All posts in category Global Warming

Achieving a 90% reduction in Greenhouse Gases

  How soon will the following statements be made to make this goal seem achievable?

“We need to urgently switch to 80% nuclear power, like the French.”

“On your bike!”

“Frozen and chilled food should be banned.”

“Households should switch from gas to electric, despite it being considerably more expensive”

“Heating should be rationed. No thermostats above 20oC. Also “There is no real evidence that it is the winter cold that causes the mortality rates among the elderly to leap.”

“People should not live more than 3 miles from their place of work. Subsidies should be given to people to move nearer”

“People with foreign relatives and friends should only see them via video link” or “it is not racist to say that it is alright to pay a weekly visit to elderly parents who live 5 miles away, but not alright to pay an annual visit to elderly parents who live 5000 miles away.”

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/09/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 09/09/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/09/09/achieving-a-90-reduction-in-greenhouse-gases/

Douglas Carswell on Ian Pilmer’s Heaven & Earth

Like Douglas Carswell MP, I too ordered Pilmer’s Heaven & Earth following the Spectator’s article, and, like him, am only half way through.

 

At the half-way point Carswell point to six things he hadn’t previously known:

1.  Over the past million years, way before industrial man came along, the climate has often changed very significantly, very quickly.

2.  When climate changes, the shift is from being warm and wet to cold and dry.  Or vice-versa.  If global temperatures are rising, it’s most likely getting wetter, not drier. 

3.  Warm-wet climates are generally better for life on earth than cold-dry climates.

4.  CO2 levels have been far, far higher in the past – yet CO2 levels in the atmosphere don’t seem to have been a significant driver of climate in the past.

5.  Human activity accounts for a relatively tiny portion of global CO2 emissions.  To quote Plimer, “One [submarine] hot spring can release far more CO2 than a 1000 mW coal-fired power station”.  There are many, many thousands of such springs.

6.  Plimer suggests that the really significant drivers of climate change are the sun, ossiclations in the earth’s orbit, and volcanic emissions of sulphur dioxide.  Indeed, the 1784 eruption of Laki in Iceland put 150 million tonnes of SO2 into the atmosphere – which wiped out crops and caused famine in the northern hemisphere for a couple of years.

 

 

The major aim of the Pilmer’s Heaven & Earth is to provide to put the human influence on climate in perspective (both in magnitude and time scale), along with the limits of what we know. For instance on p.112 Pilmer says that a 1% change in the cloud cover could account for the entire C20th warming, whilst on p.115 we find that we can only measure cloudiness to an accuracy of 1%.

The broad sweep of the book is sufficient (to reasonable people) to put on hold any new policies to combat climate change. In particular any policy trying to negate runaway global temperatures. Pilmer shows the earth has a number of powerful forces affecting climate that gives fairly wide fluctuations over millions of years, but also countervailing forces (negative feedback) that gives sufficient stability to sustain life.

 

However, those who are about to read the book should be aware of the lack of an editor. The following can criticisms can be made

–         Pilmer uses every possible criticism available. So the temperature rise of the last century could be explained by a number of factors.

–         The case for the influence of climate on human history may be over stated, but still raises questions on the current orthodoxy.

–         There are a number of errors or exaggerations, that will be used as an excuse to dismiss the book. See George Monbiot in the Guardian at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism. Some of the “errors” may be a matter of opinion, but they only counter points 4 and 5.

–          It is written in a polemical style, that may confirm the belief of the doubters, but will not gain many converts from the AGW true believers. It is repetitive, introduces new topics at random and gives too many, poorly supported, examples.

 

On the evidence to page 223, there is scope at least for a second edition. More plausibly, for a journal is better able to draw together the diverse bits of information than one person working alone. Pilmer’s book is more than sufficient to undermine the case for delivering the human race into poverty and serfdom to “save the planet” to the unbiased person weighing the arguments. Sadly, policy-makers are being railroaded in one direction by political techniques more akin to the USSR than modern democracies.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 02/09/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, Ian Pilmer

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 02/09/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/09/02/douglas-carswell-on-ian-pilmers-heaven-earth/

300,000+ per annum dead due to Climate Change?

The claim by the Global Humanitarian Forum that over 300,000 people per year is unsubstantiated and most likely false. It is based on a selective reading of data and should be challenged. In particular, the assumption that 40% of the increase in disasters is climate change related and the implication is that we should severely curtail greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate it.

The case studies from the full report (here) illustrate why.

–         Hurricane Katrina (p.21). Latest evidence is that there is most likely a link between global warming and hurricanes, but the nature is unknown. It may be temporary whilst temperatures rise. The deaths and much of the economic destruction in Hurricane Katrina was a result of poorly-maintained levees breaking. The human costs (lives and $) was due to a powerful hurricane hitting land on a major population centre. The probability of any one hurricane doing this is very low.

–         2003 European heat wave — 35,000 deaths (p.33).  Unique events cannot be easily adapted to. Contingency plans have been put in place, but in almost 6 summers since there has been no repeat. However, higher temperatures mean than winters are milder. In the UK alone there are thousands of deaths amongst the elderly with elderly every time due to extremes of cold. So the net impact of global warming (even with more extreme conditions) could be a reduction in climate-related deaths.

–         Ethiopian drought and flooding (p.32). The report quite rightly points out that many of the population is malnourished, there is severe water shortages and there are frequent droughts. However, they fail to point out how this is increasing as global temperatures rise. If my memory serves correctly, there has been no famine matching that of 1984, despite the population having increased. There was also a large famine in 1973. Unless there are strong counter-arguments to the contrary, any climate change may have had a positive impact. The counter-arguments are that a) There has been economic growth in the last 25 years. Although still one of the poorest countries on earth, there is sufficient wealth around to cope with famines. b) Aid agencies have structures and plans in place to avert potential disasters. c) There is no longer a pro-Marxist government pushing through collectivization of agriculture and placing obstacles in the way of relief efforts.

The implication from my reading of these examples is that even if they are wholey due to climate change, the way to mitigate them is a targeted response at the local level. In the 3 cases above, it is unlikely that similar scale weather events would cause similar scale disasters, as there are now contingency plans in place. Further the evidence of earthquakes is that the most deaths occur in the poorer parts of the world. A similar-sized earthquake to that of China in 2008 or Bam, Iran in 2003 replicated in California or Japan would not cause the same number of deaths because of better buildings. and better emergancy services. And these are as a consequence of much greater wealth.

In terms of deaths through hunger, the greatest famines in the 20th century were due to authoritarian governments and wars. The suffering under various communist regimes trying to instill their various brands of utopianism should be a cautionary tale to trying to regulate the world economy. This was based on the certainty that theirs was the perfect system, implementation was not an issue, and those who disagreed were deluded, or in the pay of the capitalist class.

The vast reduction in the proportion of the world’s population suffering hunger is partly due to the green revolution (higher-yielding crops and better types of agriculture of the 1950s & 60s – not the organic fad of the rich countries) but mostly due to sustained economic growth promoted by globalization. The growing countries (China & India, along with others) have turned their backs on state control and embraced globalization and let enterprise flourish. A consequence of that growth has been a massive rise in greenhouse gases. A government managed reduction carries the very great risk that the growth will be reversed, with a consequent increase in human suffering far greater than 315,000 live per year. For these reasons, analysis of the impact of climate change need to be better justified before they form the basis of policy decisions.

Other Sources

  1. The Economist made similar comments when the report came out, commenting that the 40% of the increase in disasters is climate change related is arbitrary and also that money thrown at the problem will not necessarily provide answers. They do not point out the risks to the global economy, nor the local solutions to mitigate the impact rather than global reductions in greenhouse gases.
  2. Christopher Booker in the Telegraph said “Then there was the 103-page report launched by Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General, on behalf of something called the Global Humanitarian Forum, claiming, without a shred of hard evidence, that global warming is already “killing 300,000 people a year”. But Mr Annan himself had to admit that this report, drawn up by a firm of consultants, was not “a scientific study” but was “the most plausible account of the current impact of climate change”. He contrasts this with recent evidence that the planet has not warmed, and the recent cold winter.
  3. Robert Pielke Jr (c/f wattsupwiththat) gives a more scientific (and thorough) debunking of the basis of the report, concluding “This report is an embarrassment to the GHF and to those who have put their names on it as representing a scientifically robust analysis. It is not even close.” Link broken (02/13) , but referred to by Delingpole in the Telegraph and Climate Depot
  4. Willis Eschenbach in Feb 2013 at Wattsupwiththat, points out that the source of the figure is from Munich Re, the huge reinsurance company. The company has a vested interest in hyping the weather effects of global warming, as false perceptions  of risk leads to a willingness to pay higher premiums, and to over-insure. This in turn leads to larger profits for the insurance industry.
  5. Indur Goklany points to a figure of 141,000 deaths a year from the World Health Organisation. This figure puts it well down the list of risks, may well be excessive, and ignores the reduction in excess cold weather mortality that occurs with milder winters. 
  6. I looked at how the WHO figure of 141,000 deaths per year was estimated, finding a more balanced estimated is virtually zero.
by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 31/08/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Economics, Global Warming

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 31/08/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/08/31/300000-per-annum-dead-due-to-climate-change/

Climate Change Camp – for good or evil?

The Tax Payers alliance have a posting on the Climate Change Camp set up in Blackheath.

 

Here is my comment:-

 

The comment you make is a fair one. Before proscribing a painful and potentially harmful course of treatment, an ethical doctor would

–         check the diagnosis is accurate – both in type and to the extent.

–         Make sure that the treatment is likely to improve the condition of the patient.

In a similar vein

–         The assessment of the extent of the climate change is not helped by failing to examine validity of the data or statistical analysis.

–         Nor by ignoring contrary science.

–         Nor by ascribing every bit of extreme weather to anthropogenic factors.

–         Nor by ignoring the benefits of warming (e.g. less old people dying in the winter cold)

–         Nor by assuming that a global policy is both the best available and that it will improve the situation.

–         Nor by ignoring the harmful effects of oppressive taxes and regulation. You could reduce economic output and bankrupt the government. This could lead to the collapse of public services (with many dying as a consequence) and millions permanently unemployed. In the emerging nations, reduced output will lead to the mass hunger from which many have just escaped. It will also lead to an increase in wars.

 

To establish that climate change is the “biggest threat the world has known” needs substantiation. In the last century the cause of every major famine was either caused authoritarian government policies or by war. On the other hand, global growth ensured that, for the first time in human history, the vast majority of the worlds population can live free from hunger as a normal state of affairs, and each generation can look forward to better livings standards than their parents. For those who believe in peace and helping the poor should make sure that these achievements are not reversed.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 31/08/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Eco-Fanatics, Economics, Regulation

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 31/08/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/08/31/climate-change-camp-for-good-or-evil/

Met Office’s Supercomputer consumes the power of 700 Ferraris

A major problem of the AGW enthusiasts is that they cannot get figures a proper, objective, perspective. This same method has been used by the Daily Mail yesterday (and repeated on wattsupwiththat) to make fun of the Met Office’s new £33m supercomputer. The Daily Mail compares it to using the power of more than 1000 homes. However a supercomputer running 24/7 should not be compared with the average load of a household, where most appliances are used for a small fraction of the time at maximum load.

 A similar comparison would be to say it uses the power of 700 Ferraris. How so?

In actual running the computer uses 1200KW or 1600bhp. This is about equivalent to the maximum power output of 3 Ferrari F360s.

However your typical Ferrari will only cover 3000 miles per year. Let us say that is 150 hours, with an average energy power output of 100kw (134bhp) when running. 150 hours is 1.7% of a year, so average energy output is a puny 1.7kw (2.3bhp). 1200kw/1.7 is about 700, hence the supercomputer consumes the power of 700 Ferraris

 

Many might think this is fair game for an organization that makes forecasts like the one below.

 If no action is taken to curb global warming, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise by as much as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century. This would lead to signficant risks of severe and irreversble impacts.  (page 13)

 However, the exaggerated and shrill claims made for global warming climate change are due to lack of proper perspective. For instance  

  1. Not putting recent warming in the perspective of natural climate trends over centuries or millennia.
  2. Not looking for alternative explanations of recent warmings, such as the sun.
  3. Alarming predictions or record events being widely publicized, but later corrections not being broadcast such as on July 2009 seas surface temperatures; recent Antarctic warming (or the full detail here);  the failure of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to collapse; or claims of the imminent disappearance of the arctic ice sheet.
  4. Extrapolating a short-period of (unusual) data over a long period to get an absurd result. For example the 2005 hurricane season (with Katrina) to say that hurricanes will become stronger and more frequent in the future.

 

The example of the supercomputer’s power consumption provides a simple illustration of how we can get that perspective wrong.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 28/08/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Beancounting Methodology, Climate Change, Global Warming

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 28/08/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/08/28/met-offices-supercomputer-consumes-the-power-of-700-ferraris/

Ann Widdecombe on Climate Change

Total Politics Magazine has interviewed Ann Widdecombe. Of note was the views expressed on climate change.

 

It so happens that I know that an awful lot of people in our party – and by that I mean a lot – are deeply unhappy with the way that we’ve signed up apparently quite blindly to the climate change agenda. It isn’t that they don’t want sensible things like recycling, it isn’t a silly rebellion. But there is a deep unease that we’re rushing in virtually to a theology: those who asked questions are ‘deniers’. The language is theological. We’re rushing in to what has become a theology imposed by the equivalent of what has become the mediaeval church and that nobody’s allowed to question it. And that even by questioning it, you’re doing the world a massive disservice and bringing it under perdition.

 

For those conservatives who share that unease, here are some basic points that may help get the issue in perspective.

 

  1. The rise in  temperatures over the past century of 0.70C is nothing unusual in the climate since the last ice-age. For much of the Roman Period 250 BC to 450 AD and the Medieval Period (900 to 1300) there is considerable evidence that temperatures were warmer than today. The view that recent temperatures are the highest in many thousands of years (held by the UN IPCC and Al Gore) is based on a single, now-discredited paper. (Shorter, but older, statement here) If there is nothing unusual historically in the recent rise in temperatures, then it is unlikely mostly or entirely by anthropogenic factors. If this is the case, then reducing carbon emissions is a waste of time.
  2. The UN IPCC forecasts that the warming will accelerate is based on positive feedback. That is the small rise in temperatures already experienced (0.70C) will cause a much larger rise in temperatures in the future (predicted to be 2 to 4.50C this century). This view is not supported by actual evidence. See here. If there is no sign runaway warming, then there is no need to panic about drastic action now. Rather we should revise our long-term forecasts downwards.
  3. There is a certain bias in

i)                    The collection of temperature data, meaning recent warming has been overstated (most recent discussion see here)

ii)                   Reporting the news when it supports the consensus, but not when it does not (e.g. Antarctic warming, hurricanes and Himalayan glacier melt.)

iii)                 Political spin in the presentation of the data. For instance ehe IPCC’s 4th assessment report of 2007, instead of saying that warming had paused (or ceased) this century said “Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).” (page 30 Col 1)

 

 In other words, far from “the science being settled” there are huge questions that must be answered. Before a new drug is launched we ask that tests should be independently verified. If a doctor gives us a diagnosis that we do not think is right we get a second opinion. If someone calls at the door saying “Your roof is about to cave in, but I can replace it for you bargain price of £20,000 if you let me start tomorrow” we would normally see through it and get an alternative opinion from an independent surveyor.

 

Ann Widdecombe may be overstating her case, but we need the alternative voices to be heard, so that between the extremes of Global Warming Alarmists and Climate Change Deniers, we get an honest assessment and realistic policy.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 24/08/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Conservative Party, Environment, Global Warming

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 24/08/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/08/24/ann-widdecombe-on-climate-change/

Ian Pilmer v George Alagiah on Global Warming

The first episode of the BBC’s three Part series on the “Future of Food” made claims about the impact of global warming, that are the opposite made by Ian Pilmer in his book “Heaven and Earth”  (or a short video here)

Will Global Warming cause food shortages?

Alagiah interviews a Masai chief, whose 700 head of cattle have declined to 30 due to the prolonged drought in Kenya caused by Climate Change. He also interviews IPCC chief Dr. Rajendra Pachauri who claims that each one degree rise in temperatures in India will lead to at 10% to 20% in temperatures, and that a we could see falls in food production in Africa of up to 50%. Alagiah also mentions recent food riots as being a result of rising prices cause by climate change.

Pilmer claims that the warm periods (such as the Medieval Warm period and the Roman Period) had were times of plenty. Southern Italy had rain all the year round in the 2nd century AD (now only winter rain). North Africa, Central America and Central Asia were warmer and wetter. (p.59)  This was a time of population increase, with crop failures and famine becoming a rarity.(p.60). A simliar story for the MWP, where England and China (p.68) flourished. It was warm enough for a Viking colony to establish on Greenland, growing crops.

He also claims that the benefit of the current (more modest) warming is that the increased CO2 may lead to increased crop yields, although this could be offset by pollution (P.197)

Will Warming lead to more volatile climate?

On the BBC, we were shown pictures of flooding, and the destruction of crops, such as strawberries. A bit a warming has meant more volatility in weather. This can only increase.

Pilmer claims that it is the cooler, drier periods that have the more volatile climate. This lead to population decreases in the dark ages and at the end of the MWP. Plague did much to reduce the population in these periods.

Who to believe?

The BBC only gives short examples, and concentrates on current, localised, examples. Pilmer gives the long-term sweep of history, with lots of examples. Although Pilmer may have lots of errors (see here and here), these critics do not contradict the the implication of Pilmer that a little warming would be of net benefit to both humankind and other living things. For instance the late 20th century warming may have increased the number of species on mountain tops in the European Alps (p.195)

It is easier to give localised examples to give totally the wrong picture e.g. the droughts being caused by local deforestation elsewhere – or appearance of more extreme weather patterns due to looking for variations. It is like watching cricket. In any season, no end of records and novel facts to be recorded in every season, because there is an endless number of statistics to be collated. However, over the long period, general trends are observed, and the claimed theories contradict the data more difficult to maintain.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 17/08/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Global Warming, Ian Pilmer

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 17/08/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/08/17/ian-pilmer-v-george-alagiah-on-global-warming/

Getting Swine Flu in Perspective

Dan Hannan posted yesterday on the Swine Flu Pandemic.

The swine flu outbreak consists of the following

– a fast-spreading virus, that in the vast majority of people causes a fairly mild and short illness.

– The mortality rates are extremely low, and usually are to people in a very poor state of health. The group most vulnerable – the elderly – seem to be immune.

– There is a very small risk of the swine flu mutating into something more deadly, but as yet this has not happened.

The consequence of this – the government is spending huge amounts of money they do not have, simply to damp down talk that they are not doing enough. The scare stories are started by drug companies, keen to see a profit opportunity.

This is clearly a situation where the costs of action far outweigh the benefits. The more reasonable course of telling folks to stock up on Lemsips (or Beechams Powders) and if they suspect they have the flu to stay at home.  The major effort should be put into monitering and the sensible advice currently been put out.

There are similar panics where the proposed cost of solutions far outweigh the benefits

– The expenditure on track and signals following rail disasters.

– The reaction to the credit crunch (we must do whatever it takes)

– The combatting of Global Warming with expensive schemes, with little impact.

The ways to avoid such waste is to first assess the situation, then devise a proportionate (and cost-effective) response. The failing with our current way of working is that the public’s perception is more highly prized than good stewardship of our valuable resources.

UPDATE 15th July

Nadine Dorries has a similar post today –

 “I was also struck by the protestations of those who claimed that the true picture of the swine flu outbreak can not be truly known, as many people are not seeking medical help and therefore we need some form of large scale testing to obtain a true picture of the scale of the outbreak. The inference being that on the contrary, this is not something simply as mild as seasonal flu, it’s much worse?!

Er, no, surely not? The reason why people aren’t seeking medical help is because in the vast majority of cases, the symptoms are so mild that they don’t need to,  possibly tipping the scales well over to the point of fact that swine flu is demonstrably milder that seasonal flu and in most cases as severe as a mild cold.”

UPDATE 2 15th July

John Rewood makes comment in “One Flu out of the Cuckoo’s Nest”

So far I have avoided comment on the great pandemic.

In the early days Ministers and government told us they were valiantly combatting it, to stop it reaching us. I bit my tongue. It reached the UK.

Then Ministers told us they would stop it spreading in the UK. I kept quiet. It spread.

Government implied it was virulent and serious. They would fight it in the hospitals and in surgeries, with huge quantities of drugs. Fortunately so far it has proved quite mild for most people catching it, unless they already have some other serious condition.

Now we are told flu is flu. This one is like regular flu. You may not need drugs at all, or if you do a phone call to the GP should suffice to sort it out.

So all we have is a lot of wasted money, a profitable bonanza for the drug companies and undue worry for those infected, or being close to those infected. Another example of the true cost of Politics.

 

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 13/07/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Beancounting Methodology, Global Warming

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 13/07/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/07/13/getting-swine-flu-in-perspective/

The Net Cost of Tackling Global Warming

Dan Hannan blogged today on the CAP & Trade Scheme just adopted by the US House of Representatives. Assuming all assumptions are correct, the impact on global temperatures will be just 0.05 degrees by 2015. The costs on the US Economy will be trillions of dollars. If adopted worldwide, we might get 0.20 to 0.25 of a degree reduction. This scheme would therefore fail the Stern Review proposals of the benefits of action exceeding the costs. Without even questioning the AGW science, we can claim to be creating net harm to humanity by these measures.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 28/06/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Environment, Global Warming

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 28/06/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/06/28/the-net-cost-of-tackling-global-warming/

Green Party Manipulates the Data AGAIN

 

I posted last month that the Green Party could not analyse data on it’s core competency – tackling climate change. Yesterday, (June 2nd) they released the results of an opinion poll for tomorrow’s European elections. They are forecast to get 15% of the votes. Political Betting’s opinion is that

 

“The poll was not past vote weighted which generally means that the sample would not have been politically balanced.”

 

Compare the results to a two other polls – a Yougov poll for the Telegraph released today for 4th June edition, and an ICM poll released by the Guardian on 1st June.

 

 

Cons

Labour

LibDem

UKIP

Green

BNP
YouGov / Telegraph

26

16

15

18

10

5
Comres for Green Party

24

22

14

17

15

2
ICM / Guardian

29

17

20

10

11

5

 

The results of the bias are to push the Green vote much higher.  This is clearly a campaigning tool.

 It is crucial for anyone who adopts an extreme position to analyse data as honestly as they can. That way they can build a position that can be trusted. The Green Party does not do this with its policy analysis any more than it does it with opinion polls. They back up the commonly held view that the term “extremist” is synonymous with “dangerous crank”.   

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 03/06/2009  •  Permalink
Posted in Eco-Fanatics, Global Warming

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 03/06/2009

https://manicbeancounter.com/2009/06/03/green-party-manipulates-the-data-again/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »