Comments 1 to 19:

1. One Planet Only Forever at 02:36 AM on 13 August, 2022

   The study “Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products” adds to awareness and understanding helping consumers make less harmful food choices. But it contains a couple of questionable points:

   1. It is questionable to consider any water needed for food growing to be a problem. Water use is only a concern if it is artificial potentially unsustainable human caused water extraction or diversion such as irrigation, especially water extraction from aquifers. Food production that does not require artificial water use is not a problem. Almond growing without irrigation an be lower impact than growing food that requires very little water but is done by diverting natural water for the growing.
   2. It is questionable to claim that the impacts of processing the processed foods are insignificant compared to the impacts of ‘growing, harvesting, and delivering basic food commodities to retail stores for sale’ (the following quote makes that questionable claim).

   "The estimated environmental impacts account for the processing and transportation of commodities to retail stores, but do not incorporate postproduction processing, packaging, and transportation of, for example, converting sugar into a sugar-sweetened beverage or flour and butter into a croissant. This is unlikely to have a large influence on the estimated environmental impact scores as the large majority of food-related environmental impacts result from agricultural production (14), but it is important to note that this may affect the estimated scores for, for example, air-freighted produce or highly processed foods composed of agricultural commodities with low environmental impacts (19, 20).”

   The authors should have stated that the full lifecycle impacts of postprocessing need to be included in the evaluation of the total impact of a consumer’s purchase choice. A personal bag of crisps (UK term for what N. Americans call potato chips), with ~1.5 oz (40 g) of potato in it, contains about 1/4 of a medium-sized potato. It seems very unlikely that the impacts of construction and operation of the processing, packaging, transportation of end products, and all related wastes of every part of the process are insignificant compared to the impacts of growing, harvesting, and delivering 1/4 of a potato to a retail display. Frying the bits of potato is not an insignificant impact, though it has to be off-set by the impacts of the home cooking method. And the transportation of the massive volume of completed ‘bags full of very little material’ would appear to produce a significant impacts per 100 g of product. Also, related important impact of a bag of crisps is the end disposal of the packaging of that little bit of edible product.

   0 0
2. JasonChen at 09:04 AM on 18 August, 2022

   Of course so many people could never keep the Great Reset a secret, that's how we know about it.  That and all the publicizing from the WEF.  The lack of secrecy doesn't prove it's imaginary, it shows it's real. So what are you debunking?

   Are you doubting the Great Reset includes climate mitigation? Of course not, it explicitly calls for green infrastructure and ESG and all the usual globalist causes. It's not the Modest Reset or the Limited Reset, after all.

   Or are you disputing that the IPCC is pushing the same agenda? Their mitigations report doesn't propose a focused list of completable projects to halt AGW and fix the climate, but just the opposite. It inventories every category of human and economic activity and invites governments to re-engineer all of them, with no expectation of a "done" state ever. It's a roadmap for everything but fixing the climate.  Klaus Schwab's agenda, with a different sort order.

   0 0
3. Doug Bostrom at 10:25 AM on 18 August, 2022

   The "Great Reset" purports that pragmatic reasons are secondary to ideological ambitions, Jason. 

   This is a fallacy based on inverted predicates.

   Physics created a market for safety belts, mitigation against catastrophic injury as a side-effect of a human activity and its unintended outcomes.

   Given that we're speaking of human nature including greed and self-interest, it was pretty much inevitable that improvement of vehicle safety would require regulatory oversight, adults in the room (us, acting together through public policy) to heed. Seatbelts required intervention against self-interest, yes— secondary to newly understood information.

   But improvement started with physics, passed on to address human nature, reaching an acceptable outcome.

   Political philosophy doesn't set physical constants, material properties. In the mid '70s the USSR mandated safety belt use, far earlier than any US state. Does this belated obedience to physics on our part mean we became communists? No— it means that physics doesn't depend on political philosophy. Here in the US as a  matter of political belief and practice we're sometimes seemingly confused between freedom to think, speak and worship vs. freedom to die foolishly and needlessly after striking a hard object at speed. But kinetics remains aloof from our thoughts, visible as a  serene constant when we don't think carefully.

   Science first, mitigation second. Evidence then reply to evidence. It's not complicated. Here physics  is telling us about forces much larger than a body passing through a windshield. But it's still physics first, policy reply second.

   There is indeed a much larger market for ideas in for stepping over and past anthropogenic global warming. Money will move from one industry to another. That after all is why we're having this 30-years-stale conversation. We're  part of the "addressing human nature phase," our waste of time and energy prolonged because stakes are high. 

   Meanwhile, we can (as indicated above) be pretty sure that if hundreds of thousands of researchers practicing within their own domains are seeing their work distorted or abused in furtherance of a hidden agenda by other investigators, with (let's say) 300,000 researchers victimized and a 1% objection rate we'd be hearing from about 3,000 of them— published in the collection of journals we see above, with great delight and zero chance of going unnoticed and unremarked.

   These researchers would be showing exactly how their work was being misused, with arguments built on supporting citations. That isn't going to happen, obviously; nobody's going to  or can argue against 9.8m/s/s. While this situation is a bit more complicated than an apple falling from a tree, the problem of warming is only the revealed product of a large unpacking of some basic principles. 

   As well, it's worth noting (as we can see from the densely dendritic connections between articles and their authors) that contradicting publications by offended workers would in turn would trigger an explosion of replies in various forms, a "prompt criticality" effect, producing the academic equivalent of a saloon brawl with geometrically increasing numbers of pugilists. 

   Where are these articles? Where's the sound and fury? It's nowhere. We see a few papers attempting to disprove AGW from first principles and failing badly when tested, hence fizzling as a source of research energy. Beyond that, crickets. 

   Meanwhile, I think in fairness we need to see a coherent org chart of The Great Reset. What's the leadership? How do instructions flow? How is agreement on the agenda decided and agreed? Who pays the bills, and where are the books?  China's government is at loggerheads with the US government on many matters, but they privately agree to execute a hidden agenda with nary a slip? What does this look lik as a matter of record? Etc. Short of having all that to see, the great reset sounds like great conjecture unsupported by facts. Coupled with the lack of objections by persons who actually do know better and could explain how, the whole concept seems greatly unlikely.

   There's no explanatory or predictive power in "they're perfectly all in it together," because that assumes invisibility, hence unfalsifiability, leaving us with nothing to work with. On the other hand, we have a mountain of well founded consilience.

   There's no exciting mystery here, no shadowy forces, nothing really more dramatic than "you shouldn't drop that hammer on your foot," widely agreed. Physicists say the hammer will develop kinetic energy, doctors say this will cause injury at a certain statistical rate, bootmakers sell steel-toed boots to address accidents, and maybe we'll figure out a safer tool than the hammer we're used to holding. Some of us are such that we'll need some help understanding why and how this is all commmon sense— including those who sell hammers for a living. Change forces at play, scale, see AGW, fix.That's all we're talking about. Let's all calm down and not get in a lather about conspiracies.

    

    

   0 0
4. JasonChen at 12:01 PM on 18 August, 2022

   I'm still not clear whom you're debunking. The initial reference was "a globalist elite promoting CC as part of a Great Reset." It seems pretty easy to identify factions meeting all four criteria. They need not be secret, nor coordinated, and like all of us they will have a gamut of motivations from the practical to the ideological. There need not be any org chart, no overarching organization, no mastermind coordinating the planet to make the Reset Great again.

   Specifically, what articles are you expecting to see that you're not? The media distorts and misuses climate research constantly and everywhere. "Sunny day could be linked to climate change." "Experts shocked by latest findings."  "It's even worse than we thought!" I wouldn't expect academic journals to publish letters from aggrieved researchers done wrong by the Washington Post. Nor exposés of the narrative advanced in the IPCC reports.

   0 0
5. Doug Bostrom at 12:21 PM on 18 August, 2022

   "The media distorts and misuses..."

   Whoops. We're not talkiing about "the media," popular media. There are fundamental, profound differences between popular media and academic research journals and articles published therein. If this isn't clear and plainly obvious, it's a failure of communications on our part.

   Pictures would help, but in the meantime, take a look at a sampling of articles above. Notice that each article sits on a "pyramid" (it would look like a pyramid if all the work was printed and stacked) of other articles, with new claims in aritcles sitting at the tip of the structure and supported by what's below. Notice that as one descends "layers" of papers in this pyramid, the same convention of support from below applies, with the network of support rapidly expanding. There is a huge degree of connection here, and agreement.  Understanding this is key to understanding how scientific literature is a most implausible collaborator in any policy enterprise operating evidence-free. 

   Significantly, the entire structure is available for examination and 20:20 hindsight.  

   So that we're in understanding, Jason, is it your proposition that first it was decided we must rearrange parts of our physical economy, then that the entire scientific community was enrolled in the plan?

   And if not, and if what we know says "we need to make some changes" and this is a matter of broad agreement (we shouldn't drop hammers on our toes), what is the problem you see? I ask because most people wouldn't see a problem with this.

   0 0
6. JasonChen at 13:34 PM on 18 August, 2022

   Was it decided that we must rearrange parts of our physical economy?  The passive voice and the cryptic "we" rob the question of any meaning. "We" don't decide anything. "We" may be perfectly happy to drop hammers, more concerned with our paychecks and careers and reputations and self-images than with most of the 70 billion toes out there.

   What appears to have happened in the 1980s is that some faction at the WMO succeeded after a long lobbying effort in getting the UN to charter the IPCC with a half-scientific, half-political mission to assess the AGW science and make recommendations to governments on climate interventions to essentially slow the spread of global warming.  Both the fact of AGW and the need for interventions were baked into the mission from the start.

   30 years and countless billions later, the bench of researchers has swelled enormously. Careers have grown, new institutions born. The question of the future of the world's energy production has taken sharp political contours, because how could it not?  The IPCC sits atop the great pyramid you describe.  Everyone with an office in the pyramid agrees with the IPCC and stand united against the mobs of Deniers fuming in the sands outside.

   Seems to me we cannot tell from this picture whether that WMO faction was right or wrong back in the 1980s.  If they were right and the ranks of researchers since then have vindicated their predictions, we get the pyramid. 

   On the other hand if they were wrong, institutions take on their own momentum and quickly outpace any individual's ability to shift their course.  Political institutions in particular are always concerned about political optics and pathologically unable to admit error. Over the years the power structure naturally evolves to filter for true believers and loyalists and to cast out boat-rockers. The institutions come to be filled with people who support the institutional narrative for the same reason 97% of popes support Catholicism. We would still be looking at a pyramid.  

   0 0
7. Eclectic at 13:50 PM on 18 August, 2022

   Warning, JasonChen ~ you are beginning to wake up.

   I strongly advise you to keep behaving "normally" until you learn more about the real situation.

   One of us will contact you and offer you a choice.  For just $199.95 you can obtain a Red Pill which will open your eyes fully.   Alternatively, you may obtain a Gold Pill, which inducts you into the Inner Circle of the globalist elite ~ at the low price of $1499.95  (for this month only).

   Payment by Venmo.   Offer not transferable.

   0 0
8. Doug Bostrom at 16:02 PM on 18 August, 2022

   Thank you for answering my question, Jason.

   Nowhere do the people and organizations you're traducing describe themselves, their origins, purpose, goals or activities as you claim.

   Hence, you're describing a hidden agenda disguised as something else, a concerted organization operating covertly.

   Put another way, you're describing a conspiracy, offering a conjecture of conspiracy.

   Your portrayal doesn't rise to "conspiracy theory" or even hypothesis. It's too gauzy. 

   You can improve your conjecture by hard graft, the difficult work of tearing into literature and showing us where public policy that is emerging as a result of scientific research is being misguided. We make this easier; in a given month we offer hundreds of articles in an easy-to-find format. Have at it. Perhaps you'll find an important crack in the wall, but until you do no amount of hand-waving or evidence-free imputation will substitute. 

   Meanwhile— while we're waiting for that— public policy needs to be made and implemented, and commerce, markets and quite a bit of the rest of the human enterprise.need to adjust in respect of what physics tells us is happening and will happen, what we can see happening (see above, as usual). There's no option to wait while somebody indulges in and explores wild ideas. There's a clock running (see above, as usual). 

   0 0
9. JasonChen at 23:06 PM on 18 August, 2022

   The presupposition being that anything you haven't run across in climate journals is "hidden" or "nowhere?"  Yeah, I don't know about that.

   Was the IPCC's founding a conspiracy?  I don't know about that either, but it did have a purpose and a point of view which are revealed in these secret gauzy conjectural conspiracy documents. 

   0 0
10. Doug Bostrom at 01:35 AM on 19 August, 2022

    Here's your claim, Jason: 

    "Are you doubting the Great Reset includes climate mitigation? Of course not, it explicitly calls for green infrastructure and ESG and all the usual globalist causes. It's not the Modest Reset or the Limited Reset, after all.

    Or are you disputing that the IPCC is pushing the same agenda? Their mitigations report doesn't propose a focused list of completable projects to halt AGW and fix the climate, but just the opposite. It inventories every category of human and economic activity and invites governments to re-engineer all of them, with no expectation of a "done" state ever. It's a roadmap for everything but fixing the climate. Klaus Schwab's agenda, with a different sort order."

    Shorter: the IPCC's primary purpose is not addressing anthropogenic climate change. In fact, the opposite. The IPCC's stated mission intentionally obscures its true objectives.

    So, you appear to believe that we have a political/economic agenda "The Great Reset" sailing under false colors. "Globalists" (where is party headquarters?) are promoting their hidden agenda by expediently attaching themselves to climate research.

    Supposing this conjecture were true and even if "globalists" had actually seized or conjured the IPCC for their hidden agenda, we're still left with the problem of anthropogenic climate change itself. Again, the worth of the message "you should wear seat belts" is independent of whether the advice comes from a communist or a capitalist, because the momentum of a human body moving at speed is independent of political ideology. 

    Others may perceive it differently, but what I'm hearing from you is some rather desperate straining to avoid fastening your seatbelt. Because the argument for fastening seatbelts is pretty much air tight, you must invent reasons for why doing so is to become putty in the hands of Big Safety. So, the invention to deal with this is that Big Safety is actually pursuing a hidden agenda to control your life and it becomes (apparently, because here we are) a matter of principle to oppose behaving sensiibly. 

    [And I'm left wondering: if we can't mutually discern the difference between mysticism and physics,  between religious thought and scientific research, is there any point in proceeding with this discussion? When we begin hearing comparisons between the Catholic church and the scientific enterprise, that's suggestive of a profound gap in understanding, the need for intensive and broad remediation we won't be able accomplish here.]

     

    0 0
11. One Planet Only Forever at 02:42 AM on 19 August, 2022

    JasonChen,

    I have been following this discussion.

    I offer the following alternative perspective regarding the motives of parties acting related to the IPCC.

    The first step is establishing the proper historical evidence based understanding of the formation of the IPCC. The history of the formation of the IPCC is no mystery. It was formally established by the UNEP and the WMO and was endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 1988. The motivation for forming the IPCC was the increased awareness and understanding of the harmful unsustainable developments that competition for status, including economic and political competition, created. And the first global conference to make the environment the major issue was the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockhom in 1972. That triggered many pursuits under the umbrella of pursuit of developing sustainable improvements for the future of humanity (in addition to earlier actions like the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

    That history is aligned with the research history that Doug Bostrom has focused on.

    That independently verifiable evidence based understanding leads to the awareness that there is a nefarious group ... The misleading marketers trying to delay the limitation of harmful pursuits and the related required compensation to people who have been harmed by harmful unsustainable pursuits of benefit and status.

    0 0
12. JasonChen at 03:52 AM on 19 August, 2022

    the IPCC's primary purpose is not addressing anthropogenic climate change.

    Of course its purpose is to address climate change.  Specifically:

    1. To make assessments of available scientific information on climate change.
    2. To make assessments of environmental and socio-economic impacts of climate change.
    3. To formulate response strategies to meet the challenge of climate change.

    What's not that list is physics goals of fixing the climate or even predicting it well. 30 years later, the climate is neither fixed nor on a path to be fixed. Fixed hasn't even been defined. The IPCC hasn't identified anything close to a seat belt. The response strategies it has formulated have a conspicuous overlap with Klaus Schwab's agenda for maximal disruption. Large chunks of the world are rejecting them as economically and politically unpalatable.  These are just facts.

    Are they addressing climate change? Sure they are, in some sense.

    0 0
13. Bob Loblaw at 05:00 AM on 19 August, 2022

    JasonChen:

    You are either playing word games, or not understanding basic writing.

    "Assessments" are not taking actions to address a problem. The IPCC reviews available scientific literature and summarizes it.

    "Formulating strategies" is not taking actions to address a problem. It is giving advice. In the case of the IPCC, it is using the knowldege of the science it has assessed to indicate what the effect of various actions might be. Then policy makers can use that advice (or ignore it) when they choose to try to address climate change.

    You know, don't you? That pesky "Summary for Policy Makers" that accompanies each report?

    You are seeing monsters under every bed you see.

    0 0
14. nigelj at 07:56 AM on 19 August, 2022

    Jason Chen @2

    "Or are you disputing that the IPCC is pushing the same agenda? Their mitigations report doesn't propose a focused list of completable projects to halt AGW and fix the climate, but just the opposite. It inventories every category of human and economic activity and invites governments to re-engineer all of them, with no expectation of a "done" state ever. It's a roadmap for everything but fixing the climate. Klaus Schwab's agenda, with a different sort order."

    I completely disagee. It's like you must be looking at another page. The page you linked clearly shows a list of multiple climate change mitigation options and they would obviously resolve the problem, if properly applied. There may be other approaches but that is beside the point.

    The page includes another column of information on how this relates to the UN sustainable development goals. So what? These are not a " great reset". I would suggest most countries and political parties would already subscribe to them in principle anyway and clearly many countries are already working towards these with varying levels of success. The following are the UN sustainable development goals:

    GOAL 1: No Poverty
    GOAL 2: Zero Hunger
    GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-being
    GOAL 4: Quality Education
    GOAL 5: Gender Equality
    GOAL 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
    GOAL 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
    GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
    GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
    GOAL 10: Reduced Inequality
    GOAL 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
    GOAL 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
    GOAL 13: Climate Action
    GOAL 14: Life Below Water
    GOAL 15: Life on Land
    GOAL 16: Peace and Justice Strong Institutions
    GOAL 17: Partnerships to achieve the Goal

    0 0
15. Doug Bostrom at 08:53 AM on 19 August, 2022

    Ah-hah. Jason really wants us to notice Klaus Schwab.

    Here's some background on why (note the parroting*).  It helps to explain Jason's "hiding in plain sight" angle.

    The Great Reset: What is it? 

    Jason's mapping the original Great Reset crowd-sourced anxiety onto the IPCC. It doesn't make the jump very well. 

    We're seeing a kind of platypus being stitched together.

    Still not hearing any complaints about what we know about why we should deal w/warming, how this controverts common sense. Instead, hints of descent into old fashioned, dull and boring denial are becoming more visible. All roads lead there when there's no useful argument against "seatbelts are good."

    The discussion remains substantially stuck on "my ideology is offended." 

    *_{“The Great Reset is not a conspiracy theory. The World Economic Forum website reveals its agenda.”}

    0 0
16. JasonChen at 09:24 AM on 19 August, 2022

    I hereby declare my point of view a seat belt, yours a platypus. Out of my devotion to science, you understand.

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Not a constructive contribution to the discussion.

    This discussion is getting borderline. I would ask all participants to explain rather than rant, and try to find the crux of disagreement.

17. nigelj at 11:30 AM on 19 August, 2022

    Jason Chen @12

    "What's not that list is physics goals of fixing the climate or even predicting it well. 30 years later, the climate is neither fixed nor on a path to be fixed. Fixed hasn't even been defined. The IPCC hasn't identified anything close to a seat belt. The response strategies it has formulated have a conspicuous overlap with Klaus Schwab's agenda for maximal disruption. Large chunks of the world are rejecting them as economically and politically unpalatable. These are just facts."

    Your stream of mostly nonsensical, wrong, evidence free, citation free assertions is getting tiresome. I wish you would take your trolling somewhere else. You also have a habit of confusing various things.

    For the benefit of sane people:

    "What's not that list is physics goals of fixing the climate"

    Fixing the climate is not a physics goal. Physics is about understanding the climate. Mitigation is about fixing the climate.

    And The IPCCs stated goals of assessing the relevant scientific information obvious directly imply the requirement to understand the physics.And their stated goal of formulating response strategies is clearly about "fixing the climate". 

    "or even predicting it well"

    IPPC does not predict the climate. It reviews predictions made in various modelling exercises and the predictions have been quite good:

    climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

    "the climate is neither fixed nor on a path to be fixed."

    The fact that the climate problem has not been fixed is nothing to do with the IPCC or some undefined nebulous global elite. Neither are tasked with fixing the climate problem. Its because governments have weak policies, corporates have been slow to respond,  and individuals have been complacent.

    "Fixed hasn't even been defined. "

    Fixed has been defined: Net zero by 2050 under the Paris Accord Agreements. You may disagree with the definition, but stop telling people there is no definition.

    "The IPCC hasn't identified anything close to a seat belt."

    The IPCC have defined the science very well. Their latest report runs to about 10,000 pages and references many thousands of peer reviewed studies. The science goes back over 100 years. This website discusses this issue if you go through their menu system to find relevant information.

    "Klaus Swabs agenda".

    Jason you better put on your tin foil hat. 

    "Large chunks of the world are rejecting them as economically and politically unpalatable. These are just facts."

    Large chunks of the world are rejecting climate mitigation strategies for a range of reasons. For some its because they don't want to pay any costs, but there are many other reasons including vested interests, holding on to establiashed patterns of a materialistic displays of status, campaigns of climate science denialism and for various psychological reasons. But equally large chunks of people want mitigation strategies implimented, if you read polling studies by Pew Research.

    Those are the real facts, with some relevant sources noted..

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [PS] Not a constructive contribution.

     

18. JasonChen at 00:47 AM on 20 August, 2022

    I understand it's a polarizing, politicized issue, and conspiracy theory is a label that's easy to apply and minimizes cognitive dissonance. But that does injustice to the important scientific discipline of hypothesis generation, in which we come up with other potential causes for whatever evidence we observe and hold space for them.  Without the commitment to any particular narrative or the paranoia implied by conspiracy theory.

    It's demonstrable fact that certain factions within society are eager to see a Great Reset and enthusiastic about the climate agenda and the broadest, most disruptive approaches to emissions reduction. Industrialists like Mr. Musk have already made billions and expect to make many more in the green revolution. Extinction Rebellion and BLM and other Marxist groups are eager to see capitalism torn down, industrialization rolled back, and people suffering enough to support a communist revolution. Politicians like AOC are leveraging climate to propel their careers and justify sweeping political change.  For these groups, climate change is not an inconvenient truth at all, it's just the opposite.

    To what extent does the IPCC we see today, its output, the choices of which climate research gets funded and which papers get published reflect the influence of such factions rather than pure science?  I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't assume the answer is zero.

    What might we expect to see if such groups had significant influence, either at the formation of the IPCC or since?  An IPCC charter that isn't strictly scientific but reaches into politics, a remit that isn't narrowly focused on some specific goals but one that's broad and vague.  We might see IPCC assessment reports that subsume scientific findings and disputes under an advocacy narrative. Rather than push for narrow, achievable climate interventions like "build 1000 nuclear plants," it might instead go broad and endorse every conceivable intervention that might affect emissions, with vague nostrums like "climate justice" sprinkled in to curry political support.

    0 0
19. MA Rodger at 01:28 AM on 20 August, 2022

    JasonChen @18,

    If it is a "demonstrable fact that certain factions within society are eager to see a Great Reset and enthusiastic about the climate agenda and the broadest, most disruptive approaches to emissions reduction," you do need to show it is a "demonstrable fact." Such a 'demonstration' requires a lot more than naming Musk, XR, BLM & AOC as exemplars of folk wanting "political change" and then baselessly assert they welcome the opportunity AGW presents. And to further assert that such folk have influence over the work of the IPCC and beyond into the science of climatology which is, you assert, being used to falsify that science, such assertion requires a lot more than you simply pronouncing on the level of this alleged influence "I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't assume the answer is zero." You do need to show in full detail the "IPCC assessment reports that subsume scientific findings and disputes under an advocacy narrative."

    And if you can't do that, you need to go away and rethink your message which presently is reading like the message you'd hear buried in a DJT speech.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.