Community | June 26, 2011 | 45 comments

Warming oceans cause largest movement of marine species in two million years:scientists

source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8598597/Warming-oceans-cause-largest-movement-of-...

Image
JanforGore
Warming ocean waters are causing the largest movement of marine species seen on Earth in more than two million years, according to scientists.

In the Arctic, melting sea ice during recent summers has allowed a passage to open up from the Pacific ocean into the North Atlantic, allowing plankton, fish and even whales to into the Atlantic Ocean from the Pacific.

The discovery has sparked fears delicate marine food webs could be unbalanced and lead to some species becoming extinct as competition for food between the native species and the invaders stretches resources.

Rising ocean temperatures are also allowing species normally found in warmer sub-tropical regions to into the northeast Atlantic.

A venomous warm-water species Pelagia noctiluca has forced the closure of beaches and is now becoming increasingly common in the waters around Britain.

The highly venomous Portuguese Man-of-War, which is normally found in subtropical waters, is also regularly been found in the northern Atlantic waters.

A form of algae known as dinoflagellates has also been found to be moving eastwards across the Atlantic towards Scandinavia and the North Sea.

Huge blooms of these marine plants use up the oxygen in the water and can produce toxic compounds that make shellfish poisonous.

Plankton sampling in the north Atlantic over the past 70 years have also shown that other species of plankton, normally only found in the Pacific ocean, have now become common in Atlantic waters.

The scientists, who have been collaborating on the Climate Change and European Marine Ecosystems Research project, found the plankton species, called Neodenticula seminae, traveled into the Atlantic through a passage through the Arctic sea ice around that has opened up a number of times in the last decade from the Pacific Ocean.

Larger species including a grey whale have also been found to have made the journey through the passage, which winds it’s way from the Pacific coast of Alaska through the islands of northern Canada and down past Greenland into the Atlantic Ocean, when it opened first in 1998, and then again in 2007 and 2010.

Professor Chris Reid, from the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science at the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, said: “It seems for the first time in probably thousands of years a huge area of sea water opened up between Alaska and the west of Greenland, allowing a huge transfer of water and species between the two oceans.

“The opening of this passage allowed the wind to drive a current through this passage and the water warmed up making it favourable for species to get through.

“In 1999 we discovered a species in the north west Atlantic that we hadn’t seen before, but we know from surveys in the north Pacific that it is very abundant there.

"This species died out in the Atlantic around 800,000 years ago due to glaciation that changed the conditions it needed to survive.

“The implications are huge. The last time there was an incursion of species from the Pacific into the Atlantic was around two to three million years ago.

"Large numbers of species were introduced from the Pacific and made large numbers of local Atlantic species extinct.

“The impact on salmon and other fish resources could be very dramatic. The indications are that as the ice is continuing to melt in the summer months, climate change could lead to complete melting within 20 to 30 years, which would see huge numbers of species migrating.

"It could have impacts all the way down to the British Isles and down the east coast of the United States.”

He added: “With the jellyfish we are seeing them move further north from tropical and subtropical regions as a result of warming sea temperatures."

Researchers say the invading plankton species is likely to cause widespread changes to the food web in the Atlantic ocean as the invading species are less nutritious than native species, which are eaten by many fish and large whales.

Changes in populations of tiny animals called copepods, which are an essential food source for fish such as cod, herring and mackerel, are already being blamed for helping to drive the collapse of fish stocks as the native species of copepods have been replaced with smaller less nutritious varieties.

This has resulted in declines in North Sea birds, the researchers claim, while Harbour porpoises have also migrated northwards North Sea after sand eels followed the poleward movement of the copepods they ate.

Scientists taking part in the project from the Institute for Marine Resources & Ecosystem Studies, in the Netherlands, found that warmer water would also lead more species in the North and Irish sea as species move from more southerly areas.

But they found that the Atlantic ocean west of Scotland would have fewer species.

Dr Carlo Heip, director general of the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, which led the project that is a collaboration of more than 17 institutes in 10 different countries, said: “We need to learn much more about what’s happening in Europe’s seas, but the signs already point to far more trouble than benefit from climate change.

“Despite the many unknowns, it’s obvious that we can expect damaging upheaval as we overturn the workings of a system that’s so complex and important.

“The migrations are an example of how changing climate conditions cause species to move or change their behaviour, leading to shifts in ecosystems that are clearly visible.”

The researchers conclude that these changes will have serious implications for commercial fisheries and on the marine environment.

More at the link
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Green,   Current Tonight,   14 more
  2. tags:
    Environment,  Climate Change,  Global Warming,  Oceans,  9 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

45 comments // Warming oceans cause largest movement of marine species in two million years:scientists

  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • http://theconversation.edu.au/a-journey-into-the-weird-and-wacky-world-of-climat...

      Great article. Fits some to a tee here. Which is why I think engaging the fakes with non sourced crayon graphs that anyone can draw on their computers is a waste of time.

      Excerpt:

      "Time to close the phony debate on climate science

      At a time when the oceans are accumulating heat at the rate of five Hiroshima bombs per second, are conspiracy theorists the people whom a nation should entrust with the future of our children?

      The so-called “debate” on climate change has been over for decades in the peer-reviewed literature. It is time to accept the scientific consensus and move on, and to stop giving air-time to the cranks.

      It is time for accountability."

    • 11 months ago
  • letsliveinpeace
  • alexsmith01
    • 0
      alexsmith01  

    • “The impact on salmon and other fish resources could be very dramatic. The indications are that as the ice is continuing to melt in the summer months, climate change could lead to complete melting within 20 to 30 years, which would see huge numbers of species migrating.
      warming is natural we have had 2 ice ages that we know of on earth and both humans did not cause many would say till all the ice is gone the age is still here.
      i understand that but how do they say for two million years stuff i mean isn't that just bull?
      how can they prove 2million years, that's just bull. the sun is hotter as we are approaching new sun cycle not only is the sun hotter but all plants are receptively based on how close they are to the sun. this study says a lot with little to no facts to support its claims. says marketing terms like "rising in abundance" but says no real data at all. they try to get you to believe what they say with out any real data but use marketing terms.

    • 11 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • alexsmith01:

      Admittedly, had I written this article I would probably have used a more current timetable, say the last 5000 years. However, they are scientists and I believe they had a reason for the way they wrote this. It is the present phenomena taking place regarding this migration and how it came about that should concern us. For me, whether it is 800,000 years, two million years, or 5000 years, the fact remains that this is now going to affect the present and the ecosystems we depend on for life.The web of life is tenuous, any sudden changes to it have repurcussions for us all up the entire chain. And again, regardless of what you wish to believe regarding human vs natural, it is settled science that humans are indeed amplifying the effects we are now seeing globally. The pace rules out just natural causes.There is no distinction between human vs natural it is both. What we now need to do is to monitor all of these changes and prepare for how best we can adapt to them if possible.The oceans are warming, the Arctic is warming and we have responsibilities as a species for the world we will leave to others.

    • 11 months ago
  • IceKat
    • 0
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      "...it is settled science that humans are indeed amplifying the effects we are now seeing globally. "

      No it isn't. That's why there is still debate and research going on.

    • 11 months ago
  • UtopianSky
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  

    • There is no disputing the Northwest Passage due to Arctic warming has become navigable thus leading to the main point of this article. The more important facet of this to me at least is the affect this will have on delicate marine ecosystems and continued warming of the waters. We need to monitor this in order to better adapt to these changes economically and healthwise. The same old arguments and pulling out the graphs to make yourself look like you know more is not the point here anymore. This warming is well established and animals and humans are changing their habits due to it. In a future warming world our ability to live in the places we have become accustomed to could also be at risk. That is something we should at least be prepared for.

      http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-prodigal-plankton-species-migration-pacific....
      "The consequences are already evident. The changes in plankton life have "been related to the collapse of some fish stocks" as well as declines in fish-eating North Sea birds, the researchers report. Harbour porpoises migrated from the northern North Sea when sand eels, a mainstay of their diet, moved poleward with the nutritious copepods.

      Overall, studies show that re-arrangements of marine life composition is likely to be mixed – some species could, in fact, thrive and parts of the ocean gain in biodiversity and productivity.

      "But most of the impacts are so clearly negative, and the scope of change so potentially huge that, taken together, they constitute brightly flashing warning signals," says Dr. Heip.

      Other findings from the project:

      •A form of phytoplankton, known as dinoflagellates, is rising in abundance and moving steadily eastward across the Atlantic toward Scandinavia. Many dinoflagellates are harmful because their bloom and death absorbs dissolved oxygen in the water, which affects other marine creatures. Some also produce toxic compounds that make shellfish flesh poisonous to humans and other organisms. Researchers believe the marine conditions forecast due to climate change favour their growth.

      •Jellyfish are increasing in the northeast Atlantic, often forming massive blooms. A venomous warm-water species, Pelagia noctiluca, dominates in many areas and outbreaks have become an annual event, forcing the closing of beaches. This form of jellyfish is a gluttonous predator of juvenile fish, so researchers consider its spread a harmful trend. Recently, the highly venomous Portuguese Man-of-War (Physalia physalis), a jellyfish-like subtropical creature, were found more regularly in northern Atlantic waters.

      •Changes in temperature and other conditions mean some prey species are no longer available when their predators need them. Off Northwest Europe, the warming trend has led to earlier spawning of cod, while phytoplankton have kept their traditional biological schedule. The result is a timing mismatch between the cod's larval production and its food supply.

      Says the Marine Board of the European Science Foundation: "In the North Sea, seasonal changes in the timing of biological events for plankton as a response to warming are leading to a mismatch between phytoplankton and zooplankton, between zooplankton and fish, between bivalve larvae and shrimp, and between fish and seabirds."

      •The cod population has plummeted throughout the North Atlantic, largely, so far, due to over-fishing. But a team led by researchers with Norway's Institute of Marine Research warn that cod can't tolerate higher temperatures, and "if warming continues at the rate projected by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it will considerably limit larval cod survival and thereby recruitment, making the reconstitution of the stock difficult."
      Young cod rely on the copepod Calanus finmarchicus, the migration of which 1,000 kilometres to the north inhibits the cod from re-establishing in the southern North Sea.

      •Warmer temperatures and stratification of the water are allowing living and dead microscopic organic matter to form massive, mucous-like blobs of marine mucilage in the Mediterranean Sea. This noxious material harbours bacteria and viruses that could kill fish.

      •In the North Sea, several fish species, including sea bass, mullet, solenette and scaldfish, are moving northward and increasing in numbers as the water warms, according to experts at the NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and the Netherlands Institute for Ecology (NIOO).

      ."The predictions of higher average temperatures and milder winters in the North Sea make it likely that these species will increase further in abundance and move northward," say NIOO scientists. This "will affect the North Sea food web and therefore commercial species by predation on juveniles and competition for food resources."

      The impacts of some observed changes remain difficult to assess because the web of life in the oceans, and the forces that shape it, are so complex, and so little is known about them. Some impacts will combine to magnify their effects on ocean life; others might neutralize each other."

    • 11 months ago
  • IceKat
  • UtopianSky
  • IceKat
  • Omle_Du_Fromage
  • Perduellious_jettatura
  • UtopianSky
  • figgdimension
  • figgdimension
  • artemis6
  • figgdimension
  • figgdimension
  • Milieu
    • +1
      Milieu  

    • Science, phooey!

      The Kochs have spent Billions of Dollars given them by Gawd to prove that Science is nothing more than Liberals' way of not allowing Kochs to make all the money Gawd wants them to make.

      ******Sarcasm toward the Kochsuckers, ALEC and Oligarchs***************

      BTW, I wonder when the ReichWing is gonna start proving that computers are nothing more than a figment of our imaginations?

      Very good article, JfG, thanks.

    • 11 months ago
  • artemis6
    • +1
      artemis6  
    • Milieu:

      Right after they shut down the internet . If we let them get that far , and i certainly hope not ! Freaks of nature will need their own little island , so they can leave us in peace !

    • 11 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -7
      IceKat  

    • “It seems for the first time in probably thousands of years a huge area of sea water opened up between Alaska and the west of Greenland, allowing a huge transfer of water and species between the two oceans. "

      That'll be the NorthWest passage then, first opened due to "man-made Global Warming" in 1998, and then again in 2007 and 2010, according to this article... or that's what they want you to believe. Why do people blindly accept this without question?

    • 11 months ago
  • UtopianSky
    • +4
      UtopianSky  
    • IceKat:

      Well, I did not want to blindly accept what you say without question, so I googled "NorthWest passage".

      From Wikipedia:

      The Northwest Passage is a sea route through the Arctic Ocean, along the northern coast of North America via waterways amidst the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.[1][2] The various islands of the archipelago are separated from one another and the Canadian mainland by a series of Arctic waterways collectively known as the Northwest Passages or Northwestern Passages.[3]
      Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable.

      ... so, not navigated at all until the early 1900's, and not navigated regularly till 2009 thanks to global warming, and it is getting wider and more navigable every day.

      So, what is your point?

    • 11 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • UtopianSky:

      "...the passage, which winds it’s way from the Pacific coast of Alaska through the islands of northern Canada and down past Greenland into the Atlantic Ocean, when it opened first in 1998, and then again in 2007 and 2010. "

      As you rightly state, the passage was open long before 1998, but not according to this article, which is rife with inaccuracies throughout.

      Many thanks for the Wikipedia article, by the way. Where would you be without Wikipedia, with all its inaccuracies and biases, maybe that's why extremists love it and rely upon it so heavily. .

    • 11 months ago
  • UtopianSky
    • +2
      UtopianSky  
    • IceKat:

      As I said, it is geting more and more navigable because of global warming.

      Yet, all you can do is take tired cheap shots at Wikipedia.

      I asked you what was your point- I guess that means you don't have one.

    • 11 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • UtopianSky:

      I'm sorry, looks like I'm going to have to spell it out in simple language for you.

      The article stated the passage had been open for the FIRST TIME in 1998.
      That statement is incorrect, even you managed to work that one out!

      The NorthWest passage has been navigable more frequently of late, but no more than it was in earlier years.
      The natural warming that occurred last century reached a peak in 1998, as temperatures are now falling we will probably will see that passage closing more frequently from now on.
      My point: the article is rife with inaccuracies.

    • 11 months ago
  • UtopianSky
    • +3
      UtopianSky  
    • Image
    • IceKat:

      Oh, I got that just fine.
      The point went right over your head though.

      Yes, the article got the first date wrong. So what?

      The point of the article is that global warming has increased the navigability of the northWest passage, including for wildlife, and provided more than enough evidence to back that up.

      All you have is squat.

      You say:
      "The natural warming that occurred last century reached a peak in 1998"

      Did you notice that the peak for last century was the end of the last century?

      You say:
      "as temperatures are now falling we will probably will see that passage closing more frequently from now on."

      Except, of course, that the temperatures are NOT FALLING.

      http://www.climate-skeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/arctic_temperature.gif

      And this chart comes from a website of a skeptic, like yourself.

      That fact that arctic temperatures have been getting warmer and warmer is undeniable.

    • 11 months ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • Image
    • UtopianSky:

      Wouldn't it be more appropriate to find a chart that actually included 2011 temperatures?
      The Arctic is not getting warmer and warmer.
      Temperatures reached a peak in 1998 and are now falling, as are sea surface temperatures.

      "Yes, the article got the first date wrong. So what?"

      The article got more than that wrong. But, on that point alone, if an article makes such a blatant "mistake" (or misleading statement) then how much credence can you place on the rest of the article? Maybe extremists don't mind the odd mistake (or misleading statements, distortions) but a lot of other people certainly do.

      The NorthWest passage has been frequently open, and yes, the planet warmed (that is well known and understood) making the passage open frequently of late, but as I stated earlier, this is nothing new or unusual.
      By the way, what did you expect temperatures would do from 1880s seeing as we were coming out of a cold period at that time?

      Chart above shows data from Russian Arctic surface stations 1916 - 1999.
      Clearly the Arctic is burning to a frazzle and will be ice-free by ____ [insert any future date]

    • 11 months ago
  • UtopianSky
    • +1
      UtopianSky  
    • IceKat:

      You say:
      "Wouldn't it be more appropriate to find a chart that actually included 2011 temperatures? The Arctic is not getting warmer and warmer.
      Temperatures reached a peak in 1998 and are now falling, as are sea surface temperatures."

      And yet you provide a chart that ends in 1999.
      Now that's irony.
      At least mine is up to last year, showing a huge obvious trend from 1994 onwards.
      If you mean to say there was a GIGANTIC dip in temperature in just one year, that alone would indicate chaos in climate change. But, I doubt that's the case.
      You can't back your assertion up at all.

      You say:
      "and yes, the planet warmed (that is well known and understood) making the passage open frequently of late, but as I stated earlier, this is nothing new or unusual. "

      The planet warming IS new and unusual.

      You say:
      "By the way, what did you expect temperatures would do from 1880s seeing as we were coming out of a cold period at that time?"

      THUS, the climate is CHANGING.

      Do you realize that no one has ever said pollution CAUSES climate change, only that it AGGRAVATES it, and WORSENS it?

      So now you admit we are experiencing climate change, FINALY.

      All you have to do now is admit pollution is a bad thing, and you will be on the same page as every scientist who has studied the issue.

    • 11 months ago
  • alexsmith01
    • 0
      alexsmith01  
    • IceKat:

      good reply other then the bashing wiki. should there be more accountability on wiki yes is it perfect no. but unless you know a better place it is the best place to learn about a wide rang of topics in a simple to follow format. try not to bash on a site or place based solely on the fact that you might not like the info it says. it is not right. thanks for following up with him thought.

    • 11 months ago
  • alexsmith01
    • 0
      alexsmith01  
    • IceKat:

      this is no personal battle with you guys. you both agree on the same thing.(at the core) just move on. we are here to help and educate our self's each other and the world. we are both teachers and students no one here or any where knows it all. being wrong or right should not harm or hurt your pride. "oh you are right thanks for the good info +1" . State a statement try to display your views and information not everyone is going to see the information the same way as you and not everyone will be convince of anything ever. again most the world still think it is not round. you can not change everyone's mind you can however display the info in a easy to understand simple format with out bashing.
      not picking on you Icekat this goes for me UtopianSky and all users . we all see both your points i think if you do not have anything new to say might be best to move on to new topic.

    • 11 months ago
  • IceKat
    • 0
      IceKat  
    • Image
    • UtopianSky:

      The climate is changing. The planet did warm. Show me where I ever said otherwise?
      The planet has been warmer and cooler, changes have happened at a quicker pace in the past. The planet warming is nothing new at all.

      "If you mean to say there was a GIGANTIC dip in temperature in just one year, that alone would indicate chaos in climate change. But, I doubt that's the case.
      You can't back your assertion up at all."
      The climate system is chaotic, that's how it works! And yes, there have been significant dips in temperature in just one year, recently too (a fall of 0.346C since May 2010). Why don't you know that? If there had been a rise in global temperatures of +0.346C it would have made the headlines, especially here on Current! Why does no-one notice when temperatures fall? Maybe because it goes against the CO2 induced Global Warming theory. According to all the models this was never supposed to happen!

      The chart I presented begins in 1916, long before the mythical man-made global warming due to increased 'greenhouse' gases. That's what makes the chart significant. The chart was chosen for its significance, and it was the easiest to get hold of at short notice. The chart should show a steady warming long before 1999 but it doesn't. Maybe CO2 cherry-picks the areas it wants to warm, seemingly only choosing areas where poor people live?

      Pollution*? Yes, I agree, pollution is a bad thing! Great, now it looks like I'm "on the same page as every scientist who has studied the issue"!!! However, that statement is fallacious as not every scientist believes that man is causing climate change, except for on a small scale, local level. The consensus is not all you've been led to believe!
      *Hopefully, you aren't classifying CO2 as pollution here - it isn't.

      The chart shown here should be a little more to your liking as it extends into 2002. The chart begins in 1881 and clearly shows the natural warming from the 1880s and fluctuations thereafter. What the chart does not show is an Arctic spiralling into terminal melt.
      Feast on these words: Neither you, nor anyone else reading this, will never see an ice-free Arctic.

    • 11 months ago
  • IceKat
    • 0
      IceKat  
    • alexsmith01:

      Wikipedia is a good place to start when looking for information, but it should never be relied upon when there are politics, opinions or contentious issues involved.
      I prefer to use the wealth of peer-reviewed scientific studies and unadulterated data for my information. And whereas I understand that not everyone has access to this sort of information, those that don't should be wary of using opinionated journalistic impersonations of studies.

    • 11 months ago
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  
    • IceKat:

      You say:
      " And yes, there have been significant dips in temperature in just one year, recently too (a fall of 0.346C since May 2010). Why don't you know that?"

      I DID know that, and I know the diference between fluctuations within a year caused by the seasons, and average temperatures across an entire year, and those years plotted to show a trend.
      Why don't you know that?

      SO, no gigantic dip in temperature like I said, gotcha.
      Just this phenomena called "Winter".

      Instead, we have the average temperature getting warmer and warmer every year, as predicted, and you even claim you do not deny, while you keep denying it.

      DO you even HAVE a point?

      You say:
      "However, that statement is fallacious as not every scientist believes that man is causing climate change, except for on a small scale, local level. The consensus is not all you've been led to believe! "

      As I already said:
      Do you realize that no one has ever said pollution CAUSES climate change, only that it AGGRAVATES it, and WORSENS it?

      Do you realize THAT is the consensus?

    • 11 months ago
  • figgdimension
  • IceKat
    • +1
      IceKat  
    • UtopianSky:

      The fall of 0.346 degrees Celsius since May 2010 was global, therefore not seasonal, and obviously not "winter"!!

      Temperatures are not getting warmer and warmer every year.
      Global temperatures currently stand at 0.074C above the 1901 - 2000 average, hardly burning up, I think you'd agree.

      My point? Again, seeing as you missed it the first time: the article is rife with inaccuracies.
      My current point: I'm replying to your comments.

      As for your "Evolution and Creationism" argument, you tried some time ago to suck me into this discussion. I'm not interested.

    • 11 months ago
  • UtopianSky
    • 0
      UtopianSky  
    • IceKat:

      You say:
      "Temperatures are not getting warmer and warmer every year. "

      Yet, you don't have any proof to suport this.

      you say:
      "As for your "Evolution and Creationism" argument, you tried some time ago to suck me into this discussion. I'm not interested."

      Suck you into that discussion?
      I gave it as an example of a topic where all of the science is on one side, and all of the ignorance is on the other; not a sidetrack.
      Yet you think it's a topic not just to discuss- but to avoid discussing.
      That in and of itself shows where you are on the spectrum of scientific knowledge.

    • 11 months ago
  • IceKat
  • UtopianSky
    • -1
      UtopianSky  
    • IceKat:

      Ah, so you ARE a creationist!
      It certainly fits the pattern.
      Ignore actual scientific findings, and spew pseudoscience instead.
      Never any evidence to suport your claims, just nitpicking the results of legitimate scientific discovery.

    • 11 months ago
  • IceKat
  • UtopianSky
    • -1
      UtopianSky  
    • IceKat:

      I'm not trying to suck you into anything. I did not think you were a creationist before, but I do now. That is the ONLY reason you would act this way.

      It's like when a politician is asked- Did you have sex with your assistant?

      If they hem and haw and go, "well, which assistant?" or "What does 'sex' mean?" or "I don't want to discuss such things" that shows they are guilty.

      t's just like pleading the fifth.

      An innocent person would say "Hell no I did not have sex with my assistant!"

      It is BIZARRE for anyone to hem and haw on the issue of evolution vs creationism; unless they are a noutjob Creationist, pretending to be a reasonable scientifically minded person, and they know that it will cast them in a bad light.

      So, just like Anthony Wiener being not sure if that was his penis or not, your protestations declare clearly and obviously that you are a Creationist.

      Thus explaining your desire to ignore science in favor of dogmatic propaganda that suports your belief system.

    • 11 months ago
  • IceKat
  • figgdimension
  • JanforGore
  • artemis6
  • alexsmith01
more from Community:
from the community

top videos