• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

And more. We should all be aware that the same people will be back with some other environmental "issue" that can only be solved by massive State intervention in our personal lives and control of the economy and limitations on our freedoms. Funny that every problem they find always has the same solution....

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/climate-change-endgame-in-sight.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

Climate Change Endgame In Sight?

In my Weekly Standard cover story about the fallout from the “Climategate” email scandal three years ago, I offered the following question by way of prediction:

    Eventually the climate modeling community is going to have to reconsider the central question: Have the models the IPCC uses for its predictions of catastrophic warming overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases?

The article then went on to survey emerging research (U.S. government funded!) casting doubt on high estimates of climate sensitivity, along with alternative explanations on some climate factors, such as “black carbon.”  The question in my mind the time was how long this would take to begin to break out into the “mainstream” scientific and media world.

Figure 1

That day appears to have arrived.  The new issue of The Economist has a long feature on the declining confidence in the high estimates of climate sensitivity.  That this appears in The Economist is significant, because this august British news organ has been fully on board with climate alarmism for years now.  A Washington-based Economist correspondent admitted to me privately several years ago that the senior editors in London had mandated consistent and regular alarmist climate coverage in its pages.

The problem for the climateers is increasingly dire.  As The Economist shows in its first chart (Figure 1 here), the recent temperature record is now falling distinctly to the very low end of its predicted range and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong, or, at the very least, that there’s something going on that supposedly “settled” science hasn’t been able to settle.  Equally problematic for the theory, one place where the warmth might be hiding—the oceans—is not cooperating with the story line.  Recent data show that ocean warming has noticeably slowed, too, as shown in Figure 2 here.

Figure 2

So The Economist story, though hedged with every reservation to Keep Hope Alive, is nonetheless a clear sign that it’s about over for the climate campaign.

While climateers continue to beat the drum that each year is among the hottest since Satan opened his first furnace at Hades Hostel for Hapless Heathens, there has been an embarrassed silence, if not outright denial (heh), that temperatures have flattened out over the last 15 years.  Now even the leading climateers can’t maintain a straight face over this any more, as The Economist notes in its lede:

    OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.” . . .

    The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. . .  The IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are based partly on GCMs [Global Circulation Models]. Because these reflect scientists’ understanding of how the climate works, and that understanding has not changed much, the models have not changed either and do not reflect the recent hiatus in rising temperatures.  (Emphasis added.)

And the story adds this zinger: “If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, climate sensitivity would be on negative watch.”

The Economist goes on to provide a brief tour of new research that argues for a lower climate sensitivity, with upper bounds that would still present difficulties, but short of the blood-and-Gore catastrophe that as been the staple of the climate campaign from the beginning.  As usual, we see an environmental phenomenon that the environmental Politburo overestimates, and which always demands that we surrender more political power into their hands as the solution.

Even The Economist’s accompanying “leader” on the issue sends out a subtle surrender signal:

    Bad climate policies, such as backing renewable energy with no thought for the cost, or insisting on biofuels despite the damage they do, are bad whatever the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases. Good policies—strategies for adapting to higher sea levels and changing weather patterns, investment in agricultural resilience, research into fossil-fuel-free ways of generating and storing energy—are wise precautions even in a world where sensitivity is low. So is putting a price on carbon and ensuring that, slowly but surely, it gets ratcheted up for decades to come.

Except for the “carbon price” bit at the end, this represents a huge retreat from the Kyoto-cheerleading of The Economist in years gone by.

It’s enough to drive a Mann crazy.

and from the comments:

EPatrick Mosman (signed in using Hotmail)
Jerry Lawson
After McIntyre pointed out that NASA/NOAA had reported incorrect temperature for the 2000-2006 years, higher of course, in 2007 NASA published revised temperatures
* Only three of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the previous 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006)
* Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940,1934 was the warmest
* The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900
* 1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average.
* 1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998).
And then there is the more recent tampering with temperature data.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/01/data-tamperin-giss-caught-red-handed-manipulaing-data-to-produce-arctic-climate-history-revision/
“Data Tampering: GISS Caught Red-Handed Manipulating Data To Produce Arctic Climate History Revision
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2012/03/revising-history.html and
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/how-giss-has-totally-corrupted-reykjaviks-temperatures/
And finally
http://www.real-science.com/hansen-tampering-data-planet.
 
Oh boy. Two days supply of fuel.  Guess the windmills aren't working out so well.  This is what happens when Public Policy is sacrificed to environmentalist beliefs. 

"As the snow of the coldest March since 1963 continues to fall, we learn that we have barely 48 hours’ worth of stored gas left to keep us warm, and that the head of our second-largest electricity company, SSE, has warned that our generating capacity has fallen so low that we can expect power cuts to begin at any time. It seems the perfect storm is upon us.

The grotesque mishandling of Britain’s energy policy by the politicians of all parties, as they chase their childish chimeras of CO2-induced global warming and windmills, has been arguably the greatest act of political irresponsibility in our history.

Three more events last week brought home again just what a mad bubble of make-believe these people are living in. Under the EU’s Large Combustion Plants Directive, we lost two more major coal-fired power stations, Didcot A and Cockenzie, capable of contributing no less than a tenth to our average electricity demands. We saw a French state-owned company, EDF, being given planning permission to spend £14 billion on two new nuclear reactors in Somerset, but which it says it will only build, for completion in 10 years’ time, if it is guaranteed a subsidy that will double the price of its electricity. Then, hidden in the small print of the Budget, were new figures for the fast-escalating tax the Government introduces next week on every ton of CO2 emitted by fossil-fuel-powered stations, which will soon be adding billions of pounds more to our electricity bills every year."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9949571/Its-payback-time-for-our-insane-energy-policy.html


 
Thucydides said:
And more. We should all be aware that the same people will be back with some other environmental "issue" that can only be solved by massive State intervention in our personal lives and control of the economy and limitations on our freedoms. Funny that every problem they find always has the same solution....

It's already started.......Fracking and Oil Pipelines...........



Larry
 
"Each year, an official estimate is made of the “excess winter mortality” – that is, the number of people dying of cold-related illnesses. Last winter was relatively mild, and still 24,000 perished. The indications are that this winter, which has dragged on so long and with such brutality, will claim 30,000 lives, making it one of the biggest killers in the country. And still, no one seems upset."

What happens when Greenie climate hysteria and fear mongering drive ludicrously stupid Public Policies.
But what is 30,000 dead humans compared to making Gaia happy?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html

 
Considering that population control is one of the key tenets of the movement, why would they be concerned?
 
For many years, the Warmongers had a very cosy relationship with the Press. Each side benefited from fear mongering scarr stories.  The Greenies got their message out and the Press had blaring headlines to attract eyeballs to their paid advertising.

But recent events might be a significant turning point. Government people are now attacking the Press for reporting the truth and the Press is sensing they have a new victim to kick around for awhile. 


"The official watchdog that advises the Government on greenhouse gas emissions targets has launched an astonishing attack on The Mail on Sunday – for accurately reporting that alarming predictions of global warming are wrong.

We disclosed that although highly influential computer models are still estimating huge rises in world temperatures, there has been no statistically significant increase for more than 16 years.
Despite our revelation earlier this month, backed up by a scientifically researched graph, the Committee on Climate Change still clings to flawed predictions."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301757/Governments-climate-watchdog-launches-astonishing-attack-Mail-Sunday--revealing-global-warming-science-wrong.html#ixzz2P82YeFRg

We are well into the AGW endgame. 

 
The End Game:

Global Warming Has Happened - and its all George Bush's fault.  (George I).  The only answer is more Government..... but now the enemy is the Insurance Industry.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/30/climate-change-is-here-ready-or-not-so-what-now.html
 
More scientific fraud exposed. This sort of thing will contaminate all science and undo literally centuries of rational thought and the scientific method in our civilization:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/#more-27381

We’re not screwed?

Ross McKitrick, Special to Financial Post | 13/04/01 | Last Updated: 13/04/01 8:33 PM ET
More from Special to Financial Post

Left, global temperature variation over the past 11,000 years based on analysis of fossils from 73 sites around the world, with addition of 20th-century temperature records, from the Marcott et al. Science paper. At right, the same graph without the current temperature records. Sources: left, Science; right, Roger Pielke Jr.
Left, global temperature variation over the past 11,000 years based on analysis of fossils from 73 sites around the world, with addition of 20th-century temperature records, from the Marcott et al. Science paper. At right, the same graph without the current temperature records. Sources: left, Science; right, Roger Pielke Jr.

What scientists and media said last month

We’re screwed: 11,000 years’ worth of ­climate data prove it.

— The Atlantic, March 10

The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike.

— Justin Gillis, New York Times,
March 7

“Rapid” head spike unlike anything in 11,000 years. Research released Thursday in the journal Science uses fossils of tiny marine organisms to reconstruct global temperatures …. It shows how the glode for several thousandscof years was cooling until an unprecedented reversal in the 20th century.

— The Associated Press, March 7

What we’ve found is that temperatures increased in the last hundreds years as much as they had cooled in the lst six or seven thousand. In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we’ve seen in the whole Holocene.

— Shaun Marcott, Oregon State University, co-author of A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the last 11,300 Years, media interview, March 7.

In 100 years, we’ve gone from the cold end of the spectrum to the warm end of the spectrum. We hever seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly.

— Shaun Marcott, Oregon State ­University, quoted by Associated Press, March 8

What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit — until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.

— press release, National Science Foundation, March 7

The rate of warming in the last 150 years is unlike anything that happened in at least 11,000 years, says Michael Mann of the Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who was not involved in Marcott’s study.

— New Scientist magazine, March 7

11,000-year study’s 20th-century claim is groundless

On March 8, a paper appeared in the prestigious journal Science under the title A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. Temperature reconstructions are nothing new, but papers claiming to be able to go back so far in time are rare, especially ones that promise global and regional coverage.

The new study, by Shaun Marcott, Jeremy Shakun, Peter Clark and Alan Mix, was based on an analysis of 73 long-term proxies, and offered a few interesting results: one familiar (and unremarkable), one odd but probably unimportant, and one new and stunning. The latter was an apparent discovery that 20th-century warming was a wild departure from anything seen in over 11,000 years. News of this finding flew around the world and the authors suddenly became the latest in a long line of celebrity climate scientists.

The trouble is, as they quietly admitted over the weekend, their new and stunning claim is groundless. The real story is only just emerging, and it isn’t pretty.

The unremarkable finding of the Marcott et al. paper was that the Earth’s climate history since the end of the last ice age looks roughly like an upside down-U shape, starting cold, warming up for a few thousand years, staying warm through the mid-Holocene (6,000 to 9,000 years ago), then cooling steadily over the past five millennia to the present. This pattern has previously been found in studies using ground boreholes, ice cores and other very long-term records, and was shown in the first IPCC report back in 1990. Some studies suggest it was, on average, half a degree warmer than the present, while others have put it at one or even two degrees warmer. A lot of assumptions have to be made to calibrate long-term proxy measures to degrees Celsius, so it is not surprising that the scale of the temperature axis is uncertain.

Another familiar feature of long-term reconstructions is that the downward-sloping portion has a few large deviations on it. Many show a long, intense warm interval during Roman times 2,000 years ago, and another warm interval during the medieval era, a thousand years ago. They also show a cold episode called the Little Ice Age ending in the early 1800s, followed by the modern warming. But the Marcott et al. graph didn’t have these wiggles, instead it showed only a modest mid-Holocene warming and a smooth decline to the late 1800s. This was odd, but probably unimportant, since they also acknowledged using so-called “low frequency” proxies that do not pick up fluctuations on time scales shorter than 300 years. The differences between the scale of their graph and that of others could probably be chalked up to different methods.

The new, and startling, feature of the Marcott graph was at the very end: Their data showed a remarkable uptick that implied that, during the 20th century, our climate swung from nearly the coldest conditions over the past 11,500 years to nearly the warmest. Specifically, their analysis showed that in under 100 years we’ve had more warming than previously took thousands of years to occur, in the process undoing 5,000 years’ worth of cooling.

This uptick became the focus of considerable excitement, as well as scrutiny. One of the first questions was how it was derived. Marcott had finished his PhD thesis at Oregon State University in 2011 and his dissertation is online. The Science paper is derived from the fourth chapter, which uses the same 73 proxy records and seemingly identical methods. But there is no uptick in that chart, nor does the abstract to his thesis mention such a ­finding.

Stephen McIntyre of climateaudit.org began examining the details of the Marcott et al. work, and by March 16 he had made a remarkable discovery. The 73 proxies were all collected by previous researchers, of which 31 are derived from alkenones, an organic compound produced by phytoplankton that settles in layers on ocean floors, and has chemical properties that correlate to temperature. When a core is drilled out, the layers need to be dated. If done accurately, the researcher could then interpret the alkenone layer at, say, 50 cm below the surface, to imply (for example) the ocean temperature averaged 0.1 degrees above normal over several centuries about 1,200 years ago. The tops of cores represent the data closest in time to the present, but this layer is often disturbed by the drilling process. So the original researchers take care to date the core-top to where the information begins to become useful.

According to the scientists who originally published the alkenone series, the core tops varied in age from nearly the present to over a thousand years ago. Fewer than 10 of the original proxies had values for the 20th century. Had Marcott et al. used the end dates as calculated by the specialists who compiled the original data, there would have been no 20th-century uptick in their graph, as indeed was the case in Marcott’s PhD thesis. But Marcott et al. redated a number of core tops, changing the mix of proxies that contribute to the closing value, and this created the uptick at the end of their graph. Far from being a feature of the proxy data, it was an artifact of arbitrarily redating the underlying cores.

Worse, the article did not disclose this step. In their online supplementary information the authors said they had assumed the core tops were dated to the present “unless otherwise noted in the original publication.” In other words, they claimed to be relying on the original dating, even while they had redated the cores in a way that strongly influenced their results.

Meanwhile, in a private email to McIntyre, Marcott made a surprising statement. In the paper, they had reported doing an alternate analysis of their proxy data that yielded a much smaller 20th-century uptick, but they said the difference was “probably not robust,” which implied that the uptick was insensitive to changes in methodology, and was therefore reliable. But in his email to McIntyre, Marcott said the reconstruction itself is not robust in the 20th century: a very different thing. When this became public, the Marcott team promised to clear matters up with an online FAQ.

It finally appeared over the weekend, and contains a remarkable admission: “[The] 20th-century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”

Now you tell us! The 20th-century uptick was the focus of worldwide media attention, during which the authors made very strong claims about the implications of their findings regarding 20th-century warming. Yet at no point did they mention the fact that the 20th century portion of their proxy reconstruction is garbage.

The authors now defend their original claims by saying that if you graft a 20th-century thermometer record onto the end of their proxy chart, it exhibits an upward trend much larger in scale than that observed in any 100-year interval in their graph, supporting their original claims. But you can’t just graft two completely different temperature series together and draw a conclusion from the fact that they look different.

The modern record is sampled continuously and as a result is able to register short-term trends and variability. The proxy model, by the authors’ own admission, is heavily smoothed and does not pick up fluctuations below a time scale of several centuries. So the relative smoothness in earlier portions of their graph is not proof that variability never occurred before. If it had, their method would likely not have spotted it.

What made their original conclusion about the exceptional nature of 20th-century warming plausible was precisely the fact that it appeared to be picked up both by modern thermometers and by their proxy data. But that was an illusion. It was introduced into their proxy reconstruction as an artifact of arbitrarily redating the end points of a few proxy records.

In recent years there have been a number of cases in which high-profile papers from climate scientists turned out, on close inspection, to rely on unseemly tricks, fudges and/or misleading analyses. After they get uncovered in the blogosphere, the academic community rushes to circle the wagons and denounce any criticism as “denialism.” There’s denialism going on all right — on the part of scientists who don’t see that their continuing defence of these kinds of practices exacts a toll on the public credibility of their field.

Financial Post

Ross McKitrick is professor of economics and CME fellow in sustainable commerce at the Department of Economics, University of Guelph.
 
We should be happy these "scientists" are not in the pharmaceutical business of developing medicines.

With their level of ethics, there would be a lot of very bad drugs and medical compounds in circulation.

Quite sad how these young scientists can torque their ethics into such a furball, all in the name of environmental pursuits. 
 
I will miss coral reefs. The dissolved CO2 has acidified the oceans slowly bleaching and killing the coral. The Ph of the ocean has changed. I loved snorkeling and diving. So many places are dead now and the nice ones are obviously dying back with spots of bleaching. Better see some now. They say by 2050 they will be gone, but it's already too late to save them so don't knock yourself out. Don't let your kids become marine biologists. Total waste of time and money now.
 
"I will miss coral reefs."

And the Polar bears, don't forget the poor, Coca Cola loving Polar bears.

And snow in England. The poor English children will never see snow and never be able to truly understand Charles Dickens novels.
 
Ocean acidification has nothing to do with global warming or climate change. The dissolved CO2 has simply changed the PH of the ocean. They are only tangentially related.
 
Nemo888 said:
Ocean acidification has nothing to do with global warming or climate change. The dissolved CO2 has simply changed the PH of the ocean. They are only tangentially related.

If it has noting to do with global warming or climate change, why post it here? Since the great argument of AGW alarmists has always been that increasing concentrations of CO2 is the cause of climate change, you are being a bit disingenious here.

At any rate, since plants love CO2, I'm sure the plankton are loving this. I actually sympathise with you about the coral, but we should be putting our time and attention to stopping industrial pollution running into the oceans, using posions and dynamite to "fish" the reefs and even the effectss of far too many people in and around the reefs.
 
. . . From the "sooner or later, some kid yells out the Emperor is naked" files

"With nothing panic-worthy–nothing even noticeable–ensuing after 33 years, one has to wonder whether external reality even matters amid the frenzy. (It’s recently been admitted that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years.) For the climate researchers, what matters may be gaining fame and government grants, but what about the climate-anxious trend-followers in the wider public? What explains their indifference to decade after decade of failed predictions?  Beyond sheer conformity, dare I suggest a psychological cause: a sense of personal anxiety projected outward? “The planet is endangered by carbon emissions” is far more palatable than “My life is endangered by my personal evasions.” Something is indeed careening out of control, but it isn’t the atmosphere."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/04/03/global-warming-was-it-just-a-beautiful-dream-after-all/

Reality is going mainstream these days.  The Greenies thought they finally had the killer app, went all in and promoted the hell out of a juvenile scientific theory that doesn't measure up but was perfect for a fear mongering hysteria based public relations campaign.

Will anyone ever trust an environmentalist again?

Pity about the $$$$$$$ public dollars spent on useless public policy activities trying to reduce CO2.

That money would have bought a lot of public eduction & healthcare, built a lot of infrastructure, saved large parts of Ontario from the blight of wind turbines.



 
The turning of the story continues, slowly public opinion gets re shaped, gradually reality imposes itself on ecological ideology.

"“With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called “deniers” when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/the-real-deniers-of-climate-change/
 
Global CO2 Level Reaches 400PPM, Highest in 3.6 Million Years
http://www.voanews.com/content/global-co2-level-reaches-400ppm-highest-in-36-million-years/1658890.html

Climate change aside we really are dicks. Burning 60 million years of stored solar energy for the gain of two or three generations. Then leaving our descendants with a polluted degraded biosphere. We know better. This is not the 1957 geophysical year where scientists are still talking about the world's resources being inexhaustible. I'm embarrassed by our greed and short sightedness.

Not that North America matters that much anymore. "As China’s economy booms, so do electricity needs.
Zhou Xizhou, director of the energy consulting firm IHS CERA in China, estimates that the rate of coal plant construction has slowed from about two a week to a still-daunting one a week — and will keep that pace for another five or six years."
 
Nemo888 said:
Global CO2 Level Reaches 400PPM, Highest in 3.6 Million Years
http://www.voanews.com/content/global-co2-level-reaches-400ppm-highest-in-36-million-years/1658890.html

Climate change aside we really are dicks. Burning 60 million years of stored solar energy for the gain of two or three generations. Then leaving our descendants with a polluted degraded biosphere. We know better.

Speak for yourself lad.  I was quite happy to burning dinosaurs and ancient bugs this past winter.  How did you make out freezing in the dark?

Burning 60 million years....?  Giveover.  How about burning a portion of stored carbon and converting into crops which are eaten by animals and people, which die and become......stored carbon?

Cycles lad, Cycles.
 
Nemo888 said:
Global CO2 Level Reaches 400PPM, Highest in 3.6 Million Years
http://www.voanews.com/content/global-co2-level-reaches-400ppm-highest-in-36-million-years/1658890.html

Climate change aside we really are dicks. Burning 60 million years of stored solar energy for the gain of two or three generations. Then leaving our descendants with a polluted degraded biosphere. We know better. This is not the 1957 geophysical year where scientists are still talking about the world's resources being inexhaustible. I'm embarrassed by our greed and short sightedness.

Not that North America matters that much anymore. "As China’s economy booms, so do electricity needs.
Zhou Xizhou, director of the energy consulting firm IHS CERA in China, estimates that the rate of coal plant construction has slowed from about two a week to a still-daunting one a week — and will keep that pace for another five or six years."

What is it like to live in a perpetual state of panic?

Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas- and one necessary for life.  It is, most emphatically, not pollution.

The 400ppm issue may, or may not be significant.  No one has really been able to go beyond correlation in causation that climate change (btw- climates change, all of the time) is being caused by the addition of carbon to the atmosphere.

My money is on any climate change being driven by the Sun and it's cycles- by far the largest factor in our climate system.  Orders of magnitude beyond anything else, actually.
 
It took the earth roughly 60 million years to convert sunlight into what we now call fossil fuels. They are one of the most awesome resources in human history. Using that nonrenewable resource up and not leaving anything behind for our descendants is incredibly selfish. Ocean acidification is not disputed by anyone. Neither is overfishing, desertification, topsoil loss or traces of toxins reaching every corner of the planet. We are using up the planet like we are the last ones here. As you get older you will start to notice how much the environment is changing. I am responsible, not panicked. I am not the only person who matters on the planet.
 
Even the best of intentions can lead to economic suicide. 

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/04/20130411-082127.html

Glad my Electric bill doesn't get generated (pardon the pun)  in Ontario.
 
Back
Top