The Worst Thing About Nuclear War Wouldn’t Be The Tens Of Millions Killed But How It Would Affect ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach March 13, 2022 – 8:31 am

This is the type of piece you get when a doomsday cult is in charge: their first thought is “how does this affect the climate?” With a side of Trump Derangement Syndrome

From the screed

When we talk about what causes climate change, we usually talk about oil and gas, coal and cars, and—just generally—energy policy. There’s a good reason for this. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which enters the atmosphere, warms the climate, and … you know the drill. The more fossil fuels you burn, the worse climate change gets. That’s why, a couple of years ago, I spent a lot of time covering the Trump administration’s attempt to weaken the country’s fuel-economy standards. It was an awful policy, one that would have led to more oil consumption for decades to come. If pressed, I would have said that it had a single-digit-percentage chance of creating an uninhabitable climate system.

Don’t you just love how “reporters” make personal judgements, rather than just writing the news?

Since Russia invaded Ukraine two weeks ago, that threat has become a lot more real: Many Americans, including artists, climate-concerned progressives, and even a few lawmakers, have come out in support of a “no-fly zone.” But despite its euphemistic name, a no-fly zone means that NATO and the United States issue a credible threat that they will shoot down any enemy plane in Ukrainian territory. This would require U.S. bombing runs into Russian territory to eliminate air defenses, bringing the U.S. and Russia into open war, and it would have a reasonable chance of prompting a nuclear exchange. And it would be worse for the climate than any energy policy that Donald Trump ever proposed.

Oh, artists and climate concerned progressives! And, more Trump Derangement Syndrome

I mean this quite literally. If you are worried about rapid, catastrophic changes to the planet’s climate, then you must be worried about nuclear war. That is because, on top of killing tens of millions of people, even a relatively “minor” exchange of nuclear weapons would wreck the planet’s climate in enormous and long-lasting ways.

I mean, tens of millions killed right off, and, don’t forget all the later problems to people with radiation, but, that’s chump change compared to what could happen to the climate!

The hot, dry, hurricane-force winds would act like a supercharged version of California’s Santa Ana winds, which have triggered some of the state’s worst wildfires. Even in a small war, that would happen at dozens of places around the planet, igniting urban and wildland forest fires as large as small states. A 2007 study estimated that if 100 small nuclear weapons were detonated, a number equal to only 0.03 percent of the planet’s total arsenal, the number of “direct fatalities due to fire and smoke would be comparable to those worldwide in World War II.” Towering clouds would carry more than five megatons of soot and ash from these fires high into the atmosphere.

All this carbon would transform the climate, shielding it from the sun’s heat. Within months, the planet’s average temperature would fall by more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit; some amount of this cooling would persist for more than a decade. But far from reversing climate change, this cooling would be destabilizing. It would reduce global precipitation by about 10 percent, inducing global drought conditions. In parts of North America and Europe, the growing season would shorten by 10 to 20 days.

You mean nuclear winter? A term we’ve heard since not long after the nuclear bomb was used, and became a term in the 1980’s? Anyhow, because this is a cult, all that soot and ash, much of which used to be humans, is now “carbon”. Cult. And then there would be a “global food crisis”, a cute leftist catchall term, which really just means starvation.

The cult freakout continues on, ending with

The worst fears of that era, thankfully, never came to pass. Or at least, they haven’t happened yet. It is up to us to make sure that they don’t.

By worst fears, the Atlantic means anthropogenic climate change. Nuclear war is secondary.

Read: The Worst Thing About Nuclear War Wouldn’t Be The Tens Of Millions Killed But How It Would Affect ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Current Affairs, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

LA Times: EVs Are Perfect, But, Drivers Are Glad They Paid Through The Nose For Them

By William Teach March 12, 2022 – 3:00 pm

Buying an EV is like buying a premium vehicle. You could have gotten an Accord, Camry, CRV, RAV4, etc, but, instead, you got a BMW X5, a Range Rover, a Jaguar. You wanted to save money on gas, but, bought an Audi A4 instead of an Accord. It’s a choice. Because some people can afford one. Spending $10k, $20K, etc on a vehicle doesn’t save you money. But, they’re sure smug about themselves

Opinion: Electric cars aren’t perfect, but we EV drivers are glad to have one now

electric vehicleIf you’re paying for gasoline right now, you probably don’t want to hear from smug electric car drivers — but I am one of those people, so please accept my apologies at the outset. We’re the ones who were surprised by fuel prices (if we happened to notice them driving past a gas station) long before most people began paying $5 or $6 per gallon for the stuff.

Of course, electric cars are not the solution to climate change and any number of woes they’re often made out to be. They too exact an environmental toll and perpetuate all the problems of car culture, minus the local emissions. But they are undeniably less awful for the world than internal-combustion vehicles — and they are plainly better cars, as any EV driver can tell you. All this was true before the recent spike in gas prices.

Wait, they aren’t a solution to ‘climate change’? It almost seems like the Elites want to force us out of privately owned vehicles. And, yes, all the mining is bad for the actual environment.

To the editor: Now is the time to purchase an electric vehicle. Between climate change, high fuel costs and dependence on foreign oil, most drivers can make the move painlessly.

If you are a two-car household, replace your gas guzzler with an electric car. Use your EV for all close-range driving, and save your gas car for long trips. You will be shocked at how much you will save without auto repairs and gas consumption.

I purchased an EV nine years ago. Since then, my second gas vehicle has averaged 3,000 miles a year.

Wait, what? The writer is saying that EVs are bad for long trips? That they’re only good for around town? That’s not much of an endorsement.

To the editor: As a recent college graduate, one of the things on my to-do list is choosing my first car. In the past, this would have been a relatively simple task, but as I researched recent car prices and maintenance costs, I was shocked. (snip)

Electric vehicles are not subject to the same price fluctuations on oil. On average it takes between $10 and $45 to fuel your electric car at a power station, versus roughly $150 to fill some gas-powered cars now. Are we going to wait to switch to EVs as the war drags on and prices rise to $8, $9, $10 per gallon?

Electric vehicles are the answer now and tomorrow.

Except, the letter writer doesn’t seem to have purchased any vehicle, including an EV. Here’s another piece from the LA Times

Ariana Escalante, 34, owns a marketing and video production company called Vydeomedia.com. Transportation: Tesla Model 3 long range.

I think just the experience of getting gas has always felt a little yucky, a little dirty. It smells bad and sometimes it drips on your shoes. I was like, “Oh, you know what? I don’t think I would miss that.” I thought that Tesla was totally inaccessible. And I’m just like a regular working-class person, but then when I actually looked at the cost comparisons, it made tons of sense.

If it’s dripping on your shoes you’re doing it wrong.

So, I decided to buy one new. I put in my deposit in November and I got delivery of the car in February. My car gets 358 miles on a charge. I think the Hyundai Sonata I drove for 10 years was around 360 or 370 miles per tank. So, almost an exact match.

That Tesla 3 costs around $51K. A Sonata SEL, almost the top end, costs $32K. Are you going to save $19K? That’s roughly 4500 gallons of gas at $4.20. If you plan to keep it long enough to drive 138K miles, you’ve hit the break-even point. Not accounting for the cost of charging the Tesla.

By the way, insuring an EV is also more expensive, anywhere from 15% to 23% higher than a regular vehicle. But, look, if you want one, get one. That’s your choice. Like buying a Range Rover over a Highlander. But, they won’t save you money.

Read: LA Times: EVs Are Perfect, But, Drivers Are Glad They Paid Through The Nose For Them »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 12, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is mountain living to avoid the coming sea rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on Angry Biden lashing out.

Doubleshot below the fold, check out Moonbattery, with a post on Democrats preferring to flee the U.S. than defend it.

And a thirdshot, because I downloaded a bunch of Asian photos for this week (I could add about 4 more links, that’s how the folder gets full up), check out MOTUS A.D., with a throwback to the Carter era.

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Good Grief: White House Holds Briefings With TikTok “Influencers”

By William Teach March 12, 2022 – 10:30 am

Brandon’s people probably enjoy that the “Influencers” will not ask inconvenient question, but, then, how many in the White House press pool ask hard questions, other than Peter Doocy?

White House Briefed TikTok Influencers on Ukraine: ‘A Press Briefing for Kindergartners’

The White House on Thursday held a special briefing for 30 TikTok influencers on Ukraine, in the Biden administration’s apparent continuing attempt to use the platform and its young users to get out its message.

The Washington Post reported on Friday that the White House gathered the TikTok users to “receive key information” about the war in Ukraine.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki and National Security Council staffers briefed them about the U.S.’s “strategic goals in the region” and answered questions on distributing aid to Ukrainians, working with NATO, and how the U.S. would react if Russia used nuclear weapons, according to the report.

Cool, using the Chinese owned Tiktok to push their talking points. Here’s one of the “influencers”

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1502373534193967105

It’s amazing to me that people tune in for this stuff. In fairness, more people seem to check in there than places like CNN

Some influencers told the Post after the call that they felt more “empowered to debunk misinformation and communicate effectively about the crisis.” TikTok said Thursday it would be labeling state-controlled media on its platform.

One of the influencers on the call, Ukrainian-born journalist Jules Suzdaltsev, said the overall tone of the briefing was too soft and that officials dodged hard questions.

“The energy of the call felt like a press briefing for kindergartners,” he told the Post.

It was. And Brandon officials typically dodge questions, especially Jen Psaki. From the Washington Post piece

The invitations to the event were distributed Tuesday and Wednesday. Kahlil Greene, 21, a creator with more than 534,000 followers on TikTok, said he wasn’t surprised when an invitation arrived in his email inbox. “People in my generation get all our information from TikTok,” he said. “It’s the first place we’re searching up new topics and learning about things.” So, he figured, it made sense that the Biden administration would engage people like him on the platform.

I mean, he has a point (between lots of his racial videos): the young are getting their “news” there, and, really, is it that much worse than the regular news outlets? There have been some great videos of the things actually happening in Ukraine. If these “content creators” (which means speaking into your phone from your living room, typically about subjects they have no idea about) are going to do this, they need to toughen up and ask hard questions en masse. Don’t let politicians gaslight them.

Read: Good Grief: White House Holds Briefings With TikTok “Influencers” »

Posted in Joe Biden, Web/Tech | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Moms Are A Growing Force In Climate Cult Activism Or Something

By William Teach March 12, 2022 – 7:00 am

Wait, doesn’t the climate cult tell us that having kids is Bad for ‘climate change’? What this is really about is attempting to create an “absolute moral authority” moment

A growing force in the climate movement: Moms

Many of you write to us and tell us about your feelings of powerlessness in the face of a global climate catastrophe (LOL). That sentiment is giving rise to a small but potentially potent force in the climate movement: moms, who have been catapulted into action by the hazards facing their children.

In Brooklyn, moms are taking aim at the world’s biggest asset manager, BlackRock. (but, not giving up their own big carbon footprints)

In Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Denver, moms are pushing lawmakers in Congress for climate legislation. (failing to understand that it will take their money and freedom)

In London, Lahore and Delhi, moms are pushing their governments to clean up the air from the very pollutants that warm the planet. (CO2 is not a pollutant. Granted, fossil fueled vehicles can create smog)

Chandra Bocci, mother of a 4-year-old in Brooklyn, summed up her motivation this way: “I want to be able to say to my kid, ‘We’re trying to do something.’” (OK, make your own life carbon neutral, rather than forcing your Beliefs on Everyone Else)

I’ll let you in on a little blogging secret: when it comes to certain articles, I do not necessarily know where it’s going, just a guess. I read the headline and the blurb at news sites, and it points me. I may not have read more than a paragraph or two before starting the post, because I typically know where this will go, after doing this for 17 years, and reading news articles, online and in the newspapers, for most of my life. I have a good grasp what the news is trying to do. And sometimes I read the whole thing first. This time? Just the headline and blurb. When I wrote at the beginning about absolute moral authority I thought the NY Times would be more circumspect. Nope

Of course, many climate groups have long been led by women who happen to be mothers. But what I’m referring to here are groups that deliberately deploy mom moral authority. Grief and rage drive them and, as Bocci put it, “a desperation as moms of young kids.”

So, see, because they’re Moms, you must Do As They Say. Period. Go to your room. Do the dishes. Brush your teeth. Give your money and freedom to government.

Thing is, moms are never just moms. Some are climate scientists who call themselves Science Moms, and who have created tip sheets and online videos to help others grasp the science. “As scientists and moms, we want to provide other moms the climate change information and the resources they need,” said Melissa Burt, an atmospheric scientist at Colorado State University and a co-founder the group. “Moms are worried, overwhelmed and anxious about the climate crisis, and the way to push through the anxiety is by taking action.”

Because they’ve joined a cult you must practice what they preach.

Several of the members of Sunrise Kids said they felt consumed by the climate crisis once they became parents. They found individual action, like composting, to be inadequate. They turned to each other to take on what Fontes, mother of a 2-year-old and another due soon, called “the levers of power.”

“We are a mostly white, middle to upper class group based in Brooklyn,” she said. “This is a constituency that has access to power and resources and has a responsibility to take action.”

Who’s surprised?

Read: Moms Are A Growing Force In Climate Cult Activism Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Bad News For Brandon: Poll Shows Economy Is Most Important Issue

By William Teach March 12, 2022 – 6:45 am

Perhaps a lot of these people should have thought of that in 2020, considering how bad it is right now, and getting worse

Poll: Economy Top Issue for Voters Heading into the Midterm Elections

The economy remains the top issue for voters heading into the midterm elections, a Redfield & Wilton Strategies survey released this week found.

They survey, taken March 8 among 1,500 eligible U.S. voters, asked respondents to identify which issues are most likely to determine how they will vote in the November 8, 2022, midterm elections. The survey, allowing respondents to choose three answers, found the economy topping the list, as 61 percent chose that issue. Healthcare came in a distant second with 34 percent, followed by the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, which saw 26 percent. Immigration followed closely behind with 24 percent identifying it as a top issue. 

Notably, the top issue for both Biden voters and Trump voters is the economy. Fifty-eight percent of Biden voters, specifically, identified the economy as their top issue, followed by healthcare (42 percent) and the coronavirus pandemic (33 percent).  

Meanwhile, 72 percent of Trump voters identified the economy as the top issue, followed by immigration (40 percent), and healthcare (27 percent). 

Notably, the survey showed a plurality disapproving of Biden’s handling of the economy, 43 percent disapproving to 35 percent who approve. Of those who disapprove, 30 percent do so “strongly.”

In fairness, this is eligible voters, which isn’t even “likely voters”. The thing to consider at this point, with the midterms 8 months away, is “what happens if the economy gets a bit better?” Will people, particularly the Independents, remember how bad things were? Will the economy get worse? Will it stay in the same doldrums? The economy would have to skyrocket to make people forget, would be my thought.

Of course, since Democrats have worked hard to damage the energy industry, the cost of energy will stay elevated, which will drive the cost of food and goods.

Americans will likely see “uncomfortably high” inflation this year, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen says

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned there could be another year of high inflation amid the uncertainty caused by the invasion of Ukraine. Prices have soared at their fastest pace in 40 years over the last 12 months.

“We’re likely to see another year in which 12-month inflation numbers remain very uncomfortably high,” Yellen said in an interview with CNBC. Yellen, who previously said she expected rising prices to ease in the second half of the year, said Thursday she does not want to make a prediction about the second half of this year.

The latest data from the Labor Department show consumer prices climbed 7.9% in February from a year ago, the largest annual increase since January 1982. Prices were up 0.8% last month, an acceleration from January as energy prices spiked with the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

They can blame this on Ukraine all they want, but, people aren’t dumb…well, I mean, hardcore Democrats are…, they will remember that the economy was not great prior to Ukraine, and polling has also shown that Biden did a pisspoor job on Ukraine. And, if Yellen is saying this, it’s probably going to be worse than she’s saying.

Read: Bad News For Brandon: Poll Shows Economy Is Most Important Issue »

Posted in Democrats, Economy, Joe Biden | Comments Off on Bad News For Brandon: Poll Shows Economy Is Most Important Issue | Trackback URL

Climate Today: Warmists Refuse To Date Skeptics On OKCupid, Plus EVs And White Pavement

By William Teach March 11, 2022 – 3:00 pm

Cult members refusing to date non-cult members. It’s a cult

Climate change is biggest ‘dealbreaker’ on popular dating app

Opinions surrounding climate change are the biggest “dealbreaker” out of several topics when it comes to finding a match on the popular dating app OKCupid, new data from the company shows.

Among 250,000 users surveyed worldwide over the past year, OKCupid found that 90 percent of daters said that it’s “important” for their match to care about climate change.

Meanwhile, among 6 million users surveyed over the past three years, 81 percent of daters said they were “concerned” about climate change — topping other potential dealbreaker issues like gender equality and gun control.

“We have just seen over time, climate change being more and more this huge topic for our millennials daters especially,” Jane Reynolds, director of product marketing at OKCupid, told The Hill. “People feel that with climate change, it says so much more about you — if that’s something that you believe in and are concerned about.”

I’ll be honest, I’m not sure I’d want to date a climate cult member, either, because they’d be Very Silly in their talking points, while I’d be constantly pointing out that they’re climahypocrites

Filling a gas-powered vehicle can still be cheaper than charging an electric one

…

According to the EPA, the national average for a kilowatt-hour of electricity is 13 cents, including at homes where most electric car owners charge their vehicles with 240-volt Level 2 chargers that typically take eight hours or more to fill them up. Many of these are also available in public settings like office and shopping center parking lots, where they are known as destination chargers.

Things are much different at the Level 3 public DC fast-charging stations that allow some electric vehicles to recharge to 80% as quickly as 18 to 40 minutes, depending on the model and station speed, and are seen by some as the silver bullet that will make owning an electric car as convenient as a gas-powered one. Much of Tesla’s success is attributed to its decision to roll out its proprietary network of Supercharger fast charging stations to support its owners.

On the Electrify America network that’s compatible with all electric vehicles, fast-charge rates are as high as 43 cents per kilowatt-hour in some states, including California, New York, Florida and Washington. The price can be reduced to 31 cents by enrolling in a membership with a monthly fee. (snip)

At the higher rate, charging the entry-level version of the Ford Mustang Mach-E — which has a starting price of $37,495 after federal tax credits are deducted and a range of 247 miles between charges — would cost $2,100 annually for 15,000 miles of driving, compared to $1,500 at 31 cents and just $650 in an average home. (in Reality Tax Land, you cannot just deduct federal tax credits like that.)

In contrast, a similarly sized Ford Escape Hybrid that starts at $32,780 and gets 41 mpg needs just $1,550 worth of gas each year to fill up at $4.25 per gallon, and it’s $2,100 for a nonhybrid $27,755 Escape S rated at 30 mpg. In California, which has the highest priced gasoline at $5.57 per gallon, those costs would be $2,050 and $2,800.

So, you don’t really save, especially when considering the price of the vehicles.

Q&A: Randolph Kirchain on how cool pavements can mitigate climate change
MIT research scientist explores how cool pavements can offer climate change solutions in more than just the summer.

As cities search for climate change solutions, many have turned to one burgeoning technology: cool pavements. By reflecting a greater proportion of solar radiation, cool pavements can offer an array of climate change mitigation benefits, from direct radiative forcing to reduced building energy demand.

Yet, scientists from the MIT Concrete Sustainability Hub (CSHub) have found that cool pavements are not just a summertime solution. Here, Randolph Kirchain, a principal research scientist at CSHub, discusses how implementing cool pavements can offer myriad greenhouse gas reductions in cities — some of which occur even in the winter.

Let me note that this is actually a very good idea. Also, that this shows the Urban Heat Island effect, not global warming

Read: Climate Today: Warmists Refuse To Date Skeptics On OKCupid, Plus EVs And White Pavement »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 37 Comments | Trackback URL

If All I See…

By William Teach March 11, 2022 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle which should be replaced with an EV, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Flopping Aces, with a post on Russia being the wrong enemy in wrong time in wrong place.

Read: If All I See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

After Scuttling Early Measures, Biden To Sort Of Revoke Russia’s Favored Nation Status

By William Teach March 11, 2022 – 10:30 am

Did he tell Congress he plans to announce this today? Did they get a heads up? Because they’re rather necessary in this whole scheme

Biden to announce Friday that US will move to revoke ‘most favored nation’ status for Russia

Biden Brain SuckerPresident Joe Biden will announce Friday that the US, along with the G7 and European Union, will call for revoking “most favored nation” status for Russia, referred to as permanent normal trade relations in the US, sources familiar with the move tell CNN.

The move requires an act of Congress.

Each country is expected to implement this measure based on its own national processes. The sources made note of congressional efforts to revoke Russia’s permanent normal trade relations.

Biden will make the announcement Friday and Congress then is expected to introduce legislation.

I wonder if Pelosi was aware of this? Is there legislation to do this? I would suspect it wouldn’t be hard, just a quick line “Russia is removed from most favored nation status”, but, knowing Congress, will it require a whole bunch of extra words? Will they throw in a bunch of unrelated BS?

CNN reported earlier Thursday that bipartisan talks in the Senate had been taking shape to take more aggressive action on Russia’s trade status — after the White House effectively watered down the House-passed bill banning importing Russian oil, natural gas and coal into the US.

The earlier version of the legislation had included a provision that would suspend permanent normal trade relations for Russia and Belarus. But the White House expressed concerns over that part of the bill, and ultimately it was excised. The bill banning Russian energy imports that passed the House Wednesday night instead simply called for a review of Russia’s status in the World Trade Organization.

So, wait, Biden scuttled the stronger measures, and, now wants a measure than is even strong than what was in the House bill? This rather looks like Joe is attempting to be Mr. Big Shot and attempt to Look Strong.

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden, a Democrat of Oregon, told CNN that he was engaging in talks with the top tax writers in Congress and the Biden administration about the matter, as pressure grew to include tougher language in the House bill when the Senate takes it up — as soon as next week.

But, would the language remove Russia from most favored nation status? Will that be added? How long will it take to get this through the Senate? Especially since many Republicans say they won’t vote for the bill if it doesn’t include stronger measures? And then it will have to go back to the House, then back to the Senate.

Who thinks that no one in Congress has considered simply trotting out a simple, one line bill removing Russia from the status today, getting a quick vote in the House, then running it over to the Senate for a quick vote? Then off to Biden’s desk….which could be a problem, since he’s going to Philadelphia for a Democratic caucus conference, then touring a school, then off to Camp David to relax over the weekend. All using lots of fossil fuels in planes and vehicles that are not electric. Not even hybrid.

Read: After Scuttling Early Measures, Biden To Sort Of Revoke Russia’s Favored Nation Status »

Posted in Current Affairs, Joe Biden | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

The War In Ukraine Is Just So Inconvenient For Solving ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach March 11, 2022 – 7:15 am

All those people getting slaughtered is just so bothersome when the climate cult has to Get Things Done

War in Ukraine complicates war on climate change

A ban on Russian oil, which accounted for about 10 percent of the global supply, has caused the price of oil to climb, leading to pain at the pump, volatile financial markets and a call for increased oil production outside of Russia.

The war, which Biden seemed to triple dog dare to start, just spiked it further

Those calls come at a time when scientists say our window to reduce emissions from oil and other energy sources is rapidly closing shut. Can world leaders shore up oil supplies while making progress on climate change?

“What we’re hearing is governments focusing very urgently on this short term need, but they’re also being clear that this is going to happen at the same time as a longer term transition to clean energy,” said Lisa Friedman, a reporter on the New York Times climate desk.

What do citizens say? The spiking cost of gas, which will cause the price of food and other goods to spike, won’t effect those Elites who are trying to jam the climate scam policies down the throats of the little people. The People are getting a good look at what the policies would do to their lives, though, if fossil fuels are reduced and eliminated without anything viable to replace it.

This is what the Elites think. They are divorced from reality.

Read: The War In Ukraine Is Just So Inconvenient For Solving ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove