Humans have been recording flowering/bloom dates in China for over 1,000 years. These records affirm modern warmth in China is neither unprecedented nor unusual.
Per temperature reconstructions gleaned from phenological records in poems, Central China had multiple 1-2°C warmer decades than 1961-1990 during the 1st millennium (Liu et al., 2021).
Per Liu et al. (2018), the first blooming date of Amygdalus davidiana (FBA) in Beijing from A.D. 1741 to 2000 show there was effectively no temperature differentiation – less than one day (Day 85.2 vs. Day 84.4) for the first blooming date – between the 1741-1832 and 1963-2000 climate periods.
In his 1975 we-must-modify-the-climate-to-stop-global-cooling book, The Genesis Strategy, the late Dr. Stephen Schneider pointed out that cherry blossom first blooming dates had been occurring later and later in the spring for decades, consistent with the contemporary global cooling.
To put these blooming dates and associated climate changes into a larger perspective, humans have been living in China for the last 1.7 to 2.1 million years.
As recently as 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, China was 5 to 9°C warmer than it is today. These temperatures were realized when CO2 concentrations were said to be ranging between 255 to 260 ppm.
So even though phenological evidence affirms China’s temperatures have undergone tiny changes in the last few centuries (and they were perhaps 1-2°C warmer ~1,200 years ago), there is widespread belief that something climatically unusual is occurring today.
The increase was driven by the rapid economic recovery. Globally, a total of 10,350 terawatt-hours of electricity was generated from coal.
Even worse in terms of the climate protection perspective, the IEA report says that global coal demand could well reach a new all-time high in the next two years and would likely stay near these levels for the next few years.
More than 600 new coal-fired power plants are planned in Asia.
The IEA says China and India now account for two-thirds of global coal consumption, despite their efforts to expand renewables and other low-carbon energy sources.
“Without strong and immediate action by governments to tackle coal emissions – in a way that is fair, affordable and safe for those affected – we will have little, if any, chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said.
The IEA report comes just over a month after the end of the COP 26 climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland. The agreement reached at COP 26 aimed to build on the Paris Agreement and prevent the worst impacts of climate change.
The IEA forecast for the future:
At the same time, countries such as Viet Nam, the Philippines and Bangladesh, where very strong growth in coal demand had been expected a few years ago, are now set to show more modest increases as they shift more towards sources of electricity that are less carbon intensive. However, global coal trends will be shaped largely by China and India, who account for two-thirds of global coal consumption, despite their efforts to increase renewables and other low-carbon energy sources. In China, coal demand growth is expected to average less than 1% per year between 2022 and 2024. In India, stronger economic growth and increasing electrification are forecast to drive coal demand growth of 4% per year. India’s growing appetite for coal is set to add 130 million tonnes (Mt) to coal demand between 2021 and 2024. For most industrial purposes where coal is used, such as iron and steel production, there are not many technologies that can replace it in the short term. Based on current trends, global coal demand is set to rise to 8 025 Mt in 2022, the highest level ever seen, and to remain there through 2024.”
Shocking mortality data from Germany, Austria, Israel, England: thousands of post-vaccine non-Covid deaths covered up – miscategorized as unvaccinated deaths…”extremely alarming situation”
“Thousands are dying of the vaccine daily without us even being aware of it.”
University of Regensberg Professor Christof Kuhbandner uncovered what he calls an extremely alarming situation, one where thousands and thousands of vaccine deaths are being hidden in the statistics.
Although at first glance the all-cause mortality appeared far lower in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated, on closer inspection they found fundamental inconsistencies and anomalies in the data and that there had been a “systemic miscategorization of deaths between the different categories of unvaccinated and vaccinated” among other factors.
For the period of calendar week 1-38, 2021, Figures 8 and 9 show strong peaks in non-Covid mortality for the unvaccinated 60-69 and 70-79 age groups while the mortality among the vaccinated stayed steady.
At first glance this would suggest that the vaccines were functioning well in England and Wales. But the ending is not a happy one.
Disturbing: The peaks did occur at the same time
Prof. Kuhbandner noted something very unusual was going on and examined the trend also for the 80+ age group as well. The following are the plots for all three age groups. The peaks and deaths were offset.
In previous years, each of the 60-69, 70-79 and 80+ groups have mortality peaks at the same time during the year (including 2020 when all suffered the April Covid peak at the same time). Yet in 2021 each age group has non-Covid mortality peaks for the unvaccinated, at a different time, namely the time that vaccination rollout programmes for those cohorts reach a peak.”
In other words, the vaccines were rolled out in stages, first administered to the most elderly (80+years old) and then to the next group (70-79) and then to the 60-69 group some weeks later. The death peaks then followed the vaccination stages.
So why would people NOT getting the vaccine be the ones dying in huge numbers, and not those getting the vaccine?
This is because in Europe the status of “vaccinated” first gets assigned 14 days after getting the final jab. Thus any deaths occurring before this, ends up being counted as an “unvaccinated death”! So if a patient who got a vaccine dies less than 14 days later, he/she gets counted as an unvaccinated death. This is how vaccine deaths are getting hidden. And there many thousands.
As Figures 5-7 above show, thousands of deaths occurred shortly after the vaccines had been administered, and many among them were likely linked to the vaccine itself. If this is the case globally, and not just in Britain, then the number of vaccine deaths may be profound. The nightmare appears to be true, Prof Kuhbandner shows.
Same pattern in Germany
Prof. Kuhbandner then examined the mortality data for Germany and found the very same pattern: large jumps in mortality immediately following the vaccine campaigns. These deaths appear to be directly the result of vaccinations. It’s just too coincidental to be dismissed.
Carnage equivalent to two commercial jets crashing every day
“When you express this in numbers, it translates to 700 more deaths a day on average,’ Kuhbandner tells servus.tv, looking just at the German numbers. “It would be like two commercial planes full of people crashing every day.”
Kuhbandner also found the same pattern of post-vaccination death in Israel.
The U. of Regensburg professor contacted both the Robert Koch Institute and Paul Ehrlich institutes to present his findings, but so far they’ve ignored them. The RKI wrote they did not “have the capacity to evaluate suspicions from every individual.”
“Extremely alarming situation”
As it stands, no one knows when these extremely disturbing findings are going to be taken seriously by the responsible authorities. Until they do, however, many thousands more are going to die each and every day.
“If it turns out that there’s a causal effect with the vaccinations, then we are dealing with an extremely alarming situation,” says Kuhbandner. “Then we have a case here where thousands of people are dying of the vaccine daily without us even being aware of it,”
Wind turbines do not reduce surface warming. They enhance it.
Wind power expansion is thought to be “green,” reducing CO2 emissions and consequent surface warming.
But a new study (Qin et al., 2022) affirms the warming “saved” by emissions mitigation is easily exceeded by the direct surface warming from turbine-atmosphere interactions.
In assessing of the climate effects of 319 wind farms, the authors have determined wind power-warming can amount to as much as 0.10°C per year (1°C per decade) in nighttime temperature increases. They point out that other studies have also shown wind turbines cause nighttime warming of 0.3°C to 0.7°C per decade in states like Illinois and Texas.
The wind farm-induced surface warming can climatically be detected as far as 10 kilometers from the wind farm site.
So by dramatically expanding the use of wind power to cover larger and larger portions of the land surface area in the coming decades, “green” energy wind power policies may actually be having the opposite of their intended effect.
This new analysis is consistent with a 2018 study (Miller and Keith) asserting “wind’s warming can exceed avoided warming from reduced emissions for a century.”
Miller and Keith assessed the only way the expansion of wind power could actually net reduce surface warming instead of adding to it is “if global emissions [are] reduced to zero by 2080” (shown in green, below). Of course, with several Asian countries adding 600 coal plants in the coming decade, achieving “zero emissions” 50 or 60 years from now is hardly realistic.
The authors also suggested the net warming climate impacts (0.24°C in their study and up to 1°C to 2°C in others) induced by wind power can be detected up to 12 kilometers away from the wind farm sites. Thus, while the climate impacts may not be global in scope, the expected wind farm expansion in the coming decades due to “green” CO2-mitigation policies may serve to dramatically increase regional – and not just local – surface temperatures.
Not long ago we looked at the 2021 mean temperature data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) for Tokyo and its rural Hachijō-jima island in the Pacific. The JMA data for Tokyo show that the megalopolis has in fact been cooling off since 1994.
Today we plot the JMA data, the NASA Unadjusted Version 4 and NASA’s Version 4 Adjusted Homogenized (altered) data for Tokyo on one chart:
NASA manipulated the data until it shows warming. Data sources: JMA, NASA
As the chart above shows, NASA’s Version 4 Unadjusted data plot is very similar to the JMA data, both showing no warming since 1994.
But then NASA altered the data, and now its so-called V4 “Adjusted Homogenized” plot suddenly shows a ruddy warming trend. The JMA data, we suppose, isn’t good enough, and so NASA took it upon themselves to fix it up. Don’t believe the Japanese data!
Hachijō-jima
Next we look at the Tokyo island of Hachijō-jima, some 287 km in the Pacific, and thus isolated from the urban sprawl of concrete, steel and asphalt we have in Tokyo. We look at the mean annual temperatures going back to 1950 from both NASA and the JMA:
Don’t believe the Japanese data, because NASA says it’s not adequately tabulated. Let NASA fix it for you. Warming! Data sources: JMA, NASA.
Once again we see that the story is exactly the same: NASA tampered with the data and now its V4 Adjusted Homogenized data plot shows a strong warming trend since 1950. This is in stark contrast to what the JMA data plot shows and what NASA’s V4 Unadjusted data depict.
It appears NASA takes over good data from other countries, ignores what the country itself tabulated, and then tampers with it until they get the warming trend they want. Then they tell the public the globe is warming everywhere and that the Japanese data are too poorly tabulated to be used.
Consumers’ expectations for e-cars are still unrealistic…can’t hold a candle to conventional combustion engine vehicles.
When it comes to performance parameters like fuel consumption, car manufacturers’ brochures often boast figures that in reality are only possible under really ideal conditions. But rarely are such conditions the case in real life. The result: disappointed consumers.
Electric cars are notorious for their limited range and need of constant recharging – factors that are often overestimated by buyers. Recently German auto reporter Lisa Brack put her brand new electric car through a long distance, wintertime test. The result was hardly thrilling.
“The result is sobering – she saves time by consistently freezing,” reported the German kreiszeitung.de here, on Ms. Brack’s test.
13 hours of driving and charging
Ms. Brack and EFAHRER.com conducted the long-distance test on her new VW e-Up by driving it from VW in Wolfsburg, where she had picked it up, to her home in Munich.
The 650 km trip would normally be done easily in less than 7 hours with a conventional diesel engine car (assuming no traffic jams) and without the need to stop to refuel. But for Brack in her new VW e-Up vehicle, the trip needed almost 13 hours – a time the kreiszeitung.de describes as “appalling”. Numerous hassles were encountered.
No heating
After being handed her new car from VW in Wolfsburg, she departed for Munich at 2:45 p.m. The subfreezing weather was a major drawback for the VW e-car. According to the kreiszeitung.de, “the heating stayed off for almost the entire journey in freezing temperature” in order not to draw down the battery so quickly. This meant that to survive the trip, Brack had to take along a generous supply of “hats, scarves, gloves and generally warm clothing” and hope to find enough CCS charging stations along the way. Without these charging stations, getting the batteries charged up would take much longer.
In total she needed three charging stops.
Reached destination at 3:30 – in the morning!
It was 3:30 in the morning by the time Brack reached her destination in Munich, half frozen to death.
According to the kreiszeitung.de, she made the crucial mistake of charging up too seldom and wasted much time charging the batteries to 100% instead of 80% (the last 20% take the longest). “Charge faster, accept a little less range and charge again earlier – but again faster.”
“One more charge alone would have saved 1.5 hours,” she commented.
“As it was, however, the trip turned into a long winter excursion that she will not soon forget,” reported the kreiszeitung.de.
Expectations too high
The experience shows electric vehicles, though practical for short trips, still have a long way to go before they can keep up with today’s modern diesel and gasoline engines. Studies also show that e-cars offer very little, if any, lifetime CO2 savings.
Multiple studies affirm negative vaccine effectiveness against the COVID-19 Omicron variant. Now there is evidence full vaccination is negatively affecting death rates.
In February, 2021, the Big Pharma-endorsed claim that the new mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are 95% effective against infection with COVID-19 was wholly adopted by governments across the world.
What did the falsely advertised (with no liability) claim of 95% vaccine effectiveness actually mean? Per The Lancet, it meant out of 100,000 vaccinated individuals, there would be just 50 confirmed cases of COVID-19.
Fast forward 11 months. Public Health Scotland now reports that instead of the advertised 50 cases it is now (25 December to 7 January) ~2,700 cases per 100,000 fully vaccinated (2 doses) individuals. This vaccinated rate is more than 2 times the rate for the unvaccinated, ~1,100 per 100,000, reported during this same 2-week period.
Age-standardized hospitalization and death rates are now (25 December to 7 January) more than 50% higher in the fully vaccinated than in the unvaccinated.
During the first week in January, there were 59 hospitalizations per 100,000 in the unvaccinated versus 130 hospitalizations per 100,000 in the fully vaccinated.
None of this should be surprising. The vaccines’ negative effectiveness (i.e., the 2-dose vaccinated are more likely to be infected with COVID-19) against Omicron has now been affirmed in studies in Ontario, California, Denmark, the UK (Buchan et al., 2022, Tseng et al., 2022, Hansen et al., 2022, UK Health Security Agency).
In Ontario, “…receipt of 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines was not protective against Omicron infection at any point in time, and vaccine effectiveness was -38% 120-179 days and -42% 180-239 days after the second dose.”
Within 91 to 150 days after receiving the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA shots the vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection with the Omicron variant is decisively negative, -76.5% and -39.3%, respectively, in Denmark.
The UK government COVID data compiled between 27 November and 17 December show a similarly disappointing pattern in an analysis of 68,489 Omicron cases.
Vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca) effectiveness against Omicron hovers around 40-60% during 5-9 weeks after the second dose, but then effectiveness rapidly declines to 0% and below (-5% to -15%) by weeks 20-24.
In the following video, Tony Heller exposes what a fraud the “climate crisis” of today really is.
Those demanding we completely overhaul our liberal socio-economic system and play risky socialist experiments on it because of the “man-made climate crisis” are political snake-oil salespeople.
As Tony shows, extremely devastating weather events are nothing new and were common also in the past.
The only thing that has gotten worse is how people are behaving nowadays.
Interesting is how one French scientist was able to make predictions of natural disasters using what he knew about solar activity over 100 years ago.
The Hunga Tonga Hunga Ha’apai volcano, southeast of Fiji, erupted in spectacular fashion, unleashing tsunamis, shock waves and sending a plume of ash and gas up to 20,000 meters into the atmosphere.
It’s likely to be the largest eruption on the planet in 30 years.
The volcano sits on an uninhabited island about 65 kilometers north of the Tongan capital, Nuku’alofa.
Already preliminary estimates rate the eruption to have a VEI = 5, putting it on par with Vesuvius (79 A.D.) or Mt. St. Helens (1980), but smaller than Pinatubo (1991).
May cool the atmosphere
Satellite images show a plume of ash, steam and gases with a diameter of 5 km rising 20,000 meters into the air, meaning there will be some climatic impact, at least in the southern hemisphere over the first half of 2022.
Sulfur dioxide emitted by eruptions reacts with water to form droplets of sulfuric acid, which then condense to form sulfate aerosols. These aerosols reflect sunlight away from Earth’s surface and act to cool the Earth’s lower atmosphere.
A volcanic explosivity index (VEI) of 5 means over 1 cubic kilometer of ash and material gets thrown into the atmosphere, and the amount reaching the stratosphere is considered as “significant”. An eruption gets a VEI rating of “6” when more than 10 cubic kilometers gets injected into the atmosphere, as was the case with Pinatubo.
The BBC reports the eruption reportedly could be heard as far as New Zealand, 2,300 km away, and heard as “loud thunder sounds” at Fiji more than 800 km away.
We’ve been hearing about it: dozens of high performance athletes collapsing on playing fields, some dying, after suffering heart problems. This is has led to concerns about mRNA vaccine safety and the spike proteins they render.
Just recently there’s been a fresh spate of reports of athletes having suffered heart-related ailments and as a result have been sidelíned. For some, it may mean the end of their careers.
Alphonso Davies
Today it was announced that Bavaria Munich Bundesliga star player Alphonso Davies has temporarily stopped training after being diagnosed with “mild myocarditis”, an inflammation of the heart muscle.
Davies, as is the case with most of the squad, had been immunized and boostered, but then tested positive for COVID 19. Though Davies and his teammates did not get sick with Covid, they have to be quarantined as healthy people because of positive tests.
Bavaria Munich manager Julian Nagelsmann told a news conference Friday that “the problem was detected in the follow-up examination that all players who have had COVID undergo.” Davies will be sidelined indefinitely.
Marathon runner Fabienne Schlumpf
In Switzerland, world class marathon runner Fabienne Schlumpf also has been sidelined for several weeks “due to heart muscle inflammation”, reports Blick.ch.
Shortly before Christmas, she was diagnosed with myocarditis, “for no known reason,” Fabienne Schlumpf posted.
It is unclear if she will be able to do sports again, Blick.ch reports.
According to the “Tages-Anzeiger”, she had been vaccinated and boosted.
Three players with “chest pains”
Online site Free West Media reported three players had dropped out of the Australian Open with “chest issues.” The Australian Open has been swirling with controversy as authorities hindered no. 1 ranked player Novak Djokovic over concerns about his vaccination status. But now it appears that three vaccinated players have been impacted.
Heart attack
And just recently Germany’s Bild.de here revealed: “During a match in Qatar, Ousmane Coulibaly (32) suddenly collapses on his own goal line. The central defender had suffered a heart attack.” Thanks to the rapid application of first aid, his life was saved. But his career is likely ended.
Time to admit failure
The Rio Times reports that Professor Ehud Qimron, head of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University –a leading leading Israeli immunologists — has written an open letter sharply criticizing the Israeli – and indeed global – management of the coronavirus pandemic. “It is time to admit failure.”
1200 Germans seeking compensation for health damages
Finally, German ZDF public television reported that 1200 Germany are now seeking compensation for damages they believe resulted from vaccines.
“Since the start of the vaccination campaign against the coronavirus, at least 1,200 applications have been made nationwide for state care benefits following possible vaccination damage,” writes the ZDF.
That figure, compared to the number of vaccines administered so far, may appear small, but it is likely just the tip of an iceberg.
We have updated our “Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity” scientific paper list with new papers added from 2021 and some newly discovered papers from the past.
As of 2016 this list had only 50 papers on it (as indicated by the web address). In less than 6 years the list has grown to 137 (as of today).
The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.
Based on new radiative transfer numerical evaluations, we reconsider an argument presented by Schack in 1972 that says that saturation of the absorption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sets in as soon as the relative concentration of carbon dioxide exceeds a lower limit of approximately 300 ppm. We provide a concise brief and explicit representation of the greenhouse effect of the earth’s atmosphere. We find an equilibrium climate sensitivity (temperature increase ∆T due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration) of ∆T ≃ 0.5°C. We elaborate on the consistency of these results on ∆T with results observationally obtained by satellite-based measurements of short-time radiation-flux versus surface-temperature changes. … The absorption reaches values close to 100% for a realistic CO2 content of 0.03%, it is concluded that any further increase of (anthropogenic) CO2 cannot lead to an appreciably stronger absorption of radiation, and consequently cannot affect the earth’s climate. … [T]he effect of an anthropogenic CO2 increase on the climate on earth is fairly negligible.
CO2 makes up only a tiny portion of the atmosphere (0.040%) and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric content of CO2 has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. Such a tiny increment of increase in CO2 cannot cause the 10°F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 90–95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948, not increased as demanded by climate models. If CO2 causes global warming, then CO2 should always precede warming when the Earth’s climate warms up after an ice age. However, in all cases, CO2 lags warming by ∼800 years. Shorter time spans show the same thing—warming alwaysprecedes an increase in CO2 and therefore it cannot be the causeof the warming.
The correlation between ΔRFCO2 and linearly-detrended T across the Phanerozoic Eon is positive and discernible, but only 2.6% of variance in T is attributable to variance in ΔRFCO2. Of 68 correlation coefficients (half non-parametric) between ΔRFCO2 and T proxies encompassing all known major Phanerozoic climate transitions, 75.0% are non-discernible and 41.2% of discernible correlations are negative. Spectral analysis, auto- and cross-correlation show that proxies for T, atmospheric CO2 concentration and ΔRFCO2 oscillate across the Phanerozoic, and cycles of CO2 and ΔRFCO2 are antiphasic. A prominent 15 million-year CO2 cycle coincides closely with identified mass extinctions of the past, suggesting a pressing need for research on the relationship between CO2, biodiversity extinction, and related carbon policies. This study demonstrates that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate.
While Germany recklessly continues to reject nuclear power – Finland welcomes it.
The parliamentary group leader of the Finnish Greens Atte Harjanne thinks EU classifying nuclear energy as a sustainable energy source is right and in WELT AM SONNTAG (WAMS) he explains why his party has dropped its anti-nuclear stance and why he thinks Germany is on the wrong track in terms of energy policy.
German Grafenrheinfeld nuclear power plant. Finnish Greens think Germany is on the wrong track shutting down nuclear power. Photo: Avda – own work, CC BY-SA 3.0
Finnish Greens now welcome nuclear
The Finnish Greens used to be against nuclear energy, but today this is no longer the case. In 2020 they dropped their anti-nuclear stance because they now view it as a sustainable source of energy that makes it possible to get rid of fossil energy.
The German Greens, on the other hand, remain steadfast and refuse to allow nuclear power. Germany will be closing its last nuclear power plants in 2022. Coal plants will follow and be closed by the end of the 2030s. How the country will keep the lights on remains a mystery.
Nuclear is sustainable – very little waste
In the interview with WELT AM SONNTAG, Harjanne said nuclear power is sustainable and that the amount of waste “is very small compared to the huge amount of CO2-neutral energy that a nuclear power plant produces”. He also said Finland has solved the the problem of storing nuclear waste.
Wind and sun systems generate “problematic waste”.
Harriane also noted, “The production of solar plants and wind turbines also generates problematic waste.”
On why the Finnish Greens have become so open to nuclear energy: “Our ultimate goal is to become CO2 neutral, and for that we want to exhaust all possibilities based on science. If the inclusion of nuclear energy is the quickest way to get us there, the end justifies this means.”
Finland to be carbon-neutral by 2035
Overall, Harjanne expects Finland to be carbon neutral already by 2035, while Germany will need until 2045, if not longer. “If Finland were to go the German way and shut down all nuclear power plants, it would also take us that long or longer.”
Berlin on the wrong track – dependent on imports
Harjanne is satisfied with the EU’s decision to classify nuclear energy as sustainable, telling WAMS it’s “a compromise” but at the same called the classification of natural gas, a fossil fuel, as sustainable “absurd” and said that Berlin “is on the wrong track” and Germany “is making itself dependent on imports”.
Rough transition for Germans
He added: “Getting out of nuclear and coal at the same time means a high demand for gas for a long transition period.”
Nice to see the Greens and politicians are not totally crazy everywhere, like they are in Germany.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy
Recent Comments