+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 42
Latest: Heredia05
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 10524
Total Topics: 246
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi  (Read 9063 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #210 on: May 16, 2018, 04:48:28 pm »
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

May 16, 2018



Why Is It Only Fossil Fueled Pundits 
Criticize Electric Cars?

There seems to be no shortage of deceptive attacks on electric vehicles, whether from the GOP’s opposition research arm or the Koch brothers themselves. The latest attempt to malign EVs is a report released Monday, which claims increased adoption of EVs will actually increase air pollution. Multiple reports in the past have come to the opposite conclusion--so what makes this one different?

For starters, the “Short Circuit” report was published by the Koch (and Mercer , and Big Tobacco ) and Exxon-funded Manhattan institute, and authored by Jonathan Lesser  , an energy industry consultant with a history 😈 of doing utility and industry bidding and a long track record of anti-climate action writing. With these credentials, it’s not exactly surprising that the report advocates against EV subsidies.

What is surprising is that Politico gave Lesser space to promote the report--without any disclosure of his energy industry 🦖 clients or the Manhattan Institute’s fossil fuel funding. Instead, Lesser’s consultancy is described as “an economic and regulatory consulting firm 😇”   in his Politico byline. This sounds a lot more innocent than the blurb on his LinkedIn profile, which discloses that he provides “services to clients in he [sic] energy industry.”

Lesser’s 👹 full CV provides a little more detail on those energy industry clients 🐉🦕 🦖, which include Shell, Exelon, various state-based gas and utility companies, and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, an anti-wind farm group with a Koch brother as its chairman.

As for the report itself, the topline findings are that people buying electric cars instead of new gas powered autos will actually increase particulate matter , sulfur and nitrous oxide pollution (the American Lung Association says otherwise), that EVs will only reduce CO2 emissions a little (not true), and that subsidies are unfair because only rich people can afford EVs. 


Please forgive us, then, for not wasting our time and yours by digging into the report to find just where and how Lesser has cooked the books to produce the counterintuitive click-bait headline that EV subsidies are bad. And it beggars belief that anyone would actually believe that the Manhattan Institute 👹, funded by conservative billionaires 🦀💵 🎩, actually cares about economic inequality, given that it 😈 has argued that “there is little evidence we should” even try to reduce economic inequality.

To sum up, this report is written by a man whose career is built on fossil fuel consulting, published by a group built with fossil fuel money, arguing cars that don’t use fossil fuels are bad. For some reason, Politico only thought that third part was relevant for its readers. 

But would you trust the findings of that report Lesser more than all the others showing the opposite?


The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or     PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #211 on: May 21, 2018, 09:19:48 pm »
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

May 21, 2018

Trump 🦀 Trashes Climate Targets for Federal Agencies
The Trump administration has rescinded an Obama-era policy requiring federal agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. An executive order signed late last week that instructs agencies to prioritize energy efficiency and reduce waste and costs also rescinds a 2015 executive order, which set a goal of reducing the federal government's greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over a decade. The 2015 order also tasked agencies with using clean energy as 25 percent of their energy needs and reduce building energy use by 2.5 percent per year. The new Trump executive order makes no mention of climate change, does not require agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and does not set specific energy efficiency goals.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/388293-trump-repeals-obama-policy-asking-federal-agencies-to-reduce


EPA Undoes Safety Regulations For Chemical Plants 😡

EPA chief Scott Pruitt 👹 moved last week to rescind Obama-era chemical safety regulations intended to reduce the risk of disasters at chemical plants, saying the rules pose "unnecessary regulatory burdens" on industry. The Obama administration put together the Chemical Disaster Rule in response to a 2013 explosion at a chemical plant that killed 15, injured 260 and damaged 150 buildings in the small town of West, Texas. Groups like the American Chemistry Council and American Petroleum Institute aggressively lobbied the Trump administration to roll back the rule, prompting Pruitt to issue a stay on the rule's implementation last year. "With all due respect to Scott Pruitt, he’s never lost 15 firefighter friends," West's mayor Tommy Muska told the Austin American-Statesman. "I’m as pro-business as anyone, but some things are way, way, way more important than too much regulation, and that includes the safety of these chemical plants."
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/frustration-west-after-epa-does-away-with-chemical-plant-rules/IWeohabTs04AG3cAlZk17L/


Investors Put on Pressure Ahead of Shareholder Votes

Dozens of global investors called on the oil and gas industry Friday to take more action to tackle climate change. In an open letter published in the Financial Times, 60 investors, who collectively oversee almost $10.5 trillion of the world's assets, called on the oil and gas industry to "be more transparent and take responsibility for all its emissions." The letter comes ahead of several annual shareholder meetings, including a Tuesday meeting where Royal Dutch Shell shareholders will vote on a resolution requiring the company to set specific emissions reductions targets.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-funds-climatechange/oil-gas-industry-needs-to-do-more-on-climate-change-investors-idUSKCN1IJ1DP




CEI’s 🐉 Next Big Target is Apparently Big Dishwasher   

The industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute 😈 is out with a new campaign, urging its followers to submit public comments on an issue of vital importance to the national discourse.

CEI has set up a microsite making it easy to submit a form letter to the federal register, letting Rick Perry and the Department of Energy know about a grave injustice.

A blog post by CEI’s Devin Watkins directing readers to the site makes it clear that CEI is concerned with the issues that most impact real Americans: slow, energy-efficient dishwashers. Yes, dishwasherchoice.com is a real thing that actually exists.

For the cost of handing over your name, email, phone number and address for CEI to spam you with, you too can send a generic email as a public comment complaining that your energy-efficient dishwasher doesn’t use enough water or power.

Now, if Perry is anything like Zinke when it comes to public comments, he’ll probably ignore these responses anyway. But on the off chance he’s reading, CEI would like him to know that they have very serious concerns about dishwashers being too efficient, and would please like people to have higher energy bills and consume more water. 

Jokes aside, this is a prime example of how “choice” is used by conservatives 😈 as a rhetorical tool to cast inferior products as somehow preferable. In this case, CEI thinks consumers should be able to choose to buy less efficient dishwashers. In other cases, conservatives use “choice” as a way to insist the public should be subject to predatory loans, as in last year’s “Financial Choice Act.” 🦀 During the healthcare debate last year, conservatives floated a “Consumer Choice Act” to allow consumers to buy healthcare plans that didn’t meet ACA standards--plans they barely offered any coverage at all.



This rhetorical ruse--using choice as a code for letting companies rip people off--can be traced back to the “public choice theory” popularized by James Buchanan , a history richly retold in Nancy Maclean’s Democracy in Chains. It’s a story of how fringe economists supplied a convenient narrative for corporations (and racists) who wanted to roll back regulations on their products (and to fight federal desegregation efforts in schools.) The monied interests installed Buchanan and his contemporaries at universities using big donations to set up economic centers.


Which, if you’ve been paying attention to the Koch’s George Mason influence 🦖, should sound pretty familiar.

This network of like-minded funders 🦖 then manufactured an entire ecosystem of pseudo-academics, producing white papers and holding conferences and the like, with the intent to establish as a real theory and not just far-right daydreams the idea that the government is actually bad for people, because the public should be free to choose to get ripped off by corporations.

To be fair to CEI, it would be nice if dishwashers could get the job done faster, and more efficiently. But instead of calling on manufacturers to improve their products through Good Old American Innovation, CEI would rather just have the government loosen the rules.

Because the right’s obsession with personal responsibility only applies to people, not corporations. And it’s not like corporations are people too, right?    
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #212 on: May 21, 2018, 09:56:35 pm »
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-21/man-killed-after-tesla-model-s-crashes-castro-valley-pond
Man Killed After Tesla Model S Crashes Into Pond
Tyler Durden
05/21/2018

In the third fatal crash involving a Tesla Model S in just the last two weeks, after a "horrific" Ft. Lauderdale crash killed two teens who were trapped in the burning sarcophagus after the car's batteries exploded, and just days after another model S also burned to a crisp also tragically trapping its driver on a highway in Switzerland, a 34-year-old man was killed when his Tesla Model S drove into a San Francisco-area pond Sunday night and his body ended up being recovered early Monday morning; the fatal crash closed a portion of Crow Canyon Road in Castro Valley, according to the California Highway Patrol.

    CHP: Adult man was behind wheel of #Tesla Model S sedan when he lost control, broke through fence and landed in pond along Crow Canyon Road. No one else in car besides driver. No ID yet. #AlamedaCounty @nbcbayarea pic.twitter.com/DCm4YONxrX
    — Bob Redell (@BobNBC) May 21, 2018

    The driver of a Tesla broke through a white fence, went up an embankment, into the air, through a tall wooden sign and 65’ into a pond. Divers found his body overnight. #AlamedaCounty @nbcbayarea pic.twitter.com/8nH4ZC3Hzr
    — Bob Redell (@BobNBC) May 21, 2018

According to KTVU and NBC, Alameda County Sheriff's Sgt. Ray Kelly identified the driver as Keith Leung, 34, of Danville.

    Coroner has identified Tesla driver as Keith Leung, a 34 yo man from Danville. A business card found at the scene indicates he was a freelance musician who played bassoon. pic.twitter.com/VSnTTZceew
    — Bob Redell (@BobNBC) May 21, 2018

Based on preliminary evidence, the driver, who has been identified as Danville resident Keith Leung, appeared to veer from Crow Canyon Road just south of Bollinger Canyon Road, smash through a fence and crash into the pond, authorities said. Leung's body and the car were pulled from the water early Monday.

"The vehicle was severly damaged...This is something again that is very tragic," CHP Officer Daniel Jacowitz said according to NBC. "The driver really didn't stand a chance in a way on this. It's sad. It really is."

The pond, site of the deadly crash, is shown below:





A property owner heard the Tesla, driving northbound on Crow Canyon Road, just before 8 p.m. on Sunday, according to CHP Officer Daniel Jacowitz. He called 911 and when he came outside he saw damage to his fence and tire tracks leading up to the pond.

    One man is dead after he crashes his Tesla Model S through a fence off Crow Canyon Road and it submerged in a pond. No other vehicles suspected as being involved. - CHP Castro Valley. .@KTVU pic.twitter.com/udpgBio3D4
    — Leigh Martinez (@LeighMartinezTV) May 21, 2018

Nine members of the Alameda County Sheriff’s rescue team went into the pond about 10 p.m. and found the driver, still sitting upright in the driver's seat, Jacowitz said. He was pulled out and declared dead at the scene about 5:30 a.m. "It's really tragic," Jacowitz said.

However, CHP officers did acknowledge that this stretch of road is a problem area and they conduct enforcement there on a regular basis.  The speed limit ranges from 35 mph to 55 mph and officers say they have cited people for going as fast as 75 mph.



Neighbors have regularly complained that they can’t get out of their drive ways because vehicle are driving so fast.

Jacowitz added that Leung would have had to have been driving more than posted speed limit of 35 mph to have gone airborne and fly the distance it did.

“The vehicle was submerged...trees in the water made it difficult to tow it out,” said CHP Sgt. Michael Novosel.

Of course, Tesla did not respond to a request for comment by KTVU on Monday as the company will first issue a press release explaining just how safe the auto pilot makes its increasingly deadly crashes a thing of the past.

NHTSA said that  "gathering information" on the fatal pond crash "and will take action as appropriate."

    .@NHTSAgov says it is "gathering information" on fatal California Tesla crash into pond "and will take action as appropriate"
    — David Shepardson (@davidshepardson) May 21, 2018

It is not clear if alcohol or drugs played a role in the crash. It is also unclear if Leung was speeding or if autopilot features were engaged at the time of the crash. As the aerial photo of the crash site shows, there are no road markings on the right side of the road below, which is probably why the autopilot got confused, lost control and headed straight into the pond.




This is what happens when you go too fast in a car on a dangerous country road. The fact that it was an EV made by Tesla is irrelevant.

Agelbert NOTE: Any person with an elementary knowledge of physics can see that the Tesla in that crash was going too fast. Although the hysterical electric car haters are trying to blame it on the autopilot or whatever, it's really rather obvious that ANY car going very fast on that road (that you aren't supposed to go above 35 mph on) would crash into the pond. Considering the car had to travese the ramp up in soil before leaping into the air prior to hitting the pond, it is blatantly obvious that this vehicle was traveling at very high speed. If you blame Tesla instead of the driver, you are worthy of pity as well as requiring a course in elementary physics.  Eddie is right about disdaining stuffed shirt types who pretend they are the only one privy to extensive knowledge of science for the purpose of lecturing everyone else. 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #213 on: May 22, 2018, 05:03:59 pm »

Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

May 21, 2018

This]network of like-minded fundersthen manufactured an entire ecosystem of pseudo-academics producing white papers and holding conferences and the like, with the intent to establish as a real theory and not just far-right daydreams the idea that the government is actually bad for people, because the public should be free to choose to get ripped off by corporations.[

To be fair to CEI, it would be nice if dishwashers could get the job done faster, and more efficiently. But instead of calling on manufacturers to improve their products through Good Old American Innovation, CEI would rather just have the government loosen the rules.

Because the right’s obsession with personal responsibility only applies to people, not corporations. And it’s not like corporations are people too, right?    

Absolutely brilliant summary, AG. Thanks.

💐 
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #214 on: May 23, 2018, 10:10:32 pm »

Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

May 23, 2018

Pruitt doing what he does. 🤬

ICYMI: Pruitt’s 👹 Pro-Smoking Policy Criticized, EV Attack Gets Context  , SLR Denial Gets Buried  ;D

“A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.” This old adage has never been more true than in 2018. The quote, often (potentially erroneously) attributed to Mark Twain, was inspired by Thomas Swift, who wrote in 1710 that “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it.”

We’d rather have laced up boots than be limping, but either way today we’re going to call out some recent rebuttals that were just a little too slow to be included in past denier roundups.

Plenty of folks have dragged Pruitt’s politically-driven, pro-smoking “secret science” policy since he announced it last month. Since the comment period is coming to a close, UCS recently ran a post and provided a helpful guide on how to make a public comment. Working with 500 Women Scientists, Earth Justice and the Public Comment Project, they want you to make sure your voice is heard during what they’ve (oh so succinctly) dubbed the National Week of Public Comments on EPA’s “Restricting Science” Policy.

If you’re thinking of writing a comment, you could perhaps point out that John Ioannidis, whose work on reproducibility has been weaponized by deniers, wrote a strong piece against the policy for PLOS One. Or that basically every single scientific organization opposes the policy, as do former EPA leaders (in part because it’s straight out of the tobacco industry’s playbook). Even Pruitt’s pro-polluter takeover of the Science Advisory Board hasn’t stopped it from standing up for science--the revamped Board wants to review his policy, too.

Speaking of questionable takes--did you catch the op-ed attacking electric vehicles in Politico last week? In a recent blog post, the Energy and Policy Institute provided a lot of important context--including the author’s past pro-pollution work, which Politico conveniently forgot to include. The Guardian’s Dana Nuccitelli also debunked the bad take in his most recent column.

In the same column, Nuccitelli also tackled last week’s absurd levels of sea level rise denial in the WSJ from Fred Singer. He was hardly the only one to do so:  Dr. Scott Denning wrote a basic “laws of physics” debunking of Singer’s piece for USCS. Singer’s outrageous claims  also got the Climate Feedback treatment. Our favorite quote from the Climate Feedback piece: one expert wrote that “If this were an essay in one of my undergraduate classes, [Singer] would fail.”

The Journal, to its credit, did run a letter to the editor Tuesday debunking the piece, from University of Florida sea level expert Andrea Sutton and all-around debunker Michael Mann (and a few others.) “Legitimate scientific conclusions are not reached in op-ed pieces,” Mann and Sutton write, “but through careful peer-reviewed research.”  We couldn’t agree more.

Somehow, Singer’s op-ed wasn’t the dumbest sea level rise denial last week. That honor went to Mo Brooks (R-AL) who went about as viral as a dumb science story can with his Cliffs of Dover defense.

The Washington Post’s Philip Bump gave the Dover quip a much more serious treatment than it warranted, and actually calculated just how big a rock would be needed to cause the sea level rise we’re seeing. To produce the amount of rise we’re experiencing, Bump estimates “we’d need to take the top five inches of the United States”--9.1 million square miles worth of land--and drop it into the ocean. Every year.

Given that such a mass would weigh 6.6 quadrillion pounds, perhaps the truth only limps along after the lies because it’s got such a heavy load to carry.

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #215 on: May 24, 2018, 08:16:39 pm »
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

May 24, 2018



Climate Change Versus the Volcano

Fissures have been opening in Hawaii’s Kilauea volcano this month, forcing hundreds from their homes, spewing lava 300 feet into the air, and generating images straight out of a late-90s action movie. A few days ago, the Big Island’s most active volcano was the subject of a NBC MACH video entitled “What the Mt. Kilauea eruptions mean for climate change”.

Volcanic eruptions can have an impact on the global climate. For example, Mt. Pinatubo’s massive eruption in 2001, referenced in the NBC video, cooled average global temperatures by 1°F over 15 months. The eruption spewed 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, which blocked solar radiation.

So what’s the issue with this video? ??? Well, as multiple scientists helpfully pointed out on Twitter, the science  ;) in the video is less solid than hot, molten lava. Though NBC quotes one volcanologist, the relationship between the volcanic impacts he cites and climate science are a bit fissured. ;D


First, the video says that volcanoes emit CFCs, which deplete the ozone layer and cause warming. It also claims that rapid global warming since 2014 could have been caused by the eruption of the Bardarbunga volcano in Iceland (with no real explanation for this conclusion).

There are a bunch of issues here, which Gavin Schmidt breaks down in one tweet:

֍ - Neither Kilauea nor Bardarbunga are/were emitting any SO2 or HCl into the stratosphere

֍ - There are no CFCs involved at all

֍ - Neither had any impact on stratospheric ozone

֍ - Even if they had, the resulting ozone depletion would cause a slight *cooling*! 👀

Andrew Dessler puts it even more simply: “So much in that video piece was wrong. It would have been great if they'd done some basic fact checking before producing it.”

But since they didn’t, perhaps this video is best left unwatched, and instead flushed down the lava-tory.  ;D
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #216 on: June 06, 2018, 11:16:00 pm »


Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

June 6, 2018



A More Inclusive Climate Movement Is Bad, Says Kochy 🦕 Dark Money Director

Yesterday, the Kochs announced that brother David, due to health reasons, would be stepping down from Koch Industries and Americans for Prosperity. Unfortunately, that probably does not mean the vast network of Koch interests will stop trying to influence the public.

For example, an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday carried on the Koch’s message--but, of course, without any disclosure of the Koch money behind its author. The piece by Steven Hayward argued that “climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue,” based on a handful of seemingly random reasons.

By way of introduction, Hayward seems like a ramblin’ man, having bounced around from Ashland University, Georgetown U, UC-Boulder, and Pepperdine. He is now a resident scholar at Berkeley where he co-teaches a course formerly taught by a grad student. While Hayward’s academic career has careened all over the place, he has been consistent in working with Koch affiliated groups. He was a fellow at the conspiracy theorist’s nightmare Mont Pelerin society, the Pacific Research Institute, Heritage, AEI,  and is currently treasurer and on the board of directors at the dark money group Donors Capital.

Of course the WSJ doesn’t disclose to its readers that Hayward is a career Kocher, instead only listing his position at Berkeley. But the content of his op-ed advances the Koch party line that the left politicized climate change and now no one cares about it.

Hayward’s argument is, from the start, dumb. He claims climate is “no longer a pre-eminent policy issue,” and that now only “boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates” supports renewables. But, uh, doesn’t the fact that politicians are talking about it so often it’s boilerplate, and introducing bureaucratic mandates to fight it, kind of indicate that climate and clean energy still an issue?

Not to mention how the various #StillIn coalitions are only gaining in momentum, and how corporations are so terrified of those supposedly frivolous lawsuits that they’re launching projects to push back on them.

Then Hawyard blows an alt-right dog whistle by claiming the Paris Agreement’s inclusion of gender equality and intergenerational equity is “a good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over.” His second supposed proof point is how U-Washington climate scientist Sarah Myhre said that climate change can’t be addressed without also addressing misogyny. Myhre’s had plenty of experience dealing with trolls like Hayward, so instead of dealing with his attacks, we’ll just point out that an issue becoming elevated and intertwined with other salient issues that are part of the larger social zeitgeist is hardly a sign that it’s fading away.

Hayward concludes that the left politicized the climate issue-- apparently because certain climate funders didn’t pour money down the sinkhole of nuclear power--so it deserves to “die by politics.”

But as we all know, it wasn’t the left that used the campaign contribution possibilities opened by Citizens United to primary out Republican Bob Inglis in the 2010 election cycle for talking about climate change.

That was the Kochs. Who, unsurprisingly, Hayward has spent a career serving. As he, and others, will likely continue to for years to come, living out the Koch’s shameful legacy.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #217 on: June 19, 2018, 09:33:42 pm »

"IT'S A SCAM!!!" Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's BRILLIANT Takedown of the Koch Brothers🦕🦖 & Donald Trump 🦀


Dose of Dissonance

Published on Apr 24, 2018

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse delivers a fiery speech on the corrupting influence of "creepy billionaires!" BUY TRUMP TOILET PAPER! http://amzn.to/2Fe08tb (Affiliate Link)

Support Dose of Dissonance's mission @ https://www.patreon.com/DoseofDissonance
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #218 on: June 27, 2018, 11:05:47 pm »
BY FORMER REP. BOB INGLIS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

06/25/18

Climate change disputers 🦖 are actually innovation pessimists 😈
   
Climate action is being blocked more by pessimism about innovation than skepticism about causation. Scratch a climate skeptic, and you’ll find an innovation pessimist. They don’t believe it can be done. Overwhelmed by the scale of the problem, they assume that we can’t change our trajectory. Secretly, they’re depressed about it. They need hope.

Had these pessimists been in the stadium at Rice University in September of 1962, they might have chanted “No way” when President Kennedy said of the Mariner spacecraft then on its way to Venus, “The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the 40-yard lines.”

Innovation pessimists are right to point out that the drive for innovation was more immediate and more visible in 1962. The Soviet’s launch of Sputnik had raised the specter of a goose-stepping, hostile power in control of space. We were unified, and our response was completely within our control.
 
Climate change crawls and creeps; it doesn’t goose step. Addressing it requires a coordinated global response, and innovation pessimists are right to doubt the ability of the United Nations and the ability of the regulatory state to solve the problem.

But the innovation pessimists are missing the dynamism that comes from the internalization of negative externalities, and they’re underestimating the strength of the American market.

Internalizing negative externalities involves adding the health and climate damages to the price of fossil fuels. This accountability would shatter the illusion that energy from fossil fuels is cheap. In a transparent, accountable energy market, consumers — not regulators, not mandates, not fickle tax incentives — would drive demand for clean energy. Entrepreneurs would race to supply that demand, and we’d power our lives with the fuels of the future.

Most simply, this could be accomplished through a carbon tax applied at the mine and at the pipeline. The revenue raised from the carbon tax should then be returned to taxpayers in cuts to existing taxes or in the form of dividend checks to ensure no growth of government.

The strength of the American market would become evident when we applied our carbon tax to imports from countries lacking the same price on carbon dioxide. This border adjustment would entice our trading partners to enact their own carbon taxes. Why pay a tax on entry into the U.S. when you could have paid that same tax to your home country, enabling your goods to enter the U.S. without a carbon tax adjustment?

If innovation pessimists need hope, there’s a further category that needs correction. They’re innovation opponents. They’re 🦖 vested politically or financially in fossil fuels. They don’t want a level playing field. They don’t want transparency. Sometimes they even conjure up national security arguments so that the fossils 🦖 can continue to socialize their soot.
 


Such is the case with Secretary of Energy Rick Perry.
It was reported earlier this month that the Department of Energy has reached back to the Cold War-era Defense Production Act to draft a plan that would enable the DOE to direct operators to purchase electricity from coal and nuclear facilities that are at risk of retirement.

There’s no red army getting ready to invade. The army marching on coal is natural gas. While, there may be an argument for continuing subsidies for emission-less nuclear power, there’s no argument for favoring dirtier-burning coal over cleaner-burning natural gas.

Had innovation opponents like Perry been in the Rice stadium that day in 1962, they would have gone beyond pessimism toward the innovation speech of the century — they would have tried to scramble the signal from the microphone.

They would have wanted to silence the credo of American exceptionalism spoken by Kennedy: “Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it — we mean to lead it.”

Backwash indeed: frozen piles of coal, coal ash slurries, mountain top removal, asthma and other lung diseases, climate damages. Innovation is not your friend if you’re wed to the past or if you’ve made promises you can’t keep to people🦖 who trusted you to protect them from a future that you cannot hold back.

To the innovation pessimists, we can offer hope. To the innovation opponents 🐉🦕, we must offer correction.

Former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) directs republicEn.org, a community committed to free enterprise action on climate change. He served in Congress from 1993-1999 and 2005-2011.

This piece has been updated.

http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/393718-climate-change-disputers-are-actually-innovation-pessimists
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #219 on: June 28, 2018, 08:03:01 pm »
Financial Post commentary misleads about warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions by cherry-picking studies

Analysis of "Ross McKitrick: All those warming-climate predictions suddenly have a big, new problem"

Published in Financial Post, by Ross McKitrick on 20 June 2018

Five scientists analyzed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'low'. 

A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Cherry-picking, Misleading.


SCIENTISTS’ FEEDBACK

This opinion published by the Financial Post, written by economist Ross McKitrick, claims that Earth’s climate is much less sensitive to additions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide than climate scientists think. The article further claims that global warming is, therefore, not an important problem—and may even be beneficial.

Scientists who reviewed the article found that this argument is misleading, and relies on ignoring all but a select few of the many studies that exist on this topic. These studies use a particular method for estimating this “equilibrium climate sensitivity” that other research has shown to be problematic. An informed opinion should consider all the scientific lines of evidence available instead of picking the ones that agree with the author’s predetermined conclusion. Taken together, that evidence does not support the article’s argument.

For a detailed summary of what we know about Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity, see this article at Carbon Brief.

See all the scientists’ annotations in context

REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACK

These comments are the overall opinion of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article.

Reto Knutti, Professor, ETH Zürich:
This is an opinion piece in the “lukewarm” category, arguing that climate models are wrong, future warming will be small, based on carefully selected publications, misleading presentation, and incorrect reporting of the underlying data.

This opinion piece is a completely one-sided and misleading representation of what we know about the long-term response of temperature to greenhouses gases.

Zeke Hausfather, Research Scientist, Berkeley Earth:
This article selectively cherry-picks studies showing low climate sensitivity, leaving out whole lines of evidence (e.g. paleoclimate studies) that agree with the sensitivity estimates found in models. It also glosses over the many criticisms of instrumentally based (or “energy balance”) sensitivity estimates published in recent years.

Patrick Brown, Postdoctoral Research Scientist, Carnegie Institution for Science:
The article makes a big deal about the fact that some methods of estimating equilibrium climate sensitivity tend to give smaller results than others. This is not a new finding and it is not under appreciated in the climate science literature or by the IPCC. The methods for estimating climate sensitivity discussed in the article are already incorporated into the uncertainty ranges of climate sensitivity considered by the IPCC and other assessments. Overall, it is best practice to consider results from a full range of methods and to not focus on the single method that produces the lowest estimate of climate sensitivity.

Mark Zelinka, Research Scientist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
Rather than present the Lewis and Curry (2018) study in the context of the multitude of other estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, the article shows only results from studies using similar approaches that confirm the claim in the title. Such energy budget approaches consistently underestimate climate sensitivity primarily because they rely on a conceptual model of forcing and response that is too simple for the problem at hand, as an explosion of recent literature on the topic has shown. This body of evidence is either dismissed out of hand or ignored entirely in the article.

Andrew Dessler, Professor, Texas A&M University:
This paper misrepresents that state of science. It selectively quotes analyses that support the author’s opinion, while ignoring all contrary evidence. Putting all of the evidence together, there’s no reason to think that climate models are wrong.

Notes:
[1] See the rating guidelines used for article evaluations.
[2] Each evaluation is independent. Scientists’ comments are all published at the same time.

The statements quoted below are from the article; comments and replies are from the reviewers.

Quote
People who study the impacts of global warming have found that if ECS is low — say, less than two — then the impacts of global warming on the economy will be mostly small and, in many places, mildly beneficial. If it is very low, for instance around one, it means greenhouse gas emissions are simply not worth doing anything about.

Patrick Brown, Postdoctoral Research Scientist, Carnegie Institution for Science:
This passage is misleading. It seems to imply that society has already decided to exactly double CO2 concentrations and has committed to emitting no further greenhouse gasses after that. If that were the case, then we could in fact assess climate change impacts in the manner done here.

However, society is far from committing to stabilizing CO2 concentrations at “only” twice their preindustrial levels. We may go well beyond that. In that case, lower equilibrium climate sensitivity just means that it takes longer to reach a given level of warming. So even if climate sensitivity turns out to be very low, all the worst impacts could still be realized—they would just be delayed.

Quote
We may not be able to stop it, but we’d better get ready to adapt to it.

Patrick Brown, Postdoctoral Research Scientist, Carnegie Institution for Science:
The magnitude of equilibrium climate sensitivity has nothing to do with whether or not we can stop climate change. Global temperatures will stabilize when the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses stabilize. So regardless of the climate sensitivity value, we can “stop” climate change by stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations.

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/financial-post-commentary-misleads-warming-effect-greenhouse-gas-emissions-cherry-picking-studies-ross-mckitrick/
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #220 on: June 29, 2018, 07:04:11 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: This Perry POS is definiteliy a student of the Goebbels big lie. Perry probably takes his talking points from Orwell's book, "1984".

Published 11:44 AM ET Tue, 26 June 2018  Updated 1:20 PM ET Tue, 26 June 2018

Energy Sec Rick Perry 🦕 says 'stubborn opposition' to fossil fuels risks keeping billions in poverty


Perry, who casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change, says nations should have the right to responsibly use every fuel source.

The oil and natural gas industry has recently opposed Perry's efforts to force power markets to buy energy from failing coal and nuclear power plants.

Tom DiChristopher   | @tdichristopher

https://climatenexus.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=be64b1f5db&e=0fd17c5b57


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #221 on: July 05, 2018, 04:37:23 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: This is the final portion of a post where I address Surly, an Admin at the Doomstead Diner. I have basically had it with Surly's soft spot for the Palloy "Peak Oil caused collapse will save us" hydrocarbon worshiping propagandist BULLSHIT ARTIST.


Palloy mixes hard facts with bullshit seamlessly and you get your drawers in a bunch every time I expose the arrogant bastard for what he truly is!

After the defamatory CRAP he pulled on Dr. Brown, all you could come up with is some lame request for "proof", which he DID NOT PROVIDE, by the way, and you left it right there, rather than ask me if that constituted "proof" (which it did NOT), after putting me in the exact same "don't Ad hom" scolded at position as the routinely defamatory Palloy PEDANT.

I will NO LONGER TOLERATE you coming after me for alleged AD Hominem towards Palloy. I told you loud and clear what a dangerous F U C K he is in PMs. He is pushing a meme that will kill ALL of us, and you, like Palloy, are too bound up in your belief that a lack of hydrocarbons caused collapse will come before environmental catastrophe caused collapse to see that.

Allowing an ASS HOLE like Palloy to keep parading his pseudo-erudite BULLSHIT continually is a testament to EVERYONE HERE's incredibly STUPID world view that is contributing to the AGE OF (hydrocarbon loving) STUPID that is DOOMING human civilization.

GET OFF your "hydrocarbons are needed for civilization" STUPID VIEW, Surly. It IS STUPID.


Here is PROOF that it is STUPID!

Conversation with a Buddhist.

Ka said
Quote
I think it likely that the remaining hegemons will say -- time to withdraw to the Western Hemisphere (except maybe keep the sea lanes open to Nigerian and Angolan oil). If so, then I think the West has better long-term prospects than the East.

I hope you are right. But the MO of the goons (with a CONSISTENT historical track record) in charge that you are totally ignoring makes your wish look more like a prayer than a serious possibility.

THE MO of the neocon has a LONG history. As a scholar, you probably know it better than I do but you JUST DO NOT WANT TO GO THERE. It's time you did.

Let me refresh your memory on how this works:

Richard Nixon was the first (in our country - as far as I know) to espouse the policy of acting super belligerent and crazy as a foreign policy tactic. The purpose is to intimidate the other nation into acting "reasonable" and acceding to our predatory corporate demands RATHER THAN BEING DESTROYED. You need to convince the other nation that you will gladly go beyond the brink even if your economy will be hampered by it! This BULLY policy has gotten more polished but it's still the same basic MO.  Look up some quotes from the Republican speaker of the house (Gingrich). He said NEVER back down. When an opponent attempts to negotiate a settlement agreeable to both, DOUBLE DOWN on the threats. Never admit fault. Never go on the defensive. Always remain on the offensive. THAT is the MO that you want to pretend does not DOMINATE US foreign policy.

The problem with that type of MO is that it leads to WAR if the other party does not back down. It has worked BECAUSE it has been used on WEAK countries for the past few decades. If you think Russia is going to back down here, you just do not understand the situation.

Russia, by the way, STILL has complete underground cities and an extensive plan to survive (as well as possible under the circumstances - they KNOW how to grow food in sealed areas - they did a multiyear study to simulate a closed food system on mars) a full scale nuclear attack. Have you forgotten that?

The people doing this in our country have LOST IT. They aren't PRETENDING to be crazy. They have GONE CRAZY! It's called megalomania born of too many monstrous "successes" like Iraq and 9/11. 

It happened in Germany before WWII. We are there. Only some smart people that can counter them INSIDE our government will avoid WWIII. The neocons BELIEVE, like the crazies Reagan spoke about in the 1980s (you've got to be pretty crazy to be to the right of Reagan!) that "we" can win a nuclear war. They will NOT EVER accept a multi-polar world. That's the reality. We are all in danger as long as they are commanding our government sponsored terrorism.

All that said, I envy your ability to pretend all this is an illusion. That means your stress hormones are probably lower than mine and you will never have heart disease from stress.

I wish it was an illusion. I don't think so. I remember how you claimed Fossil fuels had NOT gamed the playing field against renewable energy in the 1980s as if dirty energy actually WON the cost competition in those days. I gave you all sorts of circumstantial evidence but since it wasn't in the New York Times, I guess you remained unconvinced.

Watch this two minute tape. Accept EVERYTHING on it as true. If you don't, then watch the entire video the clip comes from and you WILL see the evidence for yourself. You were wrong to think fossil fueldom did not screw us back then and continues to screw us now. These people are not stupid; they are evil. But I agree that if this is all an illusion, it does not really matter...

Fossil Fuel Government 2 minute Video Clip FULL VIDEO, "The Age of Stupid": 



corruptio optimi pessima

THIS is not an illusion:


Surly, if you are too enthralled with your concept of "freedom of speech" to see how SUICIDALLY STUPID it is to allow assholes like Palloy to claim the greater problem for human civilization is the "lack of energy from the lack of hydrocarbons", then you, like Palloy, are part of the problem and I am in the wrong forum.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #222 on: July 13, 2018, 12:01:54 pm »
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

July 12, 2018



So Close, Yet Still So Far from Reality: Two Deniers Almost Tell the Truth

Denial is never scientifically accurate, but sometimes it’s close. While we enjoy the relative ease of dunking on the obviously wrong, today we’re going to be a little nicer, and look at a couple of examples of deniers 🦕 🦖 who got oh so very close to being right.

Both, oddly enough, are by folks associated with local chapters of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC 🦕), which has received funding from Heartland🦖.

First up: a piece by Viv Forbes 🦕, a career coal guy affiliated with the Australian version of ICSC, published this week in the American Thinker. Forbes argues that the “climate alarm media” misses long-term trends of climate by focusing on short-term weather events. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of reality, but in making this counterfactual point, Forbes lays out a fairly factual description of the natural cycles of the climate system.

Unfortunately for Forbes, he manages to totally gloss over the fact that these natural cycles take hundreds and thousands and hundreds of thousands of years, while the warming humans are causing can be felt in just decades. Forbes’s insistence that human carbon pollution can’t offset the next looming ice age is cold comfort for anyone but readers in the year 3100. 

The second is an essay by Steve Goreham 🦖, a public speaker, Heartland policy advisor and leader of the Climate Science Coalition of America (CSCA) 😈 👹, which is the US arm of the aforementioned ICSC. The piece first appeared in the far right fake news and hate factory WND, then made its way to the Daily Caller, then finally to Heartland’s website

Like Forbes, Goreham flirts with the truth but ends up missing the mark by encouraging his audience to stop saying humans “contribute to climate change.” Goreham complains that from keeping housecats to exhaling, “every human activity contributes to climate change.”

Goreham’s description of the climate system is surprisingly scientifically accurate, touching on the influence of the oceans and aerosols and the like. Even his main point isn’t technically wrong:  he argues that water vapor is the “dominant” greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and that there’s more natural CO2 in the atmosphere than there is from human activity. Goreham therefore concludes that since everything contributes to climate change, not just humans, the term is meaningless and people should stop using it.

We don’t tend to agree with folks we feature here, but Goreham’s not wrong. It’s much more accurate and simple to say that human activity, spec ifically burning fossil fuels, is not contributing to, but causing climate change. We’re responsible for it. We are to blame for it. It’s our fault.

Thanks, Steve! You’re right, just… not in the way you 🦖 meant to be.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #223 on: July 13, 2018, 04:50:49 pm »
Truthout

July 13, 2018

Bradley Foundation😈🦕🦖 Funds Web of Climate Change Deniers 👹🐒🦍

David Armiak, PR Watch: Bradley Foundation internal documents reviewed by the Center for Media and Democracy reveal a concerted effort by the organization to delegitimize climate science while promoting fossil fuel energy development in the United States.

Read the Article

Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12946
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #224 on: July 18, 2018, 04:38:51 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Bill McKibben debunks the hydrocarbon hellspawn 😈 negative propaganda about Renewables.

The Renewable Energy Jobs Myth

July 18, 2018

by  The Sanders Institute
 

One of the largest myths about addressing climate change is that transitioning to renewable energy from fossil fuels (especially coal) will create a net loss of American jobs.

However, renewable energy is doing the opposite of putting Americans out of work. The New York Times reported that in 2016 coal was responsible for 160,119 jobs. In contrast solar employed more than double that amount (373,807 Americans).

The number of renewable jobs is also expected to grow significantly in the coming years. Last year, Business Insider reported that “solar and wind jobs are growing at a rate 12 times as fast as the rest of the US economy and… 46% of large firms have hired additional workers to address issues of sustainability over the past two years.”

In addition to renewables' contribution to overall employment in the United States, there are a number of other economic benefits to American workers when we encourage growth in the renewable energy industry:

Geographic Distribution
While fossil fuel jobs tend to be concentrated in a few states (the vast majority of jobs in coal exist in West Virginia or Wyoming.), renewable energy jobs are spread out around the country. Program Director Liz Delaney at the Environmental Defense Fund points out that “These jobs [in the renewable energy sector] are widely geographically distributed, they're high paying, they apply to both manufacturing and professional workers, and there are a lot of them.”

Supporting and encouraging the renewable energy industry will help hundreds of thousands of Americans find jobs all across the country. These are not simply installation jobs either, maintenance is a large part of the renewable energy industry.

Small Businesses

Environmental Defense Fund Program Director Delaney also mentions that “70% of the 2.2 million Americans who work in jobs related to energy efficiency are employed by companies with 10 employees or fewer.” These are small businesses, hiring American workers, in one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy. In addition, according to Delaney these jobs are also more difficult to outsource because “many sustainability jobs involve installation, maintenance, and construction.” The renewable energy sector is encouraging small business development in America.

Ultimately, encouraging the development of the renewable energy sector is the best path forward for America. Concerns about lost jobs in the fossil fuel and coal industries are legitimate and important to recognize, but those lost jobs should not hinder progress towards a renewable future. This is why training programs should be encouraged to support fossil fuel workers move to other sectors or be trained in budding renewable technology. The New York Times reports that “In Wyoming, home to the nation’s most productive coal region by far, the American subsidiary of a Chinese maker of wind turbines is putting together a training program for technicians in anticipation of a large power plant it expects to supply. And in West Virginia, a nonprofit outfit called Solar Holler… is working with another group, Coalfield Development, to train solar panel installers and seed an entire industry.” These successful test cases demonstrate that America can work towards renewable energy while also supporting and training workers to transition from fossil fuels to renewables in the same way that America is transitioning.

The claim that renewable energy is a job killer or a drain on our economy is a myth, perpetrated by the fossil-fuel business 🦖 😈 👹 and the politicians 🐒 who do their bidding. Don't fall for it. Renewable energy is the path forward for American jobs and the future of our planet.

https://www.sandersinstitute.com/blog/the-renewable-energy-jobs-myth


Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

+-Recent Topics

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
September 20, 2018, 08:30:47 am

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 04:50:53 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 04:49:11 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 04:33:49 pm

Hydrocarbon Crooks Evil Actions by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 02:40:29 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
September 19, 2018, 02:08:44 pm

Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi by AGelbert
September 18, 2018, 05:03:12 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
September 18, 2018, 04:28:22 pm

Pain Relief by AGelbert
September 17, 2018, 11:46:16 am

Money by AGelbert
September 16, 2018, 05:34:09 pm