Let’s take the wind from their sales



Gigantic wind turbine: engineering nothing short of majestic, but profit-making? Not on your Nelly, they require compliant politicians to authorise fat taxpayer subsidies. They wreck your power grid — as they just did in South Australia — and despoil remote wilderness. It’s time to demolish them.  (click to enlarge)

Even after 30 years of huge subsidies, wind power provides about zero energy

from Matt Ridley’s blog on the futile numbers behind wind power

No comments from me, just a series of extracts from Matt’s latest blog, wherein his unerring discernment dismantles the case for wind turbines as a cure for the climate endangerment craze. I strongly recommend you read his original piece. You won’t hear this from the world-saving Greens, for these are the facts behind their fantasy. One key fact: Wind turbines (icons for ‘clean’ renewables) are necessarily produced by filthy fossil fuels, largely coal. You read it here first.  – RT

The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year.’

… [Wind power’s] contribution [to world energy] is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.

Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.

… Their [solar and wind] trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.

If wind turbines were to supply [just the growth in world energy demand of 2 per cent per year] but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area [half the size of] the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area [half] the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs. [para corrected from original.]

… There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

… Mankind stopped using [wind power] for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.

As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

… it is utterly futile, on a priori grounds, to think that wind power can make any significant contribution even to world energy supply, let alone to emissions reductions, without ruining the planet. …

the idea that renewable energy could power the UK is an “appalling delusion” — for this reason, that there is not enough land.

The truth is, if you want to power civilisation with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, then you should focus on shifting power generation, heat and transport to natural gas, the economically recoverable reserves of which — thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — are much more abundant than we dreamed they ever could be. …

And let’s put some of that burgeoning wealth into nuclear, fission and fusion, so that it can take over from gas in the second half of this century. That is an engineerable, clean future. Everything else is a political displacement activity, one that is actually counterproductive as a climate policy and, worst of all, shamefully robs the poor to make the rich even richer.


19 Thoughts on “Let’s take the wind from their sales

  1. Mike Jowsey on May 16, 2017 at 7:08 pm said:

    Many moving parts. Friction. Maintenance. And results are zero, except for the negatives; frustration, contempt and laughter. Or is laughter a positive? Perhaps that’s the benefit of wind “power”.

  2. Richard Treadgold on May 17, 2017 at 9:03 am said:

    Laughter has to be a positive, doesn’t it? Especially when directed at politicians and officials who allow these monstrosities without a proper examination of their cost and effectiveness.

  3. Bulaman on May 20, 2017 at 7:26 am said:

    Speaking to an energy company insider (one that doesn’t do wind). They hate these things because the spot rate crashes when they are generating. They cannot “store” so when the wind blows they have to sell. Buyers know this so the price is always lowest when they are turning, losing even more money!

  4. HemiMck on May 22, 2017 at 11:59 am said:

    Hi Bulaman,

    That pricing scenario seems intuitively obvious. Are there any stats to back it up?

    We see various of cost of production estimates of electricity from different sources but I don’t think I have seen average spot prices from the various production methods. The assumption usually taken is that all sources produce electricity worth the same dollars. Clearly that is not true.

  5. Ian Cooper on May 24, 2017 at 9:18 am said:

    Off topic, but I can’t help commenting on the irony of two things I have seen on TV 1 over the weekend. The first was a news item about the plight of the Yellow Eyed Penguins at Oamaru. A leading scientist, who’s name I can’t recall sorry, studying the decline of these iconic birds claimed that there are three major contributing factors in this decline. Habitat change due to human activity which includes introduced predators, fishing practices and you guessed it, “Climate Change!” Thanks to the fact that we have been recording in detail the temperatures in the area involved, and that includes the sea south of Oamaru, scientists can assert with confidence that one third of the decline is down to climate change. They have no quanta for the other two factors but they are certain about how much impact climate change is having!

    On Sunday night (May 21st) Country Calendar did a story on a couple farming at Port Levy on the northern side of Banks Peninsula. It turns out that there is another lesser known breed of Penguin there that is endangered. Thanks to a concerted effort by that couple and other locals at eradicating introduced predators, those penguins are making a slow recovery. No mention of climate change as a factor in the demise of those penguins. Very hard to argue a case for climate change when the most significant change has been the near elimination of the very real & constant threat posed by human introduced predators.

    My question for the scientists at Oamaru is, “Have you cited climate change as a factor just because it is the only element that you have a measure of (their words BTW). Or is it because without mentioning it you won’t get any or as much funding to do the real science required to answer the question on the demise of the Hoiho?” Pardon me for being sceptical, but when scientists put up such weak arguments that beggar belief you just have to be doubtful.

  6. Dennis N Horne on May 25, 2017 at 6:45 pm said:

    Total nonsense from the obfuscator Lord Ridley of Coal, member of GWPF with Lord Monckton of Loony and Lord Lawson of Blaby.

    The United Kingdom is one of the best locations for wind power in the world, and is considered to be the best in Europe.[1][2] Wind power contributed 11% of UK electricity generation in 2015, and 17% in December 2015.[3] Allowing for the costs of pollution, particularly the carbon emissions of other forms of production, onshore wind power is the cheapest form of energy in the United Kingdom.[4] In 2016, the UK generated more electricity from wind power than from coal.[5]

    Wind power delivers a growing percentage of the energy of the United Kingdom and at the end of May 2017, it consisted of 7,520 wind turbines with a total installed capacity of almost 15.5 gigawatts: 10,128 megawatts of onshore capacity and 5,356 megawatts of offshore capacity.[6] This placed the United Kingdom at this time as the world’s sixth largest producer of wind power (behind 1. China, 2. USA, 3. Germany, 4. India and 5. Spain), having overtaken France and Italy in 2012.[7] Polling of public opinion consistently shows strong support for wind power in the UK, with nearly three quarters of the population agreeing with its use, even for people living near onshore wind turbines.[8][9][10][11][12][13]

    Despite Numpty Trumpy:
    Wind power in Texas consists of many wind farms with a total installed nameplate capacity of 20,321 MW[1][2] from over 40 different projects. Texas produces the most wind power of any U.S. state.[3] Wind power accounted for 12.63% of the electricity generated in Texas in the 12 months ending Oct 2016.[1]
    The wind resource in many parts of Texas is very large. Farmers may lease their land to wind developers, creating a new revenue stream for the farm. The wind power industry has also created over 24,000 jobs for local communities and for the state. Texas is seen as a profit-driven leader of renewable energy commercialization in the United States.

    A message from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
    2. We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts. Earth’s climate is on a path to warm beyond the range of what has been experienced over the past millions of years. The range of uncertainty for the warming along the current emissions path is wide enough to encompass massively disruptive consequences to societies and ecosystems. As global temperatures rise, there is a real risk, however small, that one or more critical parts of the Earth’s climate system will experience abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes. Disturbingly, scientists do not know how much warming is required to trigger such changes to the climate system.

  7. Richard Treadgold on May 25, 2017 at 7:16 pm said:


    Really, this message from the AAAS cannot be taken seriously. They mention no science but admit they know nothing: “at risk, unpredictable, potentially irreversible, on a path, range of uncertainty wide enough to encompass massively disruptive consequences (that’s the funniest one, since that always happens when the uncertainty is great), a real risk however small, and back to unpredictable and potentially irreversible.” After all this, we’re supposed to be surprised and disturbed that scientists don’t know how much warming will do certain things, all unspecified? This is a joke.

    And please, to save us the trouble of guessing, specify the particular assertions you consider to be “total nonsense” from the good lords Ridley, Monckton and Lawson. If it’s not too much to ask.

    I take no issue with your research on wind turbines, except to observe they will never run our steel mills, tall office buildings aeroplanes or ships. They are however quite well suited to occasionally running a radio on a remote island.

  8. Andy on May 25, 2017 at 9:16 pm said:

    Wind power is a scam and people who promote it are either crooks or delusional fools

  9. Magoo on May 26, 2017 at 9:54 am said:

    This looks like this will take the wind from the wind industry’s sales. China’s flammable ice containing methane means abundant cheap energy from fossil fuels:


    Also, another article of interest. Ben Santer tries a pathetic hit job on Scott Pruitt in an especially weak paper. As Dr. Roy Spencer says:

    ‘Of course, the authors know full well that the reason the pause/hiatus/leveling-off ended was due to a NATURAL event (El Nino). You can’t build a case for human-caused warming by relying on natural warming! (But, they did anyway.)’


  10. HemiMck on May 26, 2017 at 2:25 pm said:

    So for comparison sake, New Zealand total installed electricity capacity is 10,000 MW and lets say a capacity factor of 60% vs UK installed wind capacity of 15,000 MW with a capacity factor of say 25%.

    So UK wind generation output is less than New Zealand total electricity output.

    Population 4.5m vs 65m.

  11. HemiMck on May 26, 2017 at 2:56 pm said:

    Another way to look at it is one large coal, natural gas or nuclear plant of 5,000 MW would produce as much electricity as the total 7,500 monstrosities combined.

    Correction to above – 35% capacity factor judging from Renewable UK.

  12. Dennis N Horne on May 26, 2017 at 4:05 pm said:

    What has Lord Baron Christopher von Monckhausen said now?

    Climate Asylum. A Republican Scientist Advocates Sane Energy Policies
    1. Monckton claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed applications to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Bluegrue speculates that Monckton is likely filing his applications and then letting them lapse after a year without paying the fees necessary to have the Patents Office take the process forward. That way, he can claim he has filed for a patent, but never has to have the Patent Office determine whether his “therapeutic treatment” is patentable (or pay any fees). Is it homeopathy? Massive doses of vitamin C? The world waits with bated breath.

    2. The list of diseases cured by Monckton’s miracle tonic expands from time to time. At one point he claimed, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI.” At another time he said, “Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.”

    Monckton also wrote a controversial article for the American Physical Society’s newsletter refuting the IPCC’s conclusion that climate change is a largely human produced phenomenon. The APS, however, headlined the article with the disclaimer that “its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”[13] and “”The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters” [14]. Despite this, Christopher Monckton continues to claim that the opinion piece has been peer-reviewed and there is a conspiracy to cover this up [15].

  13. Dennis N Horne on May 26, 2017 at 4:21 pm said:

    More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists’ temperature estimates [John Abraham]
    A new study suggests there are remaining biases in the oft-corrected University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric temperature estimates

    Human emission of heat-trapping gases is causing the Earth to warm. We’ve known that for many decades. In fact, there are no reputable scientists that dispute this fact. There are, however, a few scientists who don’t think the warming will be very much or that we should worry about it. These contrarians have been shown to be wrong over and over again, like in the movie Groundhog Day. And, a new study just out shows they may have another error. But, despite being wrong, they continue to claim Earth’s warming isn’t something to be concerned about.

    Perhaps the darlings of the denialist community are two researchers out of Alabama (John Christy and Roy Spencer). They rose to public attention in the mid-1990s when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had made some pretty significant errors and when other researchers identified those errors, the new results showed a warming.

    To provide perspective, we know the Earth is warming because we can measure it. Most of the heat (93%) goes into the oceans and we have sensors measuring ocean temperatures that show this. We also know about warming because we have thermometers and other sensors all over the planet measuring the temperature at the surface or in the first few meters of air at the surface. Those temperatures are rising too. We are also seeing ice melting and sea level rising around the planet.

    So, the evidence is clear. What Christy and Spencer focus on is the temperatures measured far above the Earth’s surface in the troposphere and the stratosphere. Generally, over the past few decades these two scientists have claimed the troposphere temperatures are not rising very rapidly. This argument has been picked up to deny the reality of human caused climate change – but it has been found to be wrong.

    What kinds of errors have been made? Well first, let’s understand how these two researchers measure atmospheric temperatures. They are not using thermometers, rather they are using microwave signals from the atmosphere to deduce temperatures. The microwave sensors are on satellites which rapidly circle the planet.

    Some of the problems they have struggled with relate to satellite altitudes (they slowly fall over their lifetimes, and this orbital decay biases the readings); satellite drift (their orbits shift east-west a small amount causing an error); they errantly include stratosphere temperatures in their lower atmosphere readings; and they have incorrect temperature calibration on the satellites. It’s pretty deep stuff, but I have written about the errors multiple times here, and here for people who want a deeper dive into the details.

    It’s important to recognize that there are four other groups that make similar measurement estimates, so it’s possible to compare the temperatures of one group against another. The new paper, completed by Eric Swanson and published by the American Meteorological Society compares the results from three different groups. He focused on measurements made over the Arctic region. His comparison found two main differences amongst the three groups that suggests the errors.

    To better appreciate the issues, the satellites have instruments called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) or more recently, Advanced Microwave Soundings Units (AMSUs). These instruments allow reconstruction of the lower troposphere (TLT), the mid-troposphere temperature (TMT), and the lower stratosphere temperature (TLS). But the measurements are not at a specific location (like a thermometer) – they are smeared out over large spaces. As a consequence, it’s possible to have one layer of the atmosphere contaminate the results of another layer. You wouldn’t for instance, want your measurement of the troposphere (lower atmosphere) to include part of the stratosphere (above the troposphere).

    Among the key differences among the research teams are their methods to ensure this contamination is minimized. According to the recent paper, which was published in January 2017:

    At present, the UAH v6 (most recent Christy/Spencer data) results are preliminary and a fifth revision has now been released as v6beta5 (Spencer 2016). The release of the UAH version 6 products before publication is unusual, and Spencer recently stated that a manuscript has been submitted for a peer-reviewed publication. While some may find it scientifically inappropriate to utilize UAH v6b6 data before publication, these data have already been presented in testimony during congressional hearings before both the U.S. House and Senate and have also appeared on websites and in public print articles.

    The author compared the Christy/Spencer data (UAH data) with another group (the RSS group) and found that the results diverged during the 1986-1988 time period. This shift “could arise from a step change or bias in either series.” When the author compared UAH with the third group (NOAA), the difference was still evident. However, when he compared RSS to NOAA, there was hardly a difference.

    The author also noted that the timing of this divergence coincided with the merging of a new satellite NOAA-9, and this satellite has previously been identified as a source of error in the UAH results. But the author continued the analysis to more recent times and found another anomaly in 2005 which has since been corrected in NOAA.

    Look, measuring temperatures from satellites flying high above Earth is hard. No one doubts that. But let’s not be deluded into thinking these satellites are more accurate than thermometers (as some people suggest). Let’s also not blindly accept low-ball warming information from research teams that have long histories of revising their data. I created the image below a few years ago to show the upward revisions made by the Christy/Spencer team over time in their global troposphere temperatures.

    University of Alabama at Huntsville estimates of the atmospheric temperature trend before and after correcting for various errors. Illustration: John Abraham

    It is relevant to be reminded of these revisions; had we believed the results from the 1990s, we’d still think the world was cooling, and we’d still be wrong.

  14. Magoo on May 27, 2017 at 11:19 am said:

    Dennis dear boy,

    Don’t you know that the UAH issues mentioned in your pathetic guardian articles were all fixed decades ago – orbital decay, 1986-1988. You and your author really are more than a bit thick and informationally retarded dear boy.

    The new UAH V6 is not a beta anymore and has between published in a peer reviewed article:


    As for UAH not matching RSS, let’s just have a look shall we:


    OOOPS!! Looks like a near perfect correlation to me. Your guardian author is either a complete ignoramus or a dishonest greenie activist – i.e. a stock standard alarmist. Weak minds are so easily led by whatever rubbish they read in the papers.

    The land based datasets, however, are still ‘adjusting’ their ‘adjustments’ of their ‘adjustments’, etc. for the temperatures over the entire 20th century every time they update, which shows how useless they are. As for NOAA, let’s just have a quick look at their inadequate ‘global’ coverage of thermometers shall we:


    Both poles, the oceans, Greenland, Nth Africa, Canada, Nth Russia all have bad to pathetic coverage, i.e. the majority of the Earth, something that is simply not a problem for satellite datasets with their global coverage.

    The desperation on show from your alarmist crowd really is hilarious dear boy.

  15. Dennis N Horne on May 27, 2017 at 7:23 pm said:

    Comments: 596
    John Abraham. Thursday 11 May 2017 11.00 BST


    John P. Abraham is an American engineering professor, known for his interest in climate science.
    Abraham is professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, Minnesota.[1][2] His area of research includes thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid flow, numerical simulation, and energy. After gaining his doctorate at the University of Minnesota in 2002, he joined St. Thomas as an adjunct instructor, later becoming a full-time member of the faculty. He has published over 200 papers in journals and conferences, and since 1997 has also been an engineering consultant working on industrial research in aerospace, biomedical, energy and manufacturing industries. He works on clean and renewable wind and solar projects in the developing world, and has also produced numerous books, such as a 2014 text on small-scale wind power[3] and a 2010 groundbreaking text on laminar-to-turbulent fluid flow.[4][5][6]
    Abraham felt it was necessary to respond to a talk given to the Minnesota Free Market Institute in October 2009 by a well-known skeptic of human-caused global warming, Christopher Monckton. He thought “this guy is a great speaker and he is very convincing. If I didn’t know the science, I would believe him. Frankly, the nonscientists in the audience didn’t have a chance. They had no way of knowing what he said was not true. I felt Monckton took advantage of them and he knew he was taking advantage of them.” In the following months he carried out research, contacting scientists cited by Monckton, and in late May 2010 he posted online an 83-minute video rebutting Monckton’s statements. This attracted little attention at first, until it was highlighted by an article George Monbiot published in The Guardian.[5][7][8]
    Abraham’s presentation and the response from Monckton[9] subsequently received world-wide attention.[10][11][12][13][14][15] More recently, Abraham and a number of colleagues including Michael E. Mann submitted a document to the US Congress which claimed to refute nine errors in Christopher Monckton’s May 6, 2010, testimony.[16][17][18][19]
    In November 2010, Abraham (and two colleagues, Professor Scott Mandia and Dr. Ray Weymann) launched the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, to provide rapid, high-quality scientific information to the media and government decision makers. The intention of this group is to enable scientists to share their work directly with the general public. This effort has been covered by many media outlets.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] The effort has an online page for media to submit their questions.[32]
    Abraham estimated early in 2012 that since beginning his rebuttal he had put around 1,000 unpaid hours into work on climate change and the controversy. He has given numerous speeches to publicize global warming issues, but does not accept funding for climate research or ask for an honorarium for speeches: if payment is given he asks that it goes to St. Thomas or to charity.[5]

  16. Dennis N Horne on May 27, 2017 at 7:49 pm said:

    Indeed, Magoof. Over the years Christy and Spencer have mostly corrected their ongoing schoolboy-howlers — under the supervision and watchful eye of climate scientists (and others), 99% of whom accept the consensus of publishing climate scientists: human activity is warming Earth and destabilising the climate.

    Climate Misinformer: John Christy

    Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer

    Oops, how could one forget the third of the miserable trio of climate science misfits:
    Climate Misinformer: Judith Curry

  17. Dennis N Horne on May 27, 2017 at 8:01 pm said:

    Magoof, you suffer confirmation bias, motivated reasoning and Dunning-Kruger. I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but you are delusional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

    Preeminent satellite expert Carl Mears, of Remote Sensing Systems, sides with surface thermometers as consistently providing a generally more reliable record. “I would have to say that the surface data seems like its more accurate,” Mears said.

    According to Zeke Hausfather, a regular Yale Climate Connections expert author and a doctoral candidate working with Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, “We’ve tried using just the raw data . . . globally, you get pretty much the same warming. The necessary and routine ‘adjustments’ to surface temperature data sometimes attract disproportionate general circulation media attention,” Hausfather says, but those have had very little significant impact over the last 30 years or so. “The satellite records historically have been subjected to much, much, larger adjustments over time,” according to Hausfather.

  18. Maggy Wassilieff on May 28, 2017 at 8:53 am said:

    If anyone wants a laugh…. check out this reply to Dennis Horne (Wiiliam of Ockham) who has posted on the Dunning-Kruger effect on Kiwiblog this morning.

  19. Magoo on May 28, 2017 at 1:53 pm said:

    Haha! That’s very funny Maggy. Dany’s reply to Dennis is very funny also. 😉


    Almost as funny as Dennis’ use of the Guardian, skepticalscience.conjob, and Zeke ‘El Nino’ Hausyafather to justify his rants and froths of willful ignorance.

    DENNIS dear boy, the UAH satellite record is verified as the most accurate when compared to the independent radiosonde record – the land based record shown is the least accurate:


    Sorry Dennis dear boy, but them’s the empirical facts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation