HOME | DD

starfright9606 In reply to ??? [2020-01-16 20:38:14 +0000 UTC]

whoever made those fires need to be tortured (if they ain't already dead) and then killed in the most painful way possible

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

OnlyTheGhosts In reply to starfright9606 [2020-01-16 21:58:46 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, agreed. The police have arrested about 200 arsonists so far.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

djs-specs In reply to OnlyTheGhosts [2020-01-16 22:57:29 +0000 UTC]

No they haven't.  That figure has been proven to be false by the Australian Federal Police - only 24 people have been arrested for lighting bushfires.  The other arrests that have been rolled into the figure that people have been quoting were for failure to comply with total fire bans or throwing lit matches/cigarettes. 

The RFS have said that almost all of the fires this season have been due to lightning.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

OnlyTheGhosts In reply to djs-specs [2020-01-17 01:49:29 +0000 UTC]

You're waaaaay outdated. It passed 183 arrests back on January the 7th, this year. It also came out that so far, 85% of the fires started as a result of arson.


Australian bushfires and arsonistsEverything MUST be blamed solely on "climate change" even when the same folks pushing that lie must surely know for a fact that people are starting fires.
Around 85% of bushfires are caused by humans either deliberately or accidentally starting them, according to Dr. Paul Read, co-director of the National Centre for Research in Bushfire and Arson. Australian Police are now working on the premise that arson is to blame for much of the desolation.
Blaming "climate change" is nothing more than political opportunism.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-22/bushfire-arson-warning-ahead-of-school-holidays/11528192
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-20/bushfire-ignition-source-how-we-know/11701132
https://www.9news.com.au/national/bushfire-arson-why-do-people-deliberately-light-bushfires-blaze-australia-news/ac1ddad5-73a1-4319-994a-3109547756f6
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/top-cop-blames-children-arsonists-for-starting-quee

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Erinsama In reply to OnlyTheGhosts [2020-01-17 02:29:59 +0000 UTC]

ok, one question: are you actually paid by the australian government/ the coal companies to spread disinformation, or do you do it  just for the sake of seeing the world burn?
   

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

OnlyTheGhosts In reply to Erinsama [2020-01-17 02:43:41 +0000 UTC]

Okay one question, do you actually read what you post?

Or do you want to distract from your failings instead?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Erinsama In reply to OnlyTheGhosts [2020-01-17 05:52:46 +0000 UTC]

The cognitive dissonance of the climate deniers is impressive, if I may say
You can simultaneously claim that the action of BILLIONS of human beings over CENTURIES has had NO influence on the climate of the planet... and in the meantime to present as an established truth that a few dozen human beings in a few weeks have destroyed almost the entire Australian continent, all by themself
 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

OnlyTheGhosts In reply to Erinsama [2020-01-17 11:23:41 +0000 UTC]

The dissonance is yours.

You claim that humans who are responsible for only 6 - 8 gigatonnes of CO2 a year can somehow beat the 192+ gigatonnes of CO2 from natural sources.

Wow. You must have failed math.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

djs-specs In reply to OnlyTheGhosts [2020-01-17 02:07:10 +0000 UTC]

factcheck.afp.com/police-figur…

Updated January 14th 2020.  I'm gonna believe the ACTUAL POLICE, thanks all the same.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

OnlyTheGhosts In reply to djs-specs [2020-01-17 02:21:15 +0000 UTC]

I do hope you get into the habit of reading what you post, as the AFP themselves state that the following;

[There is currently no available bushfire related police statistics from Victoria.] - so the AFP hasn't been officially told by Victorian police anything at all. What data are the AFP going by then? Guesswork?!

[The Queensland Police Service  told AFP in a statement via email on January 10, 2020, that 109 people (36 adults and 73 juveniles) have been dealt with for offences relating to “recklessly and/or deliberately setting fires.”] - so that number already exceeds the 29 you claimed.

[In Western Australia, police told AFP that from November 25, 2019 to January 8, 2020 seven people were charged for deliberately lighting bushfires.] - What happened to the rest of the period in question, as everyone else is going from September, that's TWO WHOLE MONTHS MISSING and MOST OF NOVEMBER as well.

Do you read what cite, or you only read the top paragraph of an article or the headlines?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Erinsama In reply to OnlyTheGhosts [2020-01-17 07:16:39 +0000 UTC]

For being a text-conscious person, you are incredibly good at ignoring the fact that it's explicitly indicated that the list "includes non-bushfire offence such as property damage or arson" and 1/3 of the actions concern cases in which no fire has broken out.....

If only you used half the energy you waste in denying reality to trying to help the planet...
 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

OnlyTheGhosts In reply to Erinsama [2020-01-17 11:22:03 +0000 UTC]

For being a text conscious person, you're incredibly good at ignoring humans starting fires still counts as HUMANS STARTING FIRES

If you spent a bit more brain energy, you might realise that's an enormous difference from claiming it's natural causes.

If you spend a little more too, you might see how absurd it is for the AFP to claim to have statistics from states such as Victoria - WHO SIMPLY IGNORED THEM.

Newsflash for you: the AFP doesn't tell the state police forces what to do, and they have no legal requirement to report a damn thing to them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Username-91 In reply to ??? [2020-01-16 18:46:29 +0000 UTC]

The current fire in Australia has affected an area of 1.5 million hectares and threatens to destroy homes and suburbs. There is a satellite image showing how the whole of Australia is burning. Only the middle of Australia is intact. I don't know how the government will handle this, but when I saw photos of the forests in Australia, I shivered. It looks like an apocalypse.

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

aenid31 In reply to ??? [2020-01-16 17:55:43 +0000 UTC]

I am sorry that you Aussies have been 'frogs in a warm simmering pot that is now boiling' . I am even more horrified over the unimaginable pain of these animals. You all know what it's like to scald your finger on a hot pot or stove and the uncomfortableness as it heals. Imagine that pain five-fold over half of your body. I honor your sister in the work she is trying to do but the reality is that many animals saved are in unbelievable pain and will need to be euthanized. All because of careless, shortsighted greed. 

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

Lily-Ash In reply to aenid31 [2020-01-16 18:52:46 +0000 UTC]

Hidden by Commenter

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

aenid31 In reply to Lily-Ash [2020-01-16 21:19:46 +0000 UTC]

Your blurb below your dA name "There is no final truth."  Tells me or anyone that it is a waste of time to even consider an appropriate reply. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Erinsama In reply to Lily-Ash [2020-01-16 21:01:25 +0000 UTC]

The careless, shortsighted greed of the governments that prefer to secure immediate electoral consensus rather than working against polluting emissions and global warming
In few places in the world this is more obvious than in Australia

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

OnlyTheGhosts In reply to Erinsama [2020-01-16 22:01:13 +0000 UTC]

It's not due to "global warming". That claim blaming climate change all the time for everything is nothing but political opportunism.

Australian bushfires and arsonistsEverything MUST be blamed solely on "climate change" even when the same folks pushing that lie must surely know for a fact that people are starting fires.
Around 85% of bushfires are caused by humans either deliberately or accidentally starting them, according to Dr. Paul Read, co-director of the National Centre for Research in Bushfire and Arson. Australian Police are now working on the premise that arson is to blame for much of the desolation.
Blaming "climate change" is nothing more than political opportunism.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-22/bushfire-arson-warning-ahead-of-school-holidays/11528192
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-20/bushfire-ignition-source-how-we-know/11701132
https://www.9news.com.au/national/bushfire-arson-why-do-people-deliberately-light-bushfires-blaze-australia-news/ac1ddad5-73a1-4319-994a-3109547756f6
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/top-cop-blames-children-arsonists-for-starting-quee

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Erinsama In reply to OnlyTheGhosts [2020-01-17 01:19:06 +0000 UTC]

The cause of the duration, extent and severity of the fires, at their highest ever recorded, is the global warming
(An explanatory chart that the page you linked have been careful not to show  -> i.postimg.cc/xdcWfvqF/121.jpg )

What is most atrocious is that even with the reality of the facts literally in front of your eyes,with the sky tinged with flames
and ashes in the air, you persist in denying it by inventing conspiracies and manipulating data
You are like those who, in the twentieth century, tried to convince the public that there was no connection at all between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

OnlyTheGhosts In reply to Erinsama [2020-01-17 01:47:20 +0000 UTC]

That statement is false, and the BoM was exposed multiple times playing silly buggers with their own alleged data
wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/10…
joannenova.com.au/2019/10/the-…
joannenova.com.au/2019/10/the-…

as if history could be revised by the BoM on their whim, but in reality, you can't hide the past;



What is most atrocious is that such fraud by lying agencies continues even when it's easily exposed to the world that they're lying. For example the bullshit from the NOAA claiming spectacular temperatures in places where they didn't have any data;


These government agencies manipulate past temperature data versus current, lowering the past temperatures to make it appear that current temperatures are higher;


and the claims of doomsdays from computer models that always fail - according to peer reviewed scientific studies;

The following are peer reviewed scientific sources, and they refute what the climate hysterics types keep claiming;

Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model
(Science Bulletin, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp. 122-135, January 2015)
- Christopher Monckton, Willie H. Soon, David R. Legates, William M. Briggs

Shortcomings of CO2-climate models raise questions about the wisdom of energy policy implications
(Applied Energy, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp. 53-57, 1984)
- Sherwood B. Idso

An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK's Hadley Centre
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
- Richard S. Courtney

Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles (PDF )
(Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 126, pp. 321-357, November 2013)
- Nicola Scafetta

ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite validation versus TSI proxy models
(Astrophysics and Space Science, 2014)
- Nicola Scafetta, Richard C. Willson

Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?
(Journal of Economic Literature, Volume 51, Number 3, pp. 860-872, September 2013)
- Robert S. Pindyck

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF )
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Number 13, July 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models (PDF )
(Social Studies of Science, Volume 35, Number 6, pp. 895-922, December 2005)
- Myanna Lahsen

Temperature Estimates from Models and Observations
(Energy & Environment, Volume 22, Number 8, pp. 1059-1068, December 2011)
- Philip Symmons

Perhaps if you looked that PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE itself, instead of just "believing" without investigating, you wouldn't appear to be quite the arrogant and wilful fool that you have now shown yourself to be.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Erinsama In reply to OnlyTheGhosts [2020-01-17 02:21:00 +0000 UTC]

Your study of 1984 (very guessed as a date) convinced me 

Congratulations on having collected  the worldwide research against global warming, it remains only the 98% of the studies and the scientific community of the world that agrees on the danger
  www.pnas.org/content/early/201… 

History always repeats itself, it is rather demeaning to see.. could be tar in cigarettes, DDT in fields, chlorine fluorine carbides in the cans, asbestos in buildings.... there are always those who deny the evidence, and the more overwhelming the evidence becomes, the more the scientific community expresses itself unanimously, the more vehement they become in denial, believing that they are "the only ones who are not fooled"

If the belief begins to spread, in your conspiracy sites, that car exhaust smoke is good for your health (a couple of links are enough to prove it),  I have no doubt that you will go to sleep in the garage with the car engine running....  that's roughly what the Australian government is doing, on a larger scale

👍: 1 ⏩: 2

OnlyTheGhosts In reply to Erinsama [2020-01-17 02:58:01 +0000 UTC]

Since you don't understand the details or couldn't be bothered checking links, I'll explain it for you.

Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, when asked if the debate on climate change is over, told the BBC, “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view.”

Richard Tol, one of the lead authors of the United Nations’ IPCC reports, says the study by Cook et al. claiming 97 percent of peer-reviewed studies on climate agree “humans are causing global warming” is riddled with procedural errors.

There are over 30,000 scientists who have signed the petition project against this AGW alarmism propaganda. Look up the Petition Project, it's been online for years.

The IPCC won't commit to a best estimate of climate sensitivity as there is no consensus between participants: they admit this fact, so why don't you know about it?

Naomi Oreskes wrote an essay for the journal 'Science' alleging that (based on a keyword search of 928 papers) that 75% supported the cataclysmic global warming view. Oreskes’ claim was immediately debunked by scores of scientists pointing to their own papers published in peer-reviewed journals that directly contradict the claim of man-made global warming. Benny Peiser attempted to replicate Oreskes’ findings and found only one-third of the papers endorsed the alarmist view and only 1% did so explicitly. In 2008, Klaus-Martin Schulte used the same database and search terms as Oreskes to examine papers published from 2004 to February 2007 and found fewer than half endorsed AGW alarmist view, and only 7% did so explicitly. Either way, Oreskes' essay conclusions have been thoroughly debunked.

Doran and Zimmerman in 2009, published in 'EOS' claiming that "97%" of climate scientists agreed that global temperatures have risen since the 1800s, and that humans are a contributing factor. The problems with this paper are numerous, and again it's been debunked thoroughly. Apart from the vague generality of the survey question and the responses being misrepresented, the survey itself wasn't scientifically valid. The survey asked the wrong questions, was silent on whether or not the human impact was large enough to constitute a problem, and the conclusions misrepresented the result of the response. The survey question was sent to tens of thousands of climate scientists, of which only 3,146 responded; Doran and Zimmerman then cherrypicked 79 of the 3,146, claiming that because 77 of those 79 agreed with the statement, that it represented 97% agreement. That's like having an election but only allowing those voters who already agree with you to be able to take part. Dodgy, very dodgy stuff.

2010, William R. Love Anderegg (then a student at Stanford University) used Google Scholar to cherrypick just 200 scientists for their views on climate change. 'Anderegg et al' published in the 'Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences' again using the "97%" claim. There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be, and cherrypicking only 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends claimed to have reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011, publishing his findings in 'Environmental Research Letters'. Funny how that 97 magic number keeps popping up, but yet again, Cook claimed that "97%" of those papers explicitly (or implicitly) suggest that human activity is responsible for 'some' warming. Cook's paper was rapidly debunked as well, and extremely thoroughly. David R Legates (former director of the University of Delaware's Center for Climatic Research) along with 3 co-authors reviewed the same papers as Cook did. Legates and his co-authors found that only 0.3% (not the 97% that Cook had claimed) endorsed the AGW alarmist view that human activity was causing most of the global warming. Furthermore, many other climate scientists later came forward to protest that Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

The IPCC claims to speak for 2,500 scientists, but only lists 41 authors and editors for relevant chapter of their 5th Report. What of the other experts? What of their views? Some of the scientists listed by the IPCC as supporting their report's conclusions came out publicly and contradicted the IPCC, protesting even that they were misrepresented. The IPCC has engaged in such crooked misrepresentations of scientists views before; they did so with their 4th report as well.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose or disagree with the alleged "consensus".

The Petition Project lists 31,000+ scientists who are sceptical of the AGW alarmist claims.

I can cite around 1,000+ peer reviewed studies refuting your bullshit with absolute ease. I know more about the subject than you do.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

OnlyTheGhosts In reply to Erinsama [2020-01-17 02:47:06 +0000 UTC]

Funny, I didn't cite only one study.

DDT, and other poisons still don't affect climate.

If you keep trying to hide behind your failed bullshit with the insult of "conspiracy sites" while I cite peer reviewed studies as well, I suggest that you need to get that brain function of yours repaired.

Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF ) (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF ) (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF ) (August 2013)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)
Competitive Enterprise Institute - Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance - Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
National Center for Policy Analysis - The Big Lie of the "Consensus View" on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research - Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International - Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
Australian Climate Madness - 'Get at the truth, and not fool yourself' (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill - 'Landmark consensus study' is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
JoNova - Cook's fallacy "97% consensus" study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova - That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova - "Honey, I shrunk the consensus" - Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNova - John Cook's consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova - Uni Queensland defends legal threats over "climate" data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNova - Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)

The evidence is overwhelmingly against this false claim of "vast majority" - but you're going to just double-down in your wilful denials because admitting that you've been fooled by lying authorities is too much for your ego to handle. These days the majority of people can also verify a lot more news and science for themselves. There are many sources for comparison. We can think. We are not limited to a few newspapers, a few TV networks, which are all owned by only a very few rich people whose interests are best served by pandering to the same agenda as the political authorities which they helped to get elected. We have choices now that we didn't have before. People have learned that almost everything which they were taught in the western nations is filled with propaganda, distortions about history, and continued lies in the corporate media. We no longer are limited to information fed to us through the eye of a needle selected only by self-proclaimed "authorities" that have lied to us throughout all of our lives, we can check and learn and think for ourselves.

About time you started to learn to think for yourself.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Erinsama In reply to OnlyTheGhosts [2020-01-17 06:36:38 +0000 UTC]

Look, I could play the game and spend the rest of the day posting hundreds of thousands of articles and documents that prove global warming (NASA has just made a very nice explanatory video), but it is clear that it would be of no use, the only thing that interests you is to continue living in your bubble and read the only few things which confirm what you have decided to be true, to follow your egolatric claim of being "the one who is not fooled by The System"
 
Rather, I refer you to a sketch that perfectly describes you and your attitude; who knows, maybe it will lead to an epiphany
www.youtube.com/watch?v=77GGn-…

It would not be a big problem, in reality, if this attitude was not pushing the world towards disaster, of which Australia has just had a preview

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

vanndra In reply to Erinsama [2020-01-20 04:41:12 +0000 UTC]

Your art is beautiful and also really heartbreaking. It so represents the tragedy of these dear creatures and so many more.

I really wouldn't waste any more of your breath, time or thoughts on people like this. They live in their own little realities and are despised by most intelligent, thinking people. Sounds like someone with many anger issues

Oh and BTW, I recently posted an AUSTRALIAN article by ABC Australia which states that only 1% of fires were started by arsonists. This was in response to a reasonable query where an american newspaper was making a big issue about arsonists. Not sure where this writer get's their info. Couldn't be bothered to read their false propaganda

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

OnlyTheGhosts In reply to Erinsama [2020-01-17 12:48:04 +0000 UTC]

Idiots such as you are the real problem
How bureaucrats and climate activists worsen firesLocal council restrictions make the back-burning and hazard-reduction burning of land nearly impossible in Australia. This is a major reason why the bushfires became worse this southern hemisphere summer, and why this is one of the worse bushfire seasons in years.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

OnlyTheGhosts In reply to Erinsama [2020-01-17 11:26:24 +0000 UTC]

Lovely video, it's not science though, it's your poor attempt at derailing discussion.

In reality, there is no fucking disaster. I debunked that doomsday-is-coming crap already; www.deviantart.com/comments/1/…

The climate models all fail, and those climate models are the only thing upon which the claims of some end of the world scenario is based on.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Digitiel In reply to ??? [2020-01-16 17:51:58 +0000 UTC]

Nice but looks like you couldn't decide if the green leaves are growing from the tree or from the animal.

👍: 1 ⏩: 1

GrimBeans In reply to Digitiel [2020-01-16 18:43:18 +0000 UTC]

I think in such a context as this they are one and the same.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Digitiel In reply to GrimBeans [2020-01-16 19:34:33 +0000 UTC]

Maybe  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pinky15780 In reply to ??? [2020-01-16 11:33:08 +0000 UTC]

I love that our Australian koala it is so cute
🐨💕💗🏵

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

SabreTigress In reply to ??? [2020-01-16 08:21:08 +0000 UTC]

aww omg

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

Selene027 In reply to ??? [2020-01-16 07:55:02 +0000 UTC]

I donated also but the images are awfull :,(

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

YOVIGAMER In reply to ??? [2020-01-16 06:11:23 +0000 UTC]

This artwork is very well done but referred to a horrible situation that animals and people are going through now, I hope it ends soon.

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

ganellajay In reply to ??? [2020-01-16 04:40:01 +0000 UTC]

Gorgeous painting already donated. Such a horrific thing to happen

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

HaloLune In reply to ??? [2020-01-16 03:39:56 +0000 UTC]

I donated some money earlier. Its horrifying this is hapening :S

👍: 1 ⏩: 0