The cult doomer prophesy upgrades to Billionaire Class. Put this man out of his misery.
Andrew Forrest, Executive Chairman of a $60 billion company made a bizarre speech a few days ago. This is a business presentation with the words like “vomit”, “stampede” and “seizures”, and pictures of skeletons in the desert. The big secret threat, he said, that scientists are not saying “is lethal humidity”. He really believes it. Here’s a man in command of the tenth largest company in Australia with a $33 billion dollar bank account, but not the judgment to get an advisor who can explain the difference between specific and relative humidity. He doesn’t realize that trends are rising in one, but falling in the other, and the modelers were wrong (again). He just had to pick up the phone and call the Met Office, or the CSIRO. They would have loved to talk to him. Even the IPCC experts could have saved him from this embarrassment.
“Lethal Humidity will be the next global pandemic” he prophecies.
“It is business that will kill your children,” he says blaming and demonizing the corporate world that made him rich. “It is the beginning of the end”.
The message for Fortescue shareholders, is run, don’t walk. He is setting up your company to “lead the way” on a sacred mission to save humanity. He hasn’t done his homework, and worse, must have surrounded himself with people telling him what he wants to hear.
“At just 35C with high humidity you can die in six hours”
“We do not have the human evolution to survive it”
There’s no cure.
Forrest runs away with stories of acute emergency care for hyperthermia, labeled with “Harvard Medical School” because, science, yeah…
We may have to drain the blood…
But he’s panicking about relative humidity and it’s not rising, it’s falling…
The fatalistic 35 degree death rate that Forrest is so afraid of, happens only “with 100 percent humidity” — it refers to relative humidity, not specific humidity which is measured in grams per kilogram, not percentages, and relative humidity is falling. So “climate change” such as it is, might reduce the rate of lethal humidity.
The Humidity Paradox
Forrest claims that for every degree the world gets warmer we will get a 7% rise in humidity. This is standard bucket chemistry — like a SciFi novel written by a precocious 12 year old. It comes from the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, which works well in the lab but is cruelly being thwarted by slowing wind speeds or ocean currents leaving modelers scratching their heads. Even the IPCC agrees. Surface relative humidity is falling. Perplexed modelers call this “the humidity paradox” which sounds so much better than “we were wrong”, but that’s what it means. Temperature is important for evaporation, but as anyone who has hung washing on the line knows — wind speed will make or break your day and ultimately the models can’t predict future wind speeds. The dreaded “Global Stilling” was a thing right up until “Global windiness” suddenly became a great opportunity for wind farms. At one point, modelers split their bets saying the northern hemisphere winds would slow while the southern hemisphere would speed up. Confused? Join the IPCC.
In theory, if there are no limiting factors, then this [7% per degree] is the rate of increase we would expect to see. However, … this new dataset shows that relative humidity has actually decreased over many regions of the oceans. … This decrease is difficult to explain given our current physical understanding of humidity and evaporation. For example, the expectation from climate models is that ocean relative humidity should remain fairly constant or increase slightly.
The decrease in relative humidity over land is really interesting. We do not see the same decrease in historical reconstructions from climate models…
Specific humidity is rising as the world warms (compared to 1981). A warmer world is a “wetter world.”
But relative humidity is falling, which the models didn’t expect. Warmer air can hold more water vapor, and apparently the air is warming faster than the extra water vapor is leaping into the sky. With lower relative humidity the air has a little more capacity to cool mammals than it did 40 years ago.
Andrew Forrest must have surrounded himself with people who only agree with him. There would be scores of people at Fortescue Metals who could explain the flaws to him, save him from wasting billions of dollars, and from great public embarrassment, but presumably they are all too afraid to say anything. He does keep sacking top executives, after all.
His beliefs are launched on a list of something like 60 peer reviewed papers. He quotes these papers like a kid with a chemistry set. The key words are there, but he doesn’t understand what they mean.
….
Most other chairmen talk about the climate but they don’t believe it.
Fortescue Metals Group is worth $60 Billion AUD. This ought to scare any investor.
We’re on the precipice of a radical experiment with a national electricity grid
The AEMO (manager of the Australian grid) has finally released the major report on problems coming in the next ten years on our national grid, and it’s worse than they thought even six months ago. They euphemistically refer to the coming “reliability gaps”. They could have said “blackouts” instead, but a gap in reliability sounds so much nicer.
Bizarrely, the lead graph of the 175 page AEMO report goes right off the scale, mysteriously peaking in the unknown and invisible real estate off the top of the chart. And they’re not projecting troubles fifty years from now. Those cropped peaks of invisible pain hit from 2027.
And even the pain we can see is apparently quite bad. Two states are already likely to breach “the interim reliability measure” in this coming summer. Ominously, just one day after releasing the report, the AEMO is calling for tenders for “reliability reserves” in South Australia and Victoria. Apparently, they want offers of industries ready to shut down who aren’t already on the list, and they want spare generation too — get this — even asking for “small onsite generators”. Does that sound bad to you? It sounds bad to me.
“Based on current trajectory, we’re in for a world of pain ahead. …theAEMO projections are looking pretty dire.”
Consider figure 1: A decade of blackouts coming
Have you ever seen a graph like this that hides the peaks? In the “central scenario” of the cropped graph — “only” four states of Australia go off the charts. Imagine what the bad scenario looks like…
AEMO, ESOO, 2023. Figure 1 shows the reliability forecast and indicative reliability forecast for the 2023 ESOO Central scenario. This forecast considers only the sub-set of known developments that have demonstrated sufficient commitment towards commissioning in the NEM (those developments classified as committed or anticipated), including announced retirements, and allows for project delivery schedules that may be slower than proponents have advised based on observed development, approval and commissioning requirements.
Given that South Australia flew in diesel jet engines for back up generation at one point (General Electric aero-derivative turbines) — perhaps we can ask Qatar Airlines if they can plug some planes straight into our grid? (The government won’t let them fly in more passengers, in case it screws up Qantas profits, but that means they must have a few planes they can spare.)
A leap to Figure 43 suggests those hidden peaks of Figure 1 might be quite high in NSW and Victoria. Figure 43 shows the same “Central Scenario” as Figure 1 — this time as dotted lines — and we are allowed to see a bit more of the graph. The y axis is the same Expected Unserved Energy (%) this time reaching up to 0.007%. But the NSW (blue) and Victorian (grey) lines are doing the Moonshot thing in 2027. They’re headed to infinity or some number the AEMO didn’t want to graph.
AEMO, ESOO, 2023,
The solid lines in Figure 43 are the slightly better scenarios that include contributions from CER or “Consumer Energy Resources” (that’s you!). This is what the future looks like with more help from things like solar panels on rooftops, home batteries, and Electric Vehicles. It’s also the best we can do with DSP assistance — which means Demand Side Participation — those people who participate by not demanding electricity. In normal English we would call them the customers who are paid to stay away or something.
Ten different ways to go without electricity
The AEMO doesn’t use the word blackout, but it has a dozen flavours of blackouts-by-another-name, many of them voluntary or subsidized and somewhat prearranged. It looks so much better on paper to say “DSP” but it means someone, somewhere going without electricity when they would otherwise have used it. DSP gets 146 mentions in the AEMO report, giving us some idea on how mini-blackouts are now an essential part of managing a very sick grid.
At a minimum DSP may just be an inconvenience — people have to program their washing machine and pool filter to run at lunchtime, which sounds fine until you have only one sunny day that week and you have six loads of washing. In a rich world without “reliability gaps” you would just run it, conveniently, from 5 to 10 pm the night before.
DSP is code for people willing (or dragged), in some sense, to have a voluntary mini-blackout — and the report notes the major factor driving an increase in DSP uptake is because electricity is now more expensive (what a great thing?). The AEMO notes: “These higher prices have led to more benefits to customers participating in DSP schemes or responding directly to market signals”. Table 5 lists the Negawatts of voluntary outages when prices rise to $1,000, $5,000 and $7,500 per megawatt hour…
Now that Alice lives in Downunder-land — more expensive electricity means customers get more “benefits” when they don’t use it. See how this works? Only the wealthy will have the convenience of electricity whenever they want it. The underclass will be cooking on barbeques, and getting up earlier each day to program the washing machine and set up the timers for the scooters.
Ominously the AEMO projects a lot more voluntary blackouts:
AEMO, ESOO, 2023
Drowning in complexity
The message in 42 tables and 100 figures is unspoken, but obvious — the Australian grid is drowning in complexity, there are so many moving unpredictable parts. The report models the various possibilities of low rain, low wind, low stocks of fossil fuels, droughts, heatwaves, and unexpected outages. They try to model some combinations and permutations of multiple troubles occurring simultaneously. Whether we get and can afford electricity now depends on ocean currents in the Pacific that no one can predict. We live in the land of drought and flooding rains, and we’re hoping the weather will be nice.
The AEMO brightly says that it can be managed, see Figure 2, if we just build 10,000 kilometers of high transmission lines through farmland and forests, and then finish all the wind farms and solar magic panels, along with lots more voluntary blackouts, “consumer investments” (home batteries) and dispatchable capacity (whatever could that be?)
The last thought is the predictions for South Australia:
There is an 84% chance under a “neutral/unknown climate outlook” that South Australia will have no blackouts this summer. But there is a 16% chance that some will occur, and these are most likely to be 1-3 hours long affecting 5 to 30% of the region (which means “of the state”, presumably). But there is a tiny chance they might lose half the state for as much as 16 hours (spread over four different nights, say). I bet they are praying they don’t get a hot windless week?
But even if they don’t have one blackout, more of people’s lives will be wasted paying electricity bills and reading articles on how to save electricity, how to reprogram the pool filter, how to charge the kids scooter, how to put out fires started by the scooter…
If that’s a neutral/unknown outlook, what does it look like for a long hot summer?
Suddenly a lot of people in London are realizing what “Net Zero” really means
Nigel Farage at the Ulez protests in London
This week many Londoners are waking up to the impact of living in an Ultra Low Emission Zone as the £12.50 daily charge for unfashionable cars begins in the outer poorer suburbs.
Normally “climate change” costs are secretly buried in bills, hidden in rising costs and blamed on “old unreliable coal plants”, inflation or foreign wars. Your electricity bill does not have a category for “subsidies for your neighbors solar panels”. But the immense pain of NetZero can’t be disguised.
For a pensioner on £186 a week it could be as much as an £87 a week penalty for driving their car — or £4,500 a year. The Daily Mail is full of stories of livid and dismayed people who served in the Navy or worked fifty years, who can’t afford to look after older frail Aunts or shop in their usual stores now, or who will have to give up their cars. People are talking about the “end of Democracy”. The cameras are expected to bring in £2.5 million a day in ULEZ charges to City Hall. But shops inside the zone may also lose customers, and everyone, with and without cars will have to pay more for tradespeople and deliveries to cover the cost of their new car or Ulez fee.
Protests have reached a new level of anger and hooded vigilantes in masks carry long gardening clippers, or spray cans and lazers to disable cameras that record number plates for Ulez. In one photo the whole metal camera pole has been sheared by an electric saw of some sort. There chaos.
Interactive maps have sprung up to report where the cameras are, and help people “plan their trips”. The vigilante group called Blade Runners have vowed to remove or disable every ULEZ camera in London. Nearly nine out of ten cameras have been vandalized in South-east London.
The Transport for London website was overwhelmed with searches from people wondering if their car was compliant and they would have to pay just to drive on the roads their taxes and fees built. Some people have bought old historic cars to get around the fee, but apparently a lot of people hadn’t thought much about what was coming. Sadiq Khan probably didn’t mention this in his election campaign. Presumably there are others in London who will get a nasty surprise bill in the mail.
As Nigel Farage says: “I’ve never seen people so angry about this new tax on working people. “And people are not just furious at Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, they’re angry at the Prime Minister and the conservatives for not stopping the scheme.
Politicians all over the West should be watching London
…
The shock win 6 weeks ago of an anti-Ulez candidate in Boris Johnson’s old seat rattled both sides of politics to the point where even Sir Keir Starmer the Labor Opposition leader has been pressuring Sadiq Khan to slow down. The Labor Party appeared to suddenly recognize that their green flank was exposed and vulnerable to any conservatives who spoke up for car owners, which, of course, might win them millions of votes.
The only way the unpopular green policies win elections is when the costs are hidden and the plans are described in vaporous motherware lines of clean air and fluffy koalas. But the Ulez fees are a full frontal attack on lifestyles, especially of the poor.
With a first-past-the -post voting system in the UK both sides of politics are very vulnerable to splinter factions that break away on key topics and fracture their vote. The only way unpopular green schemes win elections is when both sides of “the Uniparty” have the same policy.
People all over the West should be watching London, because if Sadiq Khan gets away with this, it will happen everywhere.
Katie Hopkins is appalled that people are vandalizing cameras with filling foam from ToolStation for £6.69:
One Tory MP — Sir Iain Duncan Smith has said he backs the “Blade Runners”. The former cabinet minister said today he was ‘happy’ for the residents of his Chingford and Woodford Green constituency to destroy cameras because they have been ‘lied to’.
Vandalism is of course a bad thing. The worst vandals are the ones who run for elections without telling the voters they plan to take their cars, their jobs, their lifestyle and toss them in the Thames. Those vandals ransack whole democracies with deceit.
It would be so much better wouldn’t it, if the PM held a referendum on Net Zero and let the people decide?
h/t David Maddison, and Topher. I’ll be talking about this on The Aussie Wire with Topher.
Vivek Ramaswamy worked in the pharmaceutical industry. Now that he’s free to speak, he distills the utter corruption of the FDA in under four minutes, it is beyond redemption, rotten to the core. “That’s’s why I favor a dramatic drastic gutting of the FDA…” — he says. Exactly…
From his Twitter feed: “The corrupt FDA says you don’t have the right to even *try* medicines that haven’t been through 10+ years of testing, yet the government *mandated* Covid vaccines that sailed through FDA approval in less than 1 year. You can’t believe both things at once. Countless FDA regulations and actions are hypocritical, harmful & unconstitutional. I will rescind them accordingly, using the Supreme Court’s holding in West Virginia vs. EPA as my legal basis for doing so. For years I was coached by industry veterans not to speak out against FDA. It’s well known that if you anger FDA, they will punish you by blackballing review of your drug review applications. “FDA never forgets” is a quietly-whispered, well-known pharma industry adage. Well, they could only shut me up for so long. Now I speak freely as a citizen.” — @VivekGRamaswamy
Meanwhile — circulating somewhere on the web, sent in by Charles:
Yet another reason EV’s are a lousy way to “save the world”
The point of all the subsidies, the charging sites, the $3,000 parking fines, the extra generation, interrupted journeys, pot-holes, road-wear, tyre pollution, collapsing parking lots and random fires is supposedly so that we make the weather nicer by burning less fossil fuels. But in Norway where the biggest experiment in EV’s has produced an “idyllic” mass uptake of EV’s, the fuel use has hardly changed.
Rystad Energy says that this shows we *must* electrify the buses, tractors and trucks too, but really this just shows what a waste of money all the past subsidies were.
If the “low hanging fruit” subsidies didn’t achieve much, the next round of subsidies will have to waste stupendous amounts of money. Remember this doesn’t include fuel used to power the electricity cars, nor the fuel used to mine the lithium and build the EV, or to fill in the potholes and rebuild the bridges. No one even knows if EV’s will reduce carbon dioxide. “There’s no such thing as a zero emissions vehicle”.
This is just “road fuel” we’re talking about and it’s not reducing it much:
By Rystad Energy – Aug 28, 2023, 9:00 AM CDT, OilPrice.com
Although EVs make up about 90% of all new car sales in Norway, fuel demand has only seen a 10% fall from 2017 to 2023, remaining relatively stable.
Road fuel demand in Norway has remained relatively stable even with soaring electric vehicle (EV) adoption, raising questions about whether EVs really have a material impact on diesel and gasoline sales. Rystad Energy research and modeling has, however, uncovered the truth behind the persistent sales – electrifying heavy-duty vehicles, especially trucks, is essential to lowering overall fuel consumption.
EVs are often positioned as the key to decarbonizing transportation, but the latest data from the Norwegian government suggests otherwise. Electric cars have accounted for at least 80% of all passenger vehicle sales for the past three years. EVs – including plug-in hybrid (PHEV) and battery electric vehicles (BEV) – accounted for about 90% of all new car sales in 2023. More than 50% of passenger cars on the road in Oslo are electric, a threshold that BEVs alone will pass 50% in the next two years.
As far as experiments go, if anyone cared about CO2 emissions — the Norwegian EV program is a fail.
Drilling into the details, you might assume that Norwegians have used EV’s for the only bearable outcome they could find, which was short trips that didn’t use much fuel, which is why they didn’t make much difference. But Rystad Energy claims people drive the average BEV slightly further than the average diesel.
Since 2018, the average BEV in Norway has driven more miles than passenger cars of any other fuel type. In 2022, the average BEV drove 12,950 kilometers (km), surpassing for the first time the average distance of 12,000 km for diesel passenger vehicles. Overall, average passenger vehicle travel has steadily declined in Norway, from about 13,800 km in 2007 to 11,100 km in 2022.
They looked at official fuel sales, annual average mileage and car sales as reported by Statistics Norway and estimate that passenger car fuel demand is down 20%, which is “in line with the BEV market penetration”, which it might be, but it’s still a big nothing in terms of stopping storms, floods and fires. No jet streams were altered by this experiment.
Other factors confounding the experiment is that fuel demand from buses and trucks has grown from 30,000 barrels per day to 32,000. Plus the population grew, and people own slightly more cars per capita. (We all know EV’s are more likely to be the second car?) There are so many moving variables here — do governments that push EV’s onto the population also increase immigration thus undermining their own emissions reductions efforts? (Yes they do, and all the time). Are the populations that buy EV’s so wealthy they can afford the luxury of a second car? Does the increase in fuel prices (which was driven by green policies) mean more people catch buses and order online now, so instead of driving to the store, big diesel trucks now deliver their parcels?
Rystad Energy have a very long explanation of why really the fuel savings from EV’s are “just around the corner” — like everything else in Transition-World.
If politicians and activists actually cared about CO2, they wouldn’t be doing this.
Wouldn’t you know — to make paper straws resistant to water, it seems we have to add Teflon type chemicals that stick around for thousands of years.
Researchers analyzed 39 brands of straws in Belgium and found two thirds contained PFAS, and the paper straws were the worst. Fully 90% of all the paper straws contained some form of PFAS. 80% of Bamboo straws did too, as did 75% of plastic straws. Even 40% of glass straws contained PFAS. The only type of straws that were free of it were steel.
The UK, Canadian, Belgium, New Zealand, and Australian governments banned plastic straws, as did some US States because “they were bad for the environment”.
In the first analysis of its kind in Europe, and only the second in the world, Belgian researchers tested 39 brands of straws for the group of synthetic chemicals known as poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
PFAS were found in the majority of the straws tested and were most common in those made from paper and bamboo, the study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Food Additives and Contaminants, found.
PFAS are used to make everyday products, from outdoor clothing to non-stick pans, resistant to water, heat and stains. They are, however, potentially harmful to people, wildlife and the environment.
They break down very slowly over time and can persist over thousands of years in the environment, a property that has led to them being known as “forever chemicals.”
They have been associated with a number of health problems, including lower response to vaccines, lower birth weight, thyroid disease, increased cholesterol levels, liver damage, kidney cancer and testicular cancer.
Maybe accidental, maybe not…
It isn’t known whether the PFAS were added to the straws by the manufacturers for waterproofing or whether were the result of contamination. Potential sources of contamination include the soil the plant-based materials were grown in and the water used in the manufacturing process.
However, the presence of the chemicals in almost every brand of paper straw means it is likely that it was, in some cases, being used as a water-repellent coating, say the researchers.
Calling these straws “paper”, 100% biodegradable and fully compostable seems like false advertising.
The BRICS nations (in red, below) have just accepted six new members — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Argentina, Iran, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates (green). The block now includes 46% of the population of Earth. They make 43% of the worlds oil, and about a quarter of the traded goods. The BRICS are going to abandon the US dollar and another 20 nations have expressed a desire to join. The India Narrative, called it “a new world order”.
In other news, the BRICS groups said they’d quite like the West to keep giving them money and free climate technologies to save the world from climate change, (while the West battles the climate demons and hobbles its own economies). The BRICS promise they will absolutely, definitely, maybe get serious too in a few decades.
The BRICS would like that $100 billion the West promised:
BRICS countries on Thursday further urged developed countries to honor their commitments, including mobilizing 100 billion U.S. dollars per annum by 2020 and through 2025 to support climate action in developing countries. — CGTN
The UN is “very important” because it helps BRICS nations get free things from the West, slows the developed world, and almost never demands anything in return. It is a one way siphon:
New Delhi, August 24 (IANS): BRICS nations on Thursday re-emphasiseed on the importance of implementing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Paris Agreement and the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) enhancing low-cost climate technology transfer, capacity building as well as mobilising affordable, adequate and timely delivered new additional financial resources for environmentally sustainable projects.
“We recognise that the Means of Implementation should be enhanced by developed countries, including through adequate and timely flow of affordable climate finance, technical cooperation, capacity building and transfer of technology for climate actions.
“Furthermore, there is a need for comprehensive financial arrangements to address loss and damage due to climate change, including operationalising the fund on loss and damage as agreed at the UNFCCC COP27 to benefit developing countries,” the declaration said.
This is not exactly a pact of free speech and free markets
India and Brazil want to stay on good terms with The West and only a few days ago were calling for “clarity”, and it looked like the expansion might not go through. But the West’s gravitas has shrunk (with its carbon emissions) and evidently India decided the QUAD defense pact would survive any bad feelings arising from them approving, eww, Iran. (The QUAD being Japan, USA, Australia and India).
Brazil and India had advocated for a more gradual expansion of Brics amid concerns that the group could become too far aligned against the West, morphing into an autocratic version of the Group of Seven major economies.
It appears that Brics is headed in that direction, with just one of the six newly-admitted nations—Argentina—ranked as “free” in Freedom House’s widely used global freedom index, with a score of 85 out of 100. The other five countries are all designated “not free,” with scores ranging from eight to 21.
Still, Brazil and India voiced their support for the expansion …
Who knows — the block may struggle with internal tensions as Iran and Saudi Arabia are not exactly on the best of terms, and nor are Egypt and Ethiopia. China’s economy is said to be in trouble. South Africa is suffering long rolling blackouts, violence and corruption. India joined the Quad for fear of China’s aggression.
Thanks to NetZeroWatch for links to key articles and OldOzzie.
Say hello to the new ideal car for your ultra low emission city, not an EV but a fifty year old Hillman
Many Londoners are suddenly discovering how much they love old vintage cars, especially ones from the pre 1983 era, which just happen to be exempt from the £12.50 a day new carbon tax. The old cars are selling at a premium, and London may soon become the Old-Car-Mecca of the world. Who knows? This may not have been what Sadiq Khan was aiming for when he tried to force everyone to buy an EV or catch a bus. But it’s what happens when you bully people.
The much hated Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) starts on August 29th and people driving petrol cars older than 2006 or diesel cars from before 2015 are likely to end up paying £12.50 every day just to drive in London. Vintage cars older than 40 years are exempt.
Londoners are snapping up classic cars in a bid to dodge Sadiq Khan‘s ULEZ charge that will be expanded to cover all of the capital’s boroughs next week. Dealers across the capital have noted a surge in sales of cars manufactured before 1983, which are exempt from the £12.50 charge as they are classed as ‘historic vehicles’.
Merlin McCormack, owner of Duke of London, a vintage car dealership in Brentford, said he had seen customers opting for more affordable classic cars to avoid the clean air levy. He branded the surge in sales ‘ironic’ as although the cars are exempt from the charge, the older cars are more polluting than its modern equivalent.
An Austin Mini for £20,000? | Photo of a Mini by Martin Pettitt from Bury St Edmunds, UK
This includes a 1970 Hillman Imp Super for £9,500, a 1973 Alfa Romeo 2000 for £12,000, and a 1972 Austin Mini for £20,000.
These older vehicles are also exempt from road tax, which Garry Short managing director of Classic Chrome in Mortlake, said most people are unaware of.
In the emails, seen by The Telegraph, Ms Rodrigues said she was disappointed that Imperial College had published a study by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering that showed Ulez cut nitrogen dioxide by less than three per cent and had achieved an insignificant impact on ozone and particulate matter.
Such research undermined the London Mayor’s policy, argued Ms Rodrigues.
Such research undermines the Mayor’s policy, she said, as if science only existed to endorse the crazy totalitarian schemes politicians dream up.
Recent Comments