The Amusing Self-Immolation of The DemonScats
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-09-08 09:50 by Karl Denninger
in Energy , 371 references Ignore this thread
The Amusing Self-Immolation of The DemonScats
[Comments enabled]

Climate change is going to ruin us imminently!  We have 20 years, no, 12 years, no ten years to get every single car off the road, every carbon source out, etc -- or we're all going to DIE!

That is the screamfest from every Democrat running in 2020.

The amusing part of it is that the stridency hasn't increased because of the increasing danger or anything of the sort.

It's increased because we're just a few short years away from impossible-to-refute proof that the screaming and scamming were both predicated on a lie and are dead-flat wrong!

Back around the turn of the century it was recognized that there were serious problems with the quality of recorded weather data -- specifically, temperature and humidity.  The issue stems from the changing land use around us in the United States and the obvious desire to put a weather station somewhere and leave it there so there's a continuous record.

A few decades ago the government may well have paid Old McDonald for an easement to stick up a weather station behind a small 10x10' fence.  He thought -- sure, why not?  The original location was very high-quality -- no heat sources anywhere near it.

But then Old McDonald dies.  And McDonald's children don't want to farm.  So they sell the farm to a developer, who puts up a planned unit development full of houses and businesses.  The easement runs with the land so the station is still there, but now it's sitting behind a restaurant that is spewing hot air out of the kitchen exhaust fan for 12 hours of the day.

Or it's near (or in!) a parking lot -- blacktop.

Or it's behind some industrial shop and the air conditioner's condenser is a few feet away, spewing hot air out of it all summer long.

So the fine weather folks figured out that their data sucked, and set out to do something about it.  They commissioned a cadre of new stations, these all being sited in places they believed would be protected against that.  Most of them in places like national and state parks or land subject to conservation easements -- where there would be no Old McDonald who would up and die -- and screw up their data in the future.

When looking at these stations there has been no warming at all over the last 20 or so years.  None.  Zippo.

Oops.

There's another problem: There's a solar minimum that is very likely coming right here, right now.  Exactly how minimum it will be is impossible to determine in advance, but since 2014 we've been in a declining sunspot period in the cycle.  There are several overlapping cycles of sunspots, and there is very good reason to believe we're in for many fewer of them than usual on a cycle basis.  The more sunspots (that is, the darker the radiating surface) the more heat is radiated; thus, lower sunspot counts correlate with less energy emitted.  Then there's the ecliptic and elliptical orbital cycles of the planet -- which are quite-well known -- and predictable too.

All of this strongly suggests that we're headed into a serious cooling trend that could last for a couple of decades -- or more.  This is very likely to be apparent within the next few years; the orbital variations absolutely will happen and if the expected sunspot minimums also occur the cooling is going to be apparent to everyone -- and undeniable -- within the next five or so years.

That of course will blow up all the greenie-weenie nonsense so the urgency is to act right now before they can't con people anymore.

Then there's another fact -- the United States' CO2 emissions have fallen like a stone, and currently are at levels last seen in the 1980s!  This, despite the nation gaining quite a lot in population terms.  Why?

Natural gas fracking, to be specific.

Natural gas has gotten so cheap that it has displaced other fuels -- specifically, coal.  Natural gas produces a lot less CO2 than does coal for equivalent energy output -- about half as much!  The reason for this is that coal is basically all carbon where natural gas is basically all Methane - CH4.  In other words natural gas has more energy in it for each unit of CO2 produced.

Effectively all of the gains in emissions are coming from China, India and developing nations.  They're consuming coal and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.  Even if we cut our emissions to zero -- an impossible goal -- they will outstrip us and continue to add on a net basis.  It's inevitable, which is why the "climate debate" actually went so far as to claim that population control and encouragement of abortions was part of the Democrat agenda!

But back to the matter of energy and the crazy claims (or just beliefs) of people who apparently either flunked or never took chemistry and physics (even in High School, say much less at any collegiate level.)

The energy state of a chemical reaction is often ignored by various crooners and screamers, but doing so is radically dishonest.  You learn in your first "real" chemistry class that all chemical reactions have an energy term.  A reaction that is exothermic produces energy and one that is endothermic requires energy.  An exothemic reaction has a negative energy term (the product has a lower energy state than the reactants) while an endothermic one has a positive term (that is, the energy state of the product is higher than that of the reactants.)  All chemical reaction equations that do not include the energy term are incomplete.

For example 2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O but that's an incomplete equation since the reaction releases energy.  483.6kJ/mol of O2 to be exact.  If you have H2O (water) and wish to break it apart into hydrogen and oxygen you must put in that same 483.6kJ/mol.

ALL chemical reactions are subject to this law.  A chemical reaction that is exothermic (releases energy) can be driven the other way by putting the energy back in that was released.  Likewise, one that is endothermic (requires energy) can be reversed and will release that energy.

The laws of thermodynamics can seem complex but when boiled down you can state them as three facts in simple terms:

1. There is no such thing as a free lunch (every use of energy, for any purpose, never results in a net energy gain.)

2. There is no such thing as breaking even (every use of energy, for any purpose, always results in some loss between your starting state's energy and your finishing state's energy; that loss is to the environment at-large and cannot be avoided.)

3. There is no such thing as refusing to play either.  That is, all things tend toward lower energy states left on their own without some form of intervention -- which requires expending energy.

If you think you've managed to evade any of these three you're wrong.  If you try to sell to someone a claim that you can evade these three rules you're a fraudster and ought to be in prison.  You cannot evade these laws; they're not suggestions and they weren't laws made by men and thus subject to being repealed or ignored either; they're facts of the physical universe.

Even nuclear reactions honor this.  E = MC^2 tell us that you can transform matter and energy; very, very small amounts of matter turn into huge amounts of energy (because "C", the speed of light, is such a large number) but the same laws above apply.

There's another aspect to this which is that all chemical (and nuclear) reactions have what is called an activation energy.  In most cases this activation energy is positive (that is, the reaction must be initiated by adding energy to the system; it will not spontaneously begin on its own.)  In order to "coerce" the reaction to begin in most cases you must put energy into the system in excess of whatever is released or required.  The activation energy is not part of the released (or required) energy from the reaction itself.  A catalyst lowers this activation energy requirement but does not change the energy balance of the reactants and products.  It can't -- if it did you'd have the means to produce energy (in other words, create it out of thin air, otherwise thought of as perpetual motion) and the laws of thermodynamics prohibit that.  Consider the common reaction of burning a piece of coal.  You must ignite the coal in the presence of oxygen; that is, you must put in energy to raise the temperature enough that the coal begins to burn.  That activation energy is not part of the reaction itself.

There are all sorts of people running around Twatter and elsewhere lauding the latest gee whiz thing when it comes to climate, "alternative fuels" and similar.  The latest is a "means" of so-called carbon capture with its alleged innovation being a fairly novel approach to catalysts that results in light hydrocarbon liquids -- which could be used as a fuel.  I commented on a twatter thread that Scott Adams thought was "great" and got back a tweet from someone who claimed to be an "expert" asking me to DM him (he didn't want to have the discussion in public, it appeared.)  I was on the road at the time, headed for the Smokies to run in the Townsend Half Saturday, so I declined to reply, never mind that in order for people who haven't taken chemistry or physics to understand it you probably needed more than 260 characters -- thus this article.

Note the paragraph above -- catalysts reduce activation energy but cannot change the energy balance of the reaction itself.  If they did you'd have a perpetual motion machine; you could take a fuel, burn it, capture the CO2 and turn it back into fuel "for free."  In fact you could "win" on a net energy basis.

That's impossible.  It's not something that requires further study, or which will lead to a result that solves "CO2" emissions and leads to some nirvana.  It's impossible; at best this work will reduce the energy lost to activation of the reaction but you still have to put in MORE joules of energy than you get back out when you burn the fuel to create the fuel.

I noted in Leverage (and in my article on this subject in general in 2011) that the Germans "solved" the problem of producing liquid hydrocarbon fuels during WWII -- they had to, as Germany has very little oil and they needed hydrocarbons for their aircraft and tanks.  They came up with a process called Fischer-Tropsch, which takes carbon and drives the hydrocarbon reaction backwards.  SASOL is using that today in parts of the world rich in coal (almost-all carbon) but poor in liquid oil to produce synfuel.  It works.  But it's not a free lunch; you have to put in more energy than you get back out -- the laws of thermodynamics prohibit any other outcome.

My point at the time, and it remains, is simply this: Production of liquid hydrocarbons -- even the sort of liquid hydrocarbons we use in quantity today -- is a solved problem.  You can in fact use any carbon source for Fischer-Tropsch; coal happens to be convenient since it's nearly all carbon but there is nothing technically prohibiting you from using CO2.  Of course you'd have to "break" the CO2 into carbon and oxygen via some mechanism and that requires energy since the reactants are in a higher energy state than the product.  In fact CO2 has an enthalpy of formation of  -393.5kJ/mol, so to reverse that reaction and liberate the carbon and oxygen as elements you must put in that much plus more, since there are always losses.

There is no way around this no matter what you do.  The laws of thermodynamics prohibit anything else.

Now having obtained hydrogen and carbon (from whatever source) you then need to put in a further energy of 74.533kJ/mol to produce methane (e.g. natural gas) from those reactants.  Likewise you can produce other, more-complex hydrocarbons from hydrogen and carbon through various chemical processes.  But you needed to put in the energy to get the carbon (if starting from something other than carbon itself, such as coal) and hydrogen first.  If you start with CO2 you have to put in the energy to break that compound to get the carbon.

Are there catalytic reactions you can come up with that make this "easier"?  Probably if your reaction uses some of the oxygen otherwise produced by breaking the CO2.  But remember -- there is no free lunch and no way to break even either; for any hydrocarbon fuel the products of combustion are typically H2O and CO2, both of which have large exothermic heats of formation (that is, a large amount of heat is released when they form) and there is no way to avoid having to put all of that energy back in, plus more, to produce the fuel if you wish to reverse that.

Anyone presenting a claim otherwise is stating that they have figured out how to violate the laws of thermodynamics and have, effectively, invented a perpetual motion machine.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last
User Info The Amusing Self-Immolation of The DemonScats in forum [Market-Ticker]
Peterm99
Posts: 6605
Incept: 2009-03-21

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Excellent Ticker.

Unfortunately, since it won't fit into a character-limited twitter post (where most of what passes as "climate science" seems to be performed these days), very few, if any, of the Chicken Little climate change screamers will ever bother reading it. And, of those that do bother to read, 99% won't understand because it requires an IQ above 75 to comprehend it.

----------
". . . the Constitution has died, the economy welters in irreversible decline, we have perpetual war, all power lies in the hands of the executive, the police are supreme, and a surveillance beyond Orwells imaginings falls into place." - Fred Reed
Tsteve
Posts: 7
Incept: 2018-07-22

Beaverton, OR
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
A fantastic post, and super timely.

I had a conversation a few days ago with an electrical engineer colleague who had no idea that gasoline, natural gas, propane, and other fuels contained carbon. He thought only filthy coal contains carbon.

To think that politicians have any grasp of this subject is kidding ourselves. (Aside from the virtue signaling portion of it...)
Truthseeker
Posts: 8979
Incept: 2007-10-07
A True American Patriot!
Southern Oregon
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
There you go again--responding to emotionally-based, vapid arguments with SCIENTIFIC FACTS! Where's your sense of fairness??? smiley

----------
"...But people better realize that the worst-case scenario could actually happen.9/11 happened. This can happen. An economic 9/11, the likes of which we've never seen." Gerald Celente
Gable
Posts: 935
Incept: 2009-07-04

Retired in NC Mountains
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Excellent post.

----------
In all of history, no government became more honest, less corrupt, or respected its citizens' rights more as it grew in size. E.L. 2016
Flyanddive
Posts: 3926
Incept: 2008-10-10

Detroit
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
That's exactly why I have very little confidence of LFTR's making it into electricity generation. They can be used to create significantly more profitable chemical feedstocks, especially when the climate asshats get the military to buy biofuels at $100/gal. I'm a big proponent of using current Gen 3+, even with the safety risks, and they're available now.

----------
"I've seen people go into real poverty trying to pretend to be rich."
Ktrosper
Posts: 3505
Incept: 2010-04-06

ft collins co
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Thanks KD.

----------
The unexamined life is not worth living.-Socrates
The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.-Aristotle
Liberty exists now in the spaces government has not yet chosen to occupy.-Doc Zero
I anticipate that 10 Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders will blow me this evening.-K.D
Click
Posts: 572
Incept: 2017-06-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"All of this strongly suggests that we're headed into a serious cooling trend that could last for a couple of decades -- or more."

Yes, and so if a grand solar minimum is confirmed, what will be the serious ramifications of this epic geological/astrological event? In layman's terms it means we are in for some serious ****. For example, just imagine what happens if the American Breadbasket got colder and a lot wetter resulting in catastrophic crop failure?

Not all grand solar minimums are the same. Some are real doozies. Sometimes during a grand solar minimum vast regions turn to desert for thousands of years and completely wipe out and bury entire civilizations. Some grand solar minimums only cripple civilization. A good example of climate change is way, way back when Zaphnath Paaneah warned Pharoh that the climate was going to change and that the Egyptian Empire better get busy stockpiling food. Was that period of climate change the result of a solar cycle? Some believe so.

Personally, I believe in solar-system cycles. I believe the entire solar system including the Earth's eccentricity, obliquity and precessional motion play a major role in climate change. Our Sun's role in climate change is the major driver. For sure. However, there are other very complicated factors such as cloud nucleation from cosmic rays which cause an albedo cooling affect. The bottom line for me, personally, after thoughly studying climatology and conversing with some climatology experts on both sides of the anthropogenic global-warming issue is in my opinion what drives climate change remains somewhat inconclusive.

Personally, I think Al Gore and the IPCC are totally full of **** and completely politically driven. Only time will tell.
Mangymutt
Posts: 1167
Incept: 2015-05-03

Vancouver WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Peterm99 - Mean'O Karl didn't even use any cute emojis, by using only facts and actual scientific reasoning he did not appeal to my emotions. By using the Laws of Thermodynamics and not displaying any emojis he did not appeal to cuteness.

Other than that is was a great and meaningful Ticker and well worth the read.


Drifter
Posts: 329
Incept: 2016-02-11

Pacific Northwest
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
There is truth and there is revolutionary truth, comrade.

When I was in college doing research on past environments the consensus was that we were leaving an interstadial and moving into a cooling trend/ice age.

The science was pretty sound: we'd take deep core samples and do a pollen analysis to get an idea of what was growing to infer climate.

Stee_man
Posts: 171
Incept: 2011-12-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"Effectively all of the gains in emissions are coming from China, India and developing nations. They're consuming coal and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Even if we cut our emissions to zero -- an impossible goal -- they will outstrip us and continue to add on a net basis."

AFAIC this shuts down the climate debate. Nothing we do will make any difference. If the world is ****ed without drastic action, then it is already ****ed and there's nothing we can do about it. I came to this conclusion in the 80s when climate change was barely heard of. 5-6 billion poor people want to have our lifestyle and they won't stop until they do.

The third world population is still exploding. Each new person requires more energy, food and shelter as a minimum. That means more habitat loss for farms, houses, mines and cities. This is the root cause of pollution. Anybody screaming about the environment and not talking about population just has another agenda.
Crossthread
Posts: 6640
Incept: 2007-09-04

Wilmington, NC
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I'll just leave this here..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti....

I subscribe to IceAge2030 channel..
I or We, will not be around in a few years..
I hope My comments & Message remains..

We told you it's a HOAX! as Millions freeze to death & starve.. As "Fossil fuels" & guns & Arms/Weapons,, are banned.. hopefully BEFORE I pass on, I can educate My grandson.. Or leave Him a Letter/CD/DVD..
As Icebergs are floating down the ICW..

----------
Cognitive Co-Dependency is when a normal rational person, internalizes irrational illogical presentations, and somehow reconciles them to fit their scripted indoctrination of logical analysis.
Quote:
Samuel L. Clemens:There is NO Native Criminal Class; EXCEPT for CONgress

Tinman
Posts: 509
Incept: 2008-02-16

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Thanks for that link Crossthread. Great video.

Karl, great ticker but realize 99% of humanity cannot comprehend it. You'll need at least a 100 level Chem/Phys education and I'm not even sure of that considering current conditions at universities.
Kochevnik
Posts: 783
Incept: 2007-07-30

NE WA state
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
There is another basic problem I have never seen discussed - measurement error.
Specifically, most temp stations by now are undoubtedly digital - and just as undoubtedly for 100+ years before 1980-1990 period, all temp stations would have been analog - specifically some random schmuck going out and physically LOOKING at a outside thermometer and writing down some numbers on a piece of paper.

How 'accurate' would a physical reading by a HUMAN BEING be of a standard mercury thermometer 100 years ago ? And equally importantly how confident could you be as a scientist that the digital reading matched up to the prior analog ones in terms of accuracy and repeatability ?

Answer - not very.

Anyone who is old enough to have used one of those old thermometers knows that at best you could get about a 2 to 3 degree range - and that depends entirely on who made the reading and what process they used to do so. Something as simple as have a 6'6" person looking DOWN at the thermometer one day and a 5'1" person looking UP at the same thermometer the next day means a variation of at least 2 to 3 degrees. And dont tell me they used some super duper analog therm that was accurate to 1/10 degree because that's bull**** - most of those readings were by Tom the farmer or Joe the local ham radio enthusiast - amateurs all.

Don't even get me started on whether or not the reader was sick or lazy or incompetent or drunk.

But then the climate nuts turn around and say that a 0.5 degree difference in the next 5 decades is going to end the planet.

Those readings are not even remotely consistent or repeatable or accurate enough to make any such determinations - and then you add the urban heat island effect, issues with digital data gathering, 'adjustments' and the like and the whole thing becomes an absolute joke.

I got in a discussion with my fathers second wife last year - supposedly a biologist who ended up screaming at me (and I at her) when she absolutely even refused to discuss this issue rationally.

CLIMATE CHANGE, and indeed ALL of the irrationality pulsing thru society nowadays - IS A RELIGION and you cannot 'convert' a TRUE believer with any kind of rational facts - you have to kill them or wait for them to die off.

And I find it absolutely fascination that it is the aetheistic Left that is so totally illogical and irrational about all this. They worship a God that they don't even question nor understand in the least - more rabid than the Taliban in most ways.

Robc
Posts: 56
Incept: 2009-09-10

Cincinnati
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I hope I am remembering this correctly but in the Valentina Zharkova presentation I could of sworn when she was talking about the short term outlook (next decade or so) she said even if there were going to be lower average global temperatures the northern hemisphere was going to have hotter than usual summers (and colder than normal winters) due to the inclination of the earth towards the sun during this period. If that is the case then they may still get to muddy the waters by focusing on those hot weather events and ignore the global cooling.
Flappingeagle
Posts: 3233
Incept: 2011-04-14

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
So the fine weather folks figured out that their data sucked, and set out to do something about it. They commissioned a cadre of new stations, these all being sited in places they believed would be protected against that. Most of them in places like national and state parks or land subject to conservation easements -- where there would be no Old McDonald who would up and die -- and screw up their data in the future.


Please point me to a webpage that references this.

Thanks,

Flap

----------
Here are my predictions for everyone to see:
S&P 500 at 320, DOW at 2200, Gold $300/oz, and Corn $2/bu.
No sign that housing, equities, or farmland are in a bubble- Yellen 11/14/13
Trying to leave the Rat Race to the rats...
Ingar
Posts: 43
Incept: 2017-02-14

Mobile,AL
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Ah, chemistry and physics. Not subjects that are popular with the SJW generation or many of their parents who want to believe that there is indeed a free lunch. People without a grounding in science such as sociologists or lawyers often do not have a grasp of finite energy or materials that make our modern world operate. Allowing such people to make national policy may lead to disaster.
The Germans not only developed the Fischer-Tropsch process, they also developed small chambers for the incomplete combustion of wood chips (or a fractional distillation of them) to produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which they called producer gas, to be burned in gasoline powered vehicles. They used these accessory modifications to power about 750,000 civilian vehicles for wartime Germany that was starved for petroleum. Imagine how many vehicles could be powered from our wood resource-rich neighbor to the north, Canukistan.
And speaking of wood, cellulose has just one more methyl group than glucose. One day, a clever Indian or Chinese H1B visa holding graduate student might develop a cellulose demethylase enzyme that would allow discarded cardboard to be transformed into glucose. A welfare mother might then be able to forgo the hassles of the EBT program and with said enzyme she and her brood could feast for days on a discarded appliance box. Of course in a future democratic regime there could be competition for these cardboard boxes to serve as shelter on the unused land under bridge overpasses. Damn, there's that finite resource problem again.
Tickerguy
Posts: 158977
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Flappingeagle -- you have to dig through the literature (including actual studies.) The admission DOES exist.

----------
Winding it down.
Hedgecarey
Posts: 3
Incept: 2010-12-23

Seattle
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karl Do you have a link or reference to the new Temp and Humidity locations you mentioned in this ticker? Would like to know how they were sponsored and who put them in: NOAA NWS?
Inline
Tickerguy
Posts: 158977
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Sigh...... everyone wants me to do their work for them.

----------
Winding it down.
Mangymutt
Posts: 1167
Incept: 2015-05-03

Vancouver WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
LOL -
Quote:
everyone wants me to do their work for them.


My work. Great I usually start about 8am.

My work no, but your opinion would/could be beneficial
Mangymutt
Posts: 1167
Incept: 2015-05-03

Vancouver WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
Sigh...... everyone wants me to do their work for them.


Can you do this?

smiley

It is my biggest skill.
Elcope
Posts: 95
Incept: 2010-02-24

Montana
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Radio amateurs KNOW that the solar minimum is near. It's increasingly difficult (but not impossible) to get a signal out of North America on 100W.

Thank God for more efficient digital modes.
Ckaminski
Posts: 5533
Incept: 2011-04-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Perhaps.

But some people figure in that bottomless brain of yours you might have a link saved. Yes, it's lazy, but for some of them (flapp for example), I think it's simple hope that you might have a shortcut.

Here's the report that's been going around this week for a start:
https://www.israpundit.org/national-ocea....
Ckaminski
Posts: 5533
Incept: 2011-04-08

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last