The Magic Pudding Moment

By May 16, 2019Other

At a recent family event one of the absent cousins rang in something of a state: she had been going to vote Labor, but a Green had told her that if she didn’t vote Green, and the Greens didn’t get in, then we would all be dead in twelve years! What should she do? She was reassured by the family. Where did that twelve-years nonsense come from, I wondered. The originator seems to have been the Democratic Congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who later said that her words were mis-characterised, whatever that meant. Thankfully, neither of our political leaders has been making that sort of statement in their attempts to show (i) that each has the right policy to attack climate change, (ii) that we lead the world in doing so, (iii) that it won’t cost much or anything, (iv) everyone will be better off, and (v) that the economy will benefit.

Mr Shorten claimed that talking about costs here was simply to miss the point. What about the costs of inaction? What exactly are they, I wondered. The planet is greening, food production is up, people are living longer lives, poverty is declining, and all without much effort in terms of addressing climate change. A cost-benefit analysis, based on good data, not on models of global temperature and their possible economic impacts, seems to me the way to go.

Enough of that, at least for the moment. One bizarre aspect of the whole campaign was the ‘official launch’ of the Coalition’s policy less than seven days before voting begins, and after months of promises and offers to this region and that region, to this group and that group. Mr Shorten produced his costings, approved by the Parliamentary group. It said they were OK, and I suppose they must be, but based on all sorts of assumptions about Australian GDP, Chinese demand, world prices for oil, and so forth. I gave up trying to work it all out weeks ago, dazzled by billions and hundreds of millions. When will the spending begin? I recall that the Hawke/Keating Government of the 1980s did well in part because it possessed in John Dawkins and then Peter Walsh two tough-minded Ministers for Finance who could say ‘No!’ effectively and often. If Mr Shorten becomes Prime Minister, and that seems to be the expectation, then I hope that he follows suit. Labor tends to overspend, in part because of the deals that have been struck, and in part because it can’t help it — there are all these needy people who are Labor’s core support, and we promised, didn’t we. 

In the olden days, when I first voted, the Prime Minister, Mr Menzies, delivered his policy speech some weeks before polling day, and the printed speech became the holy writ of the campaign. If it was in there, the promise was real. If it wasn’t there you didn’t talk about it. If you were questioned and you didn’t like the question, you would say, ‘Read the policy speech!’ Every candidate used it. Its main themes were the themes of the campaign. Today I don’t really know what the main themes of this campaign have been. It seems to depend on where the leaders are on a given day, and what they think will resonate there. Yes, you could say that Labor is emphasizing health, education and wages, but then they are its stock in trade. The Coalition is emphasizing the economy, the need to keep building, the danger of Labor in power, and so on, and they are stock items on its side, too.

For those who really don’t know about The Magic Pudding, it is a story by Norman Lindsay about a pudding that can be any flavour, and is inexhaustible — ‘cut and come again’ is its description. The promises from both party leaders have that characteristic. I doubt that there are more than a hundred people in the whole country who have any idea of what the promises mean, when if ever they might be delivered, or what effect they might have on the country’s bottom line. It doesn’t really matter. The point of the promises is that they show the parties are aware of local problems. Will they affect how people will vote? I have no idea. As I wrote in an earlier piece, we need to remember that voting movements are always net. Some promises will put people off. Some promises by one party will be matched by the other party. Some promises will be dismissed — ‘They said that last time, and we got nothing’. 

At a recent lunchtime discussion one theme was that we should vote for the best team, and/or the team with the best ideas about the future. That doesn’t help me. I don’t think either team has great ideas for the future. I said in another recent essay that Mr Shorten’s notions that half of all cars should be EVs by 2030, as well as half of all electricity generation through alternative energy by the same year are simply ludicrous. How could anyone vote for such rubbishy stuff? The Coalition’s record over the past few years does not thrill me, and I’m not at all sure I want more of the same. There is an engaging emergency doctor standing in our seat, so he got a couple of votes from us. 

And as I write it seems that Mr Shorten is pitching his final appeal to the voters on, yes, ‘climate change’. Is he worried about Labor votes leaking to the Greens? Does he actually believe in the guff he has been talking about? Beats me. Of course, alarmists will point to floods and droughts and record high temperatures (records with respect to some of the recent past years), but there is no evidence that connects these weather events to some kind of greenhouse-gas-emission-CO2-human folly. If there were such evidence, we would have seen it by now. So Mr Shorten has an appalling solution to a non-problem. If he wins, I would expect some window-dressing, like the return to taxpayer-funding for the Climate Council. As for the fifty per cent EVs in 2030, that will disappear like frost in the sunlight.

I don’t expect much change, whoever wins. The electorate is becoming used to election handouts, and the notion that there really is some kind of financial Magic Pudding. That’s not going to change. We don’t have good leaders, on either side. I don’t have much faith in Labor’s capacity to be tough with its own ranks. 

My lunchtime group was divided as to how close the result would be. I opted for a close finish. In the days when I was an election-night TV presenter/expert I had made considerable study of the whole nation, marginal seats and all. These days I don’t have the data or the energy to interrogate them. And indeed there’s not a lot of publicly-available data for the intending student. Sample sizes are too small, so there’s much more recourse now to focus groups and local polling, the results kept close to the heart by the group that did the work, usually one of the parties (or both).

So, good luck for polling day. The Electoral Commission came to our nursing home a week ago, and we did our constitutional duty then.

Join the discussion 35 Comments

  • Richard Quigley says:

    “…the notion that there really is some kind of financial Magic Pudding.”

    Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

  • Lyall O'Donoghue says:

    A.O.C. is a Democrat not a Republican….

  • Ian MacCulloch says:

    “Republican Congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez” – she is in fact a Democrat from New York City

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    Thanks Don

    “Where did that twelve-years nonsense come from, I wondered.”

    It came from the UN Secretary-General last September 30:

    He also of the “threat of runaway climate change” – whatever that is – by 2020 if nothing is done.

    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/world-must-act-by-2020-to-avoid-runaway-climate-change-un-chief-says

    The bogeyman of our age is apparently “moving faster than we are”; or at least faster than dollars are moving from developed economies to the Green Climate Fund (GCF)

    “If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us…..We are careening towards the edge of the abyss. It is not too late to shift course. But every day that passes means the world heats up a little more, and the cost of our inaction mounts.”

    UN wants the global climate to dance it the tune of its GCF and Agenda 2030 goals. In other words, it needs billions from the developed world NOW.

    He is saying it again – and again – in his current Pacific Island climate salvation show: https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/05/1038521

    Also see: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/climate-catch-22-in-poland/

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Here is a comment sent to me by a correspondent, one which was new to me but I thought of some general interest:

    I recently did some work for the body corporate at the Dock 5 Apartment Building in Docklands in Melbourne to see if we could install a small number of electric charging points for owners to charge their electric vehicles. We had our first three applications. We discovered:
    1. Our building has no non- allocated parking spaces ie public ones. This is typical of most apartment buildings so we cannot provide shared outlets.
    2. The power supply in the building was designed for the loads in the building with virtually no spare capacity. Only 5 or 6 chargers could be installed in total in a building with 188 apartments!!
    3. How do you allocate them as they would add value to any apartment owning one. The shit fight started on day one with about 20 applications received 1st day and many more following.
    4. The car park sub-boards cannot carry the extra loads of even one charger and would have to be upgraded on any floors with a charger as would the supply mains to each sub board.
    5. The main switch board would then have to be upgraded to add the heavier circuit breakers for the sub mains upgrade and furthermore:
    6. When Docklands was designed, a limit was put on the number of apartments in each precinct and the mains and transformers in the streets designed accordingly. This means there is no capacity in the Docklands street grid for any significant quantity of car chargers in any building in the area.
    7. It gets better. The whole CBD (Hoddle Grid, Docklands)and Southbank is fed by two sub stations. One in Port Melbourne and one in West Melbourne. This was done to have two alternate feeds in case one failed or was down for maintenance. Because of the growth in the city /Docklands and Southbank now neither one is now capable of supplying the full requirement of Melbourne zone at peak usage in mid- summer if the other is out of action. The Port Melbourne 66,000 volt feeder runs on 50 or 60 year old wooden power poles above ground along Dorcas Street South Melbourne. One pole is located 40 cm from the corner kerb at the incredibly busy Ferrars /St Dorcas St Intersection and is very vulnerable to being wiped out by a wayward vehicle.
    8. The infrastructure expenditure required would dwarf the NBN cost excluding the new power stations required.
    These advocates of electric vehicles only by 2040 are completely bonkers. It takes 5-8 years to design and build a large coal fired power station like Loy Yang and even longer for a nuclear one (That’s after you get the political will, permits and legislative changes needed ). Wind and solar just can’t produce enough. Tidal power might but that’s further away than nuclear. (Attempts at tidal power so far has resulted in TWO out of two “generators”, sinking !!).

  • Neville says:

    Good essay Don and stories I’ve heard about loonies worrying about who to vote for because of their CAGW delusions are similar to your example.
    BTW AOC is definitely a democrat and is definitely not a Republican.
    Here is Labor’s policy on climate change and just about every second paragraph is complete hogwash and full of lies and half truths.
    Of course there is NOTHING we can do about their so called CAGW at all. We’re very lucky to be living now when everything is getting better in both the developed and developing countries.
    Just look at all the available evidence and you’ll understand that this is the case.
    How Labor and the Greens can tell us so many lies and get off scott free every time just proves how stupid we’ve become since this CAGW nonsense emerged about 30 years ago.
    If Labor wins they will happily waste endless billions $ on this lunacy for a guaranteed ZERO return for the Australian people. Dr Finkel our chief scientist has confirmed this but Labor ignores the data and science in a headlong rush to display their ignorance and gullibility. Here’s their stupid policy.

    https://www.alp.org.au/media/1692/labors_climate_change_action_plan.pdf

    • Roger Macrury says:

      Don’t you like reality. How is it that we have so many tertiary educated people now who completely disregard what has to be done to move to a large number of electric cars.

  • Neville says:

    Perhaps we should link to this comment from Chief scientist Dr Finkel every day of every week, just so the religious fanatics can’t escape the proper science and evidence of their so called CAGW?
    Yet stupid Shorten wants to waste 100s of billions $ on this fra-dulent con for a guaranteed rolled gold zero change for the climate by 2100 and way beyond as well.
    Thanks again to Andrew Bolt for his comments and providing the link. This should be shown to every school kid in OZ and silly fools like Shorten and clueless Tania Plibersek.
    But when will they wake up? And if not why not?

  • Don, great article about a lot of puffery and little substance from either side. Looking from afar and no longer being on the electoral role, it’ the same the world over. Where are the true leaders? Where is the vision, let alone visionary leadership except perhaps from little New Zealand and Jacinta Adhern?
    Our generation has been fortunate in its amazing (good and bad) experiences, but what are we leaving for future generations? Sadly not a lot, no clear road map to anywhere or anything. As they say “one day at a time and fingers crossed” is about the best there is.

  • Lauchlan McIntosh says:

    Thanks Don for, as usual, a well considered piece. I am over hearing about promises of “real action” on anything from any politician. What I do know is that at least 100,000 people, maybe even 120,000 will be hospitalised from road crashes in this next term of parliament. We have heard a lot about “Making Australia Safe”, and a Ministerial Inquiry last year made 12 simple recommendations for “action” needed to reduce road trauma which was accepted in the Parliament bilaterally. However, no promises in the last weeks with any mention of any “ real action” on those recommendations, I do hope the new Government will be different and actually just accept and implement those recommendations and can report at the end of the term a “real reduction “ in road trauma from “real action “ on what is a “real emergency”.
    I thought I was “post cynical “ years ago, now I am not so sure….keep inspiring us to keep thinking and using good data. Cheers Lauchlan

  • Chris Warren says:

    “My lunchtime group was divided as to how close the result would be. I opted for a close finish. In the days when I was an election-night TV presenter/expert I had made considerable study of the whole nation, marginal seats and all. These days I don’t have the data or the energy to interrogate them. And indeed there’s not a lot of publicly-available data for the intending student. ”

    This is interesting. I had a scan of SportsBet markets for late Thursday. This predicts a landslide for Labour gaining 82 HoR seats out of 150 with Greens getting 1.

    ALP fails in Qld, getting only 10 out of 30
    ALP sweeps Vic getting 24 out of 37
    ALP sweeps territories getting all 5
    ALP gets half in SA – 5 out of 10
    ALP gets majority of WA seats – 9 out of 16, and
    majority in NSW – 26 out of 37.

    Link is: https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/australian-federal-politics/Australian-Federal-Election-NSW-Seats-4145945

    • Neville says:

      For once I think Chris is right. If the Coalition win tomorrow I’ll be very happy but also very surprised. Shorten’s Labor+Greens will be a disaster and we can only hope they win by a few seats, leaving open the chance for a Coalition return at the next election. Who knows?

    • Boambee John says:

      Well, that prediction went well, didn’t it!

    • Bryan Roberts says:

      Chris, Labor made a classic mistake. They were so convinced of victory that they included a range of wildly impractical ideas in their platform, in the belief that they could be implemented under an overwhelming ‘mandate’. Apart from the fact that an electoral success is not a mandate for wholesale change, the electorate wasn’t persuaded by the gloss on the goods. I don’t understand why anyone was surprised by the result.

  • Neville says:

    Here is a proper site to check out the real costs and inconvenience of owning an EV. You will need a dedicated approved charging connector at home, but if you want quick charging ( 40 minutes at least ) you’ll need to upgrade your home power supply or find another fast charger. Good luck with that.

    EVs are much more expensive than ICE cars and the link tells us that the battery life is about 7 years. But the capacity of the battery starts to reduce well before the 7 year time period.
    The cost of a new battery is very expensive and we’re yet to be told how old batteries ( many toxic materials) will be disposed of in a safe area.
    But Lomborg and others tell us that EVs don’t reduce co2 emissions by much, so why are we doing this at much higher overall cost and inconvenience. Of course none of this will change the temp or climate or co2 levels at all.
    Just ask super co2 emitters China, India and the non OECD. Here’s the link.

    https://www.ergon.com.au/network/smarter-energy/electric-vehicles/charging-your-electric-vehicle

  • Neville says:

    Tesla’s solar business seems to be heading for disaster as it approaches terminal decline. Check out the link and graph.

    https://seekingalpha.com/article/4260665-teslas-solar-business-approaches-terminal-decline

  • Aert Driessen says:

    Applying the bush logic of my exploration days – “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” – I voted the least bad.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Instead of allowing the climate debate to become the magic pudding for Labor and those of the alarmist left voting persuasion, Scott Morrison should have hammered the point that we can never insure against a doubtful risk where the trillion dollar insurance premium can only ever provide a tiny 1.3% of any protection from that risk.

    And that 1.3% can be reinstated in a matter of months by just one “transgressor”.

    But now the climate debate has actually become a double-magic pudding as now it is not only any flavour and inexhaustible but the squandering on it is equally desirable.

    • Neville says:

      Good stuff SD. Today in my local rag I read this from the Labor party candidate— ” If we don’t do something about climate change now,in three years time it’s going to be too late”. That’s her main concern.
      This Labor woman narrows it down from Don’s cousin’s 12 years to just 3 years, yet I’m sure the same silly donkeys will still line up and vote for Labor or the Greens today.
      Mind you I still have religious fools come to my door and talk about the end of the world, the torment in hell FOREVER, why I should believe them, how I can be saved, why I am a sinner, don’t I want to live forever etc, etc. You name it and they’ll yap about it. Mind you they all seem very puzzled by my response.
      I usually give them a quick history of their brand and most seem to understand little about the history or leaders of the Mormons, Jehovahs, Seventh day adventists etc. Sort of reminds me of Labor+ Greens, but the majority of voters seem to be eager to follow them over the cliff.
      I predict Labor will win by at least 10 seats, but I desperately hope I’m wrong. Labor/ Greens will be a disaster

  • Neville says:

    Some funny rhymes from Jo Nova and Speedy. I’m sure most sensible, rational people will need some laughs after tonight.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/05/labor-green-election-anthems-by-speedy/#comments

  • Neville says:

    Dr Roger Pielke jnr looks at the data regarding natural disasters over a long period of time and like Dr Rosling, Goklany, Ridley etc he finds that everything is much better today.

    Here’s his article that appeared in the WSJ and the link.

    https://rogerpielkejr.com/2018/08/17/some-good-news-about-natural-disasters-of-all-things/

    Some Good News—About Natural Disasters, of All Things

    By Roger Pielke Jr.
    Aug. 3, 2018 5:26 p.m. ET

    “In his posthumously published book “Factfulness,” the Swedish statistician Hans Rosling describes a paradox: “The image of a dangerous world has never been broadcast more effectively than it is now, while the world has never been less violent and more safe.” A case in point: natural disasters. The earth will always be volatile, but despite recent fires, volcanoes and hurricanes, humanity currently is experiencing a stretch of good fortune when it comes to disasters.

    It’s difficult to be “factful” about disasters—the vivid trauma of each event distracts observers from the long-term decrease in destructiveness. But climate activists make the problem worse by blaming every extreme weather event on human-caused climate change, hoping to scare people into elevated concern.

    Disasters certainly continue to cause catastrophic damage across the globe. The annual cost of disasters has doubled since reliable accounting of all events world-wide began in 1990, rising from about $100 billion to $200 billion a year in 2017 dollars.

    But it’s deceptive to track disasters primarily in terms of aggregate cost. Since 1990, the global population has increased by more than 2.2 billion, and the global economy has more than doubled in size. This means more lives and wealth are at risk with each successive disaster.

    Despite this increased exposure, disasters are claiming fewer lives. Data tracked by Our World in Data shows that from 2007-17, an average of 70,000 people each year were killed by natural disasters. In the decade 50 years earlier, the annual figure was more than 370,000. Seventy thousand is still far too many, but the reduction represents enormous progress.

    The material cost of disasters also has decreased when considered as a proportion of the global economy. Since 1990, economic losses from disasters have decreased by about 20% as a proportion of world-wide gross domestic product. The trend still holds when the measurement is narrowed to weather-related disasters, which decreased similarly as a share of global GDP even as the dollar cost of disasters increased.

    The decrease in disaster damage isn’t a surprise, because as the world population and economy have grown, the incidence of the most damaging extreme events has hardly changed. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2014 that there has been no increase in hurricanes, floods, droughts or tornadoes within the past 30 years. And 2018 is on track to have the lowest losses from disasters as a share of global GDP since 1990.

    It is then no surprise that the climate-disaster scare campaign has been ineffective at swaying public opinion. Gallup reported earlier this year that 63% of Americans worried a “great deal” or “fair amount” about climate change—the same level as in 1989, when the question was first posed. But though popular worry hasn’t boiled over, the public debate around climate change has become more politicized, more partisan and less “factful.”

    In place of today’s unproductive scare campaign, activists and the media should facilitate debate on the merits of actual climate-policy proposals, such as a carbon tax or improved flood defenses. Carbon dioxide emissions have indeed contributed to a global temperature increase and may yet influence extreme weather, so the public and policy makers must decide the best ways to reduce emissions and increase society’s resilience to extreme weather.

    The U.S. has a long way to go in this regard. Last year Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria together caused more than $300 billion of damage. Among other issues, the storms revealed the lack of proper planning and infrastructure in Houston and the unpreparedness of the federal government in Puerto Rico.

    Improving resilience to disasters will be easier if it is based on evidence. That means acknowledging both the progress made so far and the risks and vulnerabilities that lie ahead. As Rosling advises: “Factfulness, like a healthy diet and regular exercise, can and should become part of your daily life. . . . You will make better decisions, stay alert to real dangers and possibilities, and avoid being constantly stressed about the wrong things.” It’s good advice”.

    Mr. Pielke is a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He is author of “The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change” (CSPO, 2018) and “The Climate Fix” (Basic, 2011).

  • BoyfomTottenham says:

    The best comment I have heard about that Democrat Senator AOC is that she thinks she is smart because she took only a week to solve a child’s puzzle, whereas on the box it said “3 to 6 years”.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    So Labor put up a bunch of terrible policies, and to the amazement of the lemon-tinted media, lost the election. Says more about the media than the electorate.

    • Neville says:

      Yes Bryan and I’m very, very happy that I was wrong. But anyone in OZ that claims “we are fighting CC” should be chased down and put in the looney bin for their own good.
      Certainly they are either barking mad or a liar or both, but I suppose pig ignorant covers a lot of them as well.
      At least the rational people who’ve bothered to look at the data can relax for a while and try and correct so many of the lies and liars over the next three years.
      Go Scomo.

      • Chris Warren says:

        Abbott – the main fighter against climate – was chased down and put into the looney bin for the good for the rest of us.

        Was he the barking mad, liar, pig ignorant soul that keeps rattling inside your skull? and regularly vomits from your foul maw.

        • BB says:

          There you go. The obscenity of the left. Was it you Chris who left the faeces at Tony Abbott’s door? I really don’t think you going to win the argument with that one.

          • Chris Warren says:

            BB

            The turd is around your neck.

          • spangled drongo says:

            BB, just upthread our blith criticised Neville for being rude and slanderous when he was actually quite reasonable.

            What a hypocrite.

            Looks like he bet on the wrong horse and got lousy odds as well.

            LOL!

        • Boambee John says:

          Indeed.

          Chased down by the fascists of Get Up and Antifa, and millions of Soros dollars.

          However, in the rest of Australia outside Warringah, Get Up didn’t do so well. I liked the way that Peter Dutton used Keating’s words, “This was the sweetest victory of all”.

  • Neville says:

    Perhaps there is a SUPER kind of Magic pudding operating through global economic growth. Here’s 3 paragraphs ( above) from Dr Pielke’s article in the WSJ.

    “But it’s deceptive to track disasters primarily in terms of aggregate cost. Since 1990, the global population has increased by more than 2.2 billion, and the global economy has more than doubled in size. This means more lives and wealth are at risk with each successive disaster.

    Despite this increased exposure, disasters are claiming fewer lives. Data tracked by Our World in Data shows that from 2007-17, an average of 70,000 people each year were killed by natural disasters. In the decade 50 years earlier, the annual figure was more than 370,000. Seventy thousand is still far too many, but the reduction represents enormous progress.

    The material cost of disasters also has decreased when considered as a proportion of the global economy. Since 1990, economic losses from disasters have decreased by about 20% as a proportion of world-wide gross domestic product. The trend still holds when the measurement is narrowed to weather-related disasters, which decreased similarly as a share of global GDP even as the dollar cost of disasters increased”. END of his quote.

    So how has the global economy doubled in less than 30 years ( 1990 to 2018) if we have so much to fear from their so called CAGW? After all the global economy took hundreds or thousands of years to reach a certain size by 1990 and yet could double AGAIN in less than 30 years. Just think about that for a moment and you should be amazed.
    And as a bonus we now have far fewer people dying from extreme weather events as reported by Dr Rosling, Dr Goklany and others . But why isn’t the public aware of this data and why isn’t it taught to schoolkids as well.
    As I’ve said before, we are very lucky to be living today in a world where our standard of living is so advanced and our life is much easier and our life expectancy is much higher as well.

  • Neville says:

    Prof Pielke jnr uses the “our world in data” website as part of his research, while trying to return the various arguments to a sound basis instead of the usual retreat to infantile nonsense about their so called CAGW.
    Here is the link to find the data and to more easily understand the history of the world ,the present and the future. The world is better today and will be much improved again by 2100. Check the data.
    So why are our pollies and media so abysmally ignorant and don’t even seem to understand any of this data? Like the Labor candidate in my electorate who clearly stated we only had three years left to save the planet.
    And this silly fool received about 15% of the vote and about 30%+ after preferences. Unbelievable but true.

    https://ourworldindata.org/malaria

  • Neville says:

    Here is a new study about rainfall over SE OZ , 1848 to 2017. Rainfall from the 3 cities Melb, Syd, Adel records show that there is nothing extreme or unusual today about rainfall and droughts compared to the last 178 years.
    This study includes alarmist Dr Karoly, who Don Aitkin debated a number of years ago. I just wish there was a transcript or video available of that debate. But again we find that increased co2 has nothing to do with OZ rainfall or droughts.
    Here’s the link from Jo Nova.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/05/178-years-of-australian-rain-has-nothing-to-do-with-co2-worst-extremes-1849-1925-1950/

Leave a Reply