July 25, 2016 [6 favorites]


However, non-irrigated parcels of land (such as the grasslands mentioned in the original article) will be unaffected.

That would depend on whether those non-irrigated lands are productive because of rainfall or because of shallow aquifers that are recharged by ground and surface water flows from the mountains. Changing the timing of the hydrograph is going to also change the timing and extent of aquifer recharge and in many cases will come with a decline in the aquifer levels in the summer because of lower summer flows.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:46 AM on July 25, 2016 [5 favorites]


However, non-irrigated parcels of land (such as the grasslands mentioned in the original article) will be unaffected.

it's an odd hill to die on. I mean, sure agriculture will be disrupted in a region with a fragile food supply chain, but the native grasses will persist.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:00 AM on July 25, 2016 [6 favorites]


There has pretty much never been a climate change article that was too alarmist. This shit is serious.
posted by agregoli at 7:56 AM on July 25, 2016 [10 favorites]


On the contrary: almost all articles written about climate change have been excessively alarmist. Economists agree that a rise in global mean temperatures of 3 degrees centigrade will reduce global GDP by roughly 3%. The expected impact of climate change is therefore modest, if not negligible; yet many articles about climate change prophesy catastrophe. Unfortunately, because of such fear-mongering, overly severe measures are being taken to forestall climate change. For example, Tol (in the article cited above) concludes that carbon dioxide emissions permits in the EU are far too expensive. As a result, economic growth is unduly throttled, and the welfare of EU residents suffers.
posted by Abelian Grape at 8:30 AM on July 25, 2016


Abelian Grape at 4:30 PM: Economists agree that a rise in global mean temperatures of 3 degrees centigrade will reduce global GDP by roughly 3%

If by "economists" you mean "one economist". Anyone who wants can google the author of that paper (Richard Tol), suffice to say he's far from agenda-less. It also cracks me up to see people who accuse climate scientists of dodgy modelling and predictions accept the word of an economist uncritically!
posted by nfg at 8:42 AM on July 25, 2016 [13 favorites]


On the contrary: almost all articles written about climate change have been excessively alarmist.

Absolutely false. You sound like a denier. Regardless what you believe, we need action, not bickering about HOW bad it will be, how fast, when we're talking about the end of life as we know it, including humans, on this planet. I am actually really sad to see denial of this level on Metafilter.
posted by agregoli at 8:50 AM on July 25, 2016 [9 favorites]


GDP is a measure of production, not welfare. Even if it were a good proxy for welfare, a global reduction of GDP by 3% is unlikely to be evenly spread, and regions that are more climate sensitive are likely to see severe drops which may be offset by gains more temperate areas.

In a frictionless world, people who are adversely affected by climate change can pick up and move to areas where production is increasing (for example, chances are that rising global temperatures will extend the growing season for crops in places like Minnesota). But we don't live in a frictionless world and subsistence farmers in the Himalayas aren't going to be able to up and move somewhere new.

I mean, look at what happened when a few hundred thousand Syrians decided to move from desiccated farmland into the cities. And that was just people trying to move around within one country that is smaller than South Dakota.
posted by sparklemotion at 8:51 AM on July 25, 2016 [11 favorites]


a global reduction of GDP by 3% is unlikely to be evenly spread

the linked paper explicitly discusses this, even
posted by thelonius at 9:15 AM on July 25, 2016


repating sparklemotion's comment because it needs acknowledgement
GDP is a measure of production, not welfare.

It is a form of insanity to think that a because we didn't damage a measure of production too badly, the destruction of habitat, the loss of species, the damage to people is tolerable. This is a measurement that is not evaluated by any meaningful discrimination - a nuclear bomb is just as valuable as medicines or food - nevermind the things we ignore completely in the measurement like quality of life or externalities (oh, externalities - you mean the very thing that, by ignoring, has us in this mess to begin with?).
posted by kokaku at 9:49 AM on July 25, 2016 [6 favorites]


When I visited Argentina, one thing that struck me was how casually people accepted global warming. Due to high cloud cover and snows in the summer (aka January), Argentina has one or two of the only glaciers in the world that aren't receding. Maybe it's just that I was talking to mostly tourist-industry people, but everyone was like "yup, come watch global warming in action!"
posted by Phredward at 9:51 AM on July 25, 2016


Economists agree that a rise in global mean temperatures of 3 degrees centigrade will reduce global GDP by roughly 3%.

Um ... Maybe you have evidence of some consensus position that the rest of us don't, but it looks to me like there is no such agreement. John Horowitz -- an environmental economist at the University of Maryland -- says that a one-degree Celsius increase in mean global temperature will cause a decrease of 3.8 percent of world GDP; Pin Ng and Xiaobing Zhao -- economists at Northern Arizona -- say that an increase of one degree Celsius could cause as much as a 3 percent decrease in total income for G-7 nations. Dell, Jones, and Olken -- economists at MIT -- say that a one-degree Celsius rise in temperature reduces economic growth by 1.3 percentage points -- but only in poor countries; in an interesting piece trying to aggregate estimates and evaluate their uncertainty, Tol says (see 101 of the pdf) that the uncertainty in estimates of the total economic effects of warming are "vast" (pdf).
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:14 AM on July 25, 2016 [8 favorites]


> Consider two regimes: a steady-state regime in which the glaciers are not retreating, and a steady-state regime in which the glaciers have disappeared.

Steady state? The root problem is that the climate is not in equilibrium. Any arguments proceeding from the premise that the system is in steady state are flawed from the start, because they neglect to consider the dynamics of the transition from one (putative) steady-state to the (putative) other -- ie, the very dynamics of climate change that, amongst other things, now lead to increasingly unpredictable & powerfully destructive storms worldwide.

Moreover, it's not at all clear that the second proposed regime -- one in which the the glaciers have disappeared but "the amount of water reaching the region each year is the same" as in the glaciated regime -- would even be an attractor. The climate is a nonlinear dynamical system, and it is naive to assume that the amount of water reaching the region each year would be invariant to disappearance of the glaciers.
posted by Westringia F. at 11:38 AM on July 25, 2016 [4 favorites]


I don't understand how anyone can look at the current state of what we're doing globally to slow down global warming and think "eh, it's too much". We have not yet begun to slow down warming, let alone stop it, and every day of delay adds more expense and human suffering to what will be needed to fix the problem. Prevention is much cheaper and easier than remediation will be. As a species, we've decided we want things the hard way.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 11:43 AM on July 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


This is what I like about Metafilter! A good first post, then some interesting discussion by people who (for the most part) have well-thought-out opinions (for the most part)
.
posted by Agave at 12:00 PM on July 25, 2016


Presumably there were commentators on Easter Island who pointed out that doing so was probably a bad idea, and they got called names and told to shut up, or were just ignored.

Tree-cutting was the engine of the economy! The fewer the trees, the more valuable each one became! And what about all those jobs as tree-cutters! Cut, baby, cut!

Until there were no more trees, and then no more economy and no more jobs.
posted by stargell at 1:07 PM on July 25, 2016


On the contrary: almost all articles written about climate change have been excessively alarmist.

Ah, there we go. I was worried my initial response to you was too brusque as I've been sensitised by deniers and to denier talking points. Turns out there was no reason to worry.
posted by smoke at 1:58 PM on July 25, 2016 [10 favorites]


Abelian Grape: " The expected impact of climate change is therefore modest, if not negligible; yet many articles about climate change prophesy catastrophe. "

I'm sure the people in oh, say, Bangladesh, are looking forward to a modest if not negligible impact from climate change.
posted by Mitheral at 7:51 PM on July 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


Disasters linked to climate can increase risk of armed conflict
The role of severe heatwaves, floods and storms in increasing the risk of wars has been controversial, particularly in relation to the long drought in Syria. But the new work reveals a strong link in places where the population is already fractured along ethnic lines.

Previous work has shown a correlation between climate disasters and fighting but the new analysis shows the disasters precede the conflict, suggesting a causal link. Experts have warned that an increase in natural disasters due to global warming is a “threat multiplier” for armed violence.

...

Prof Solomon Hsiang, at the University of California Berkeley and not part of the new research, showed in 2011 that changes to the climate were linked to 20% of civil wars since 1950. He said: “The linkage between large-scale climatic changes and violence is a remarkable finding of the last several years and has major implications for societies around the world, both today and in the future.”

...

He said the new work showed another, very significant, benefit of action to halt global warming: “Our study adds evidence of a very special co-benefit of climate stabilisation: peace.”
In response to the general dismissal of the seriousness of climate change upthread, here are some examples from recent news:I don't know about the OP article, but the idea that the only economic cost of a global 3 ℃ rise in mean temperatures will be to shave a little bit off of GDP is perfectly ludicrous, given even the most optimistic forecasts for the material effects of such a change in the IPCC reports. Even only the replacement cost of the damage that has already, as of 2016, resulted from accelerated sea level rise, in terms of inundated land, flooding, and destruction of fresh water sources, must be immense.

But since most of all coastline globally is in developing nations or thinly-settled areas, I'd imagine those coasts are quantitatively rated as near-worthless until someone wants to hold an Olympics there. I wonder if you took the economic models from the Tol-without-et-al. paper and hypothetically just started killing the poorest people in the world, what percentage of the entire world's population could you obliterate before the models say it equals the putative economic cost of the "modest if not negligible" impact from climate change?
posted by XMLicious at 9:43 PM on July 25, 2016 [8 favorites]


Bah, I managed to leave out of my quote the paragraph from the first article above with the more specific results and the link to the abstract:
The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that 23% of the armed conflicts in ethnically divided places were linked to climate disasters, compared to just 9% of all armed conflicts. Schellnhuber speculated that ethnic divisions might mean that the impact of a climate disaster would disproportionately impact one group more than another, due to their location or poverty level. “People immediately start scapegoating then,” he said.
Don't want to oversell it, but a link to almost a quarter of the conflicts where ethnic tensions seems substantial.
posted by XMLicious at 11:27 PM on July 25, 2016 [3 favorites]


Yeah. I actually never expected climate deniers here of all places. Interested to see if there will be an anti vax and homeopathic astrology interpretation of the article now.
posted by taff at 4:00 AM on July 26, 2016 [3 favorites]


Was/is there a map to show where this article is talking about along with one of the larger region this diminished river flow will affect?
posted by Mesaverdian at 5:56 PM on July 26, 2016


Yeah. I actually never expected climate deniers here of all places. Interested to see if there will be an anti vax and homeopathic astrology interpretation of the article now.

There's a pretty big difference between denying global warming (which is nuts) and disagreeing about its likely costs.
posted by atrazine at 7:19 AM on July 28, 2016


The paper which Abelian Grape links to (from 2009) focuses on how to price carbon taxes. It notes that the author's previous survey work concerning the effects of climate change, from 1996, was so overoptimistic as to be entirely mistaken about the availability of adequate information to make predictions, and makes some noises about how this has improved, but goes on to conclude its "Findings and Implications" section with In short, the level of uncertainty here is large, and probably understated, especially in terms of failing to capture downside risks.

The IPCC 5th Assessment Report from 2014's Working Group II Part A report (PDF), which economic effects fall under, uses the RCP8.5 as its "high emissions scenario" model for temperature increase, where we don't do anything at all to curb emissions. If you look at Figure SPM.4 on page 10 you'll see that a 3 ℃ rise in mean temperatures above 1986-2005 is the absolute lower bound of the confidence limit, which at its top end is 6 ℃. Also from the map the mean is composed of much smaller increases happening at sea, with the highest increases happening on land.

Note that RCP8.5 is not by any means the worst case scenario; it's the output from the best-supported model where factors and mechanisms there aren't enough hard science to quantify are left out. From browsing through the WG1 section on sea-level rise, (in a different document, the part focusing on physical changes and modeling details) different models in that scope where the scientists fill in unknowns by guessing about factors they don't have hard or comprehensive data on provide more severe predictions.

All the above is what Abelian Grape is using to base the confident and certain claims that almost all articles written about climate change have been excessively alarmist and The expected impact of climate change is therefore modest, if not negligible and so overly severe measures are being taken to forestall climate change.

Yes, it's technically not denying climate change itself, it's just using exclusively economic modeling admitted by its author to be uncertain and inadequate to confidently deny the validity of "almost all articles" about climate change that were written based upon the current, actual effects seen in the world and much more sophisticated and thoroughly-supported modeling of the future physical effects of climate change, not just articles written about abstract economic models. While not even mentioning that the maximum temperature rise analyzed by the proffered uncertain and inadequate economics paper coincides with the lowest possible temperature rise predicted by the currently-best physical models if we do nothing substantial to mitigate climate change by 2100 because this kind of denialism shit convinces everyone that we don't need to.
posted by XMLicious at 9:34 AM on July 28, 2016 [3 favorites]


« Older CSM on LGBT and Conservative Christianity   |   The door, and someone knocking at it. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments