• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Climate Week’s Failed Schemes Are Just Another Cash Grab For Green Grifters

For Climate Week, Let’s Reject The Green Fantasy: Carbon Is NOT The Enemy

by Jason Isaac
September 24, 2024, 2:25 PM
in Energy, Extreme Weather, News and Opinion
Reading Time: 4 mins read
A A
2

protest fight climate change

There’s a whole lot of hot air coming out of New York City this week. [emphasis, links added]

As politicians, celebrities, and academics descend on the Big Apple for Climate Week NYC, expect a lot of bad ideas — and ironically a lot of carbon dioxide emissions — from elites eager to force their political agenda on the masses but unwilling to make the sacrifice themselves.

Starting Sunday, these self-appointed climate crusaders are busily lecturing ordinary Americans about how to live, what to drive, and even what to eat, all while flying in on private jets and being chauffeured around town in SUVs.

As they pontificate from podiums and plush panels about reducing carbon footprints, they conveniently ignore their outsized ones.

Climate Week is rehashing the same tired, failed schemes of the climate movement, branded this year with an “age of urgency,” perhaps in recognition that their ideas still don’t work.

Despite the ramped-up doomsday rhetoric, our environment is thriving — and this is the best time in human history to be alive.

If you’re looking for someone to blame for inflation, start with the devotees of Climate Week: Their anti-fossil-fuel proposals have resulted in higher energy prices, which increase the cost of everything.

Add to that the tax burden of the hundreds of billions spent on renewable-energy subsidies (which have barely moved the needle on our energy landscape) and pressure from the ESG movement, which bullies businesses into adopting climate initiatives or risk de-banking.

Yet for all that investment — and all that cost increase — wind and solar power still represent just 5% of the nation’s energy production.

Despite the Left’s best efforts, wind and solar are largely failed technologies. They work all right when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, but weather conditions are notoriously difficult to predict and rarely track with electricity needs.

No matter how many industrial wind farms and solar panels we build, those systems rely on fossil fuels to keep the lights on.

Imagine for a moment that climate activists achieved their goal and somehow managed to delete every drop of oil and gas and vanish every lump of coal nationwide.

First, of course, it would destroy our society and send us back to the Middle Ages — as Venezuelans found out firsthand when week-long blackouts struck their once-prosperous nation after their oil industry collapsed.

But what would happen to our dangerously warming climate?

Nothing.

According to the same data models climate radicals misuse to claim the sky is falling, a total US ban on fossil fuels would shift global temperatures by a few hundredths of a degree at most.

These models have significantly overestimated warming every time, so even that may be a stretch.

Even if the whole world participated in the disappearance of fossil fuels, the effect would still be minute — less than a tenth of a degree.

It wouldn’t be worth the trillions of dollars spent, the lives and livelihoods lost, and the destruction of our modern way of life.

But we’re not doomed.

Contrary to the Climate Week event snappily titled “Let’s Not Die,” climate-related deaths are down 99% in the last hundred years, according to researcher Bjorn Lomborg, even as the world’s population has quadrupled.

We’re not dying — by the numbers, we’re growing more resilient to climate-related disasters than we are to non-climate-related disasters like volcanoes and earthquakes.

Clearly, the weather isn’t the problem here.

In reality, this is the best time in human history to be alive. Around the world, in the wealthiest urban centers and the most impoverished developing nations, people are living longer, healthier, better lives than ever before.

They have accessible, abundant energy to thank — and not the unreliable, unaffordable energy the climate movement promotes.

Access to affordable, reliable energy from fossil fuels dramatically improves life expectancy, infant and child mortality, and economic opportunity, while reducing poverty and disease.

Fossil fuels are the reason we have comfortable homes and access to nutritious foods and life-saving medicines.

They are the reason you can spend your free time reading this article instead of the backbreaking labor of life without them: subsistence farming, walking miles to collect water or firewood, and the likelihood of a short and difficult existence.

Climate Week’s dreams are nothing more than that — fantasies that won’t stop climate change but would ravage our society.

If its organizers really hope to create a brighter future for humanity, they should unapologetically embrace the high-carbon lifestyle and acknowledge its power to transform the human condition.

Read more at NY Post

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Energy

Professor Makes Stunning Discovery: ‘Absolutely, 100 percent, Offshore Wind Kills Whales’

Jul 15, 2024
Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024

Comments 2

  1. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:
    1 year ago

    Jason Isaac wrote:
    “Even if the whole world participated in the disappearance of fossil fuels, the effect would still be minute — less than a tenth of a degree.”

    If we were to reduce CO2 atmospheric concentration from the current 430 ppm to pre-industrial 280 ppm, it would only result in a reduction of surface temperature of 0.00024538389628901 K. Less than a thousandth of a degree.

    Idealized dry gas molar heat capacity lapse rate:
    If we take ϒ = 1.404, g = 9.80665 m s-2, R = 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 and M = 28.9647 g mol-1, then:

    dT / dh = -0.4/1.404 * (((28.9647 g mol-1) * 9.80665 m s-2) / 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1) = -9.7330377706482238008458858152373 K km-1

    The stated molar isobaric heat capacity for dry air is Cp = 7/2 R
    7 / 2 * 8.31446261815324 J mol-1 K-1 = 29.10061916353634 J mol-1 K-1

    ∴ Molar Heat Capacity / 7 * 2 = Specific Gas Constant

    dT / dh = -0.4/1.404 * (((Molar Mass) * 9.80665 m s-2) / Specific Gas Constant) = Specific Lapse Rate

    Which gives:
    Symbol | Molar Mass | Molar Heat Capacity | Specific Lapse Rate
    CO2 | 44.0095 g mol-1 | 36.94 J mol-1 K-1 | 11.683426182319 K km-1

    (CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000001 = 0.0000596438906607385 K ppm-1
    (CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000430 = 0.0256468729841176 K
    (CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000280 = 0.0167002893850068 K
    (CO2) 11.683426182319 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.000150 = 0.00894658359911077 K cooling

    But wait! We also have to account for the atoms and molecules which that CO2 displaces. We’ll do the calculations for the three most-prevalent atomic or molecular species.
    
    N2 | 28.0134 g mol-1 | 29.12 J mol-1 K-1 | 9.4339738283240 K km-1
    (N2) 150 ppm * 0.780761158 = 117.1141737 ppm
    (N2) 780761.158 ppm + 117.1141737 ppm = 780878.2721737 ppm
    (N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.780761158 = 37.6017980884478 K
    (N2) 9.433973828324 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.7808782721737 = 37.6074383581611 K
    (N2) 37.6074383581611 K – 37.6017980884478 K = 0.00564026971329668 K warming
    
    O2 | 31.9988 g mol-1 | 29.38 J mol-1 K-1 | 10.680770320623 K km-1
    (O2) 150 ppm * 0.20944121395198 = 31.416182092797 ppm
    (O2) 209441.21395198 ppm + 31.416182092797 ppm = 209472.630134073 ppm
    (O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.20944121395198 = 11.4198518271666 K
    (O2) 10.680770320623 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.209472630134073 = 11.4215648049407 K
    (O2) 11.4215648049407 K – 11.4198518271666 = 0.00171297777410118 K warming
    
    Ar | 39.948 g mol-1 | 20.7862 J mol-1 K-1 | 18.846929895790 K km-1
    (Ar) 150 ppm * 0.00934 = 1.401 ppm
    (Ar) 934 ppm + 1.401 ppm = 935.401 ppm
    (Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.00934 = 0.898634810282194 K
    (Ar) 18.84692989579 K km-1 * 5.105 km * 0.00935401 = 0.899982762497618 K
    (Ar) 0.899982762497618 K – 0.898634810282194 K = 0.00134795221542394 warming

    0.00894658359911077 K – 0.00564026971329668 K – 0.00171297777410118 K – 0.0013479522154239 K = 0.00024538389628901 K.
    
    Reducing CO2 from 430 ppm to 280 ppm would decrease the lapse rate (and thus surface temperature) by 0.00024538389628901 K.

    Meanwhile, that reduction of atmospheric CO2 concentration means the 150 ppm that was occupied by CO2 is now predominantly occupied by N2 (homonuclear diatomic), O2 (homonuclear diatomic) and Ar (monoatomic).

    Monoatomics cannot absorb (nor emit) IR in any case, because they have no vibrational mode quantum states.

    Homonuclear diatomics have a net-zero electric dipole which must be perturbed via collision in order for the molecule to absorb (or emit)… except collisions occur exponentially less frequently as altitude increases.

    Thus, for a decreased CO2 concentration, each parcel of air in the upper atmosphere has fewer emitters, which reduces the ability of that air to cool via radiative emission to space. This is the reason the upper atmosphere has experienced a long-term and dramatic cooling as CO2 concentration rose, to the point that atmospheric thermal contraction no longer drags on derelict satellites as much, so they stay aloft for a longer period, which exacerbates the space junk problem. We don’t have the mathematics to model this yet, but we know the upper atmosphere cooled by as much as 2K between 1998 and 2023.

    Because CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant, not a “greenhouse gas”. In fact, it is the most-prevalent atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause, and the second-most (behind water vapor) below the tropopause.

    https://i.imgur.com/b87xKMk.png
    The image above is from a presentation given by Dr. Maria Z. Hakuba, an atmospheric research scientist at NASA JPL.

    https://i.imgur.com/gIjHlCU.png
    The image above is adapted from the Clough and Iacono study, Journal Of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, Pages 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995.

    Note that the Clough & Iacono study is for the atmospheric radiative cooling effect, so positive numbers at right are cooling, negative numbers are warming.

    An increased CO2 concentration means each parcel is more capable of emitting, so it is more capable of radiatively cooling via emission to space, which sets the starting point of the lapse rate to a lower temperature, which translates down through the lapse rate to an (eventually) cooler surface. We’re just working through the massive thermal capacity of the planet. You will note that upwelling IR has exhibited a long-term increase as CO2 concentration rose (in direct contradiction to the prediction of the climatologists).

    So a reduction in CO2 atmospheric concentration will barely affect the lapse rate (0.00024538389628901 K reduction in surface temperature), while it will set the starting point of the lapse rate to a higher temperature, which will translate down through the lapse rate to cause a warmer surface.

    The entirety of the CAGW agenda has its foundation in a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation in Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs), which I prove using the Kiehl-Trenberth ‘Earth Energy Balance’ graphic, which is a graphical representation of the results of the mathematics in their EBCM. They use the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation upon real-world graybody objects. In so doing, they’ve flipped thermodynamics on its head. They are as close to diametrically opposite to reality as they can possibly be.

    https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif

    Subsequent EBCMs go so far off the rails that their claimed 398 W m-2 surface radiant exitance at their claimed 288 K surface temperature is physically impossible, even if one treats the surface as an idealized blackbody (emission to 0 K, emissivity = 1).

    Now, that misuse of the S-B equation artificially inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects (because their use of the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation calculates for emission to 0 K). The climatologists must carry these incorrect values through their calculation and cancel them on the back end to get their equation to balance, subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.

    Except the S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s meant to be used by subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object.

    That wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is otherwise known as “backradiation”. It is only a mathematical artifact due to the misuse of the S-B equation. It doesn’t actually exist.

    That wholly-fictive “backradiation” is then claimed to cause the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”, which is used to designate polyatomic molecules as “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”.

    That is then used to claim that certain of those polyatomics will cause CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2). That is used to claim that we must reduce CO2 emission, from which springs all of the offshoots of CAGW (net zero, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, banning ICE vehicles, degrowth, replacing reliable baseload generation with intermittent renewables, etc.).

    Except “backradiation” is physically impossible, it violates 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense. Energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.

    Thus the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is physically impossible.

    Thus “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))” are physically impossible.

    Thus the entirety of CAGW collapses.

    The maths are laid out in full at the link below, wherein CAGW is disproved via multiple avenues (thermodynamics, dimensional analysis, fundamental physical laws, entropy):

    https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711

    Reply
  2. Spurwing Plover says:
    1 year ago

    This whole Global Warming/Climate Change Scam is just more ways the Eco-Freaks scam us to donate to them so they can hold more stupid protests and show off their ignorance

    Reply

Comments are welcome! Those that add no discussion value may be removed.Cancel reply

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • oil rig drillAmerica’s Energy Boom Exposes The Folly Of Britain’s Net Zero Disaster
    Oct 3, 2025
    America’s energy boom and policy flexibility are widening the economic gap with Britain, where high prices and net zero goals are stalling growth. […]
  • Arctic sunsetNew Study Shows Arctic Sea Ice Decline Slowing, Driven More by Natural Variability Than Emissions
    Oct 3, 2025
    New study shows Arctic sea ice decline has slowed since 2012, driven more by natural variability than greenhouse gas emissions. […]
  • Attorney General Rob BontaNewsom Backs Off Climate Fight As AG Bonta Doubles Down On Suing Energy Firms
    Oct 3, 2025
    Two years after launching a high-profile climate lawsuit, Newsom is backing off while AG Rob Bonta doubles down on lawfare against major energy firms. […]
  • Farm irrigationMeteorologist Debunks Reuters’ Claim That Climate Change Threatens Europe’s Resources
    Oct 2, 2025
    Data show Europe’s droughts, weather, and biodiversity issues stem from mismanagement, not climate change, despite alarmist media claims. […]
  • Russ VoughtTrump Nixes $8B In ‘Green New Scam Funding’ In NYC, Blue States
    Oct 2, 2025
    Trump DOE halted billions in green energy projects citing poor economics, DEI hiring, and weak energy impact, sparking backlash in blue states. […]
  • SherrillRising Energy Costs And Dem Green Policies Top Of Mind In NJ Gubernatorial Race
    Oct 2, 2025
    New Jersey voters face rising energy costs as Democratic green policies and offshore wind expansion drive utility bills higher. […]
  • Hochul's green stringsHochul’s Election-Year ‘Inflation Refund’ Checks Can’t Cover Costs Of Her Green Agenda
    Oct 2, 2025
    Hochul’s election-year ‘inflation refund’ checks won’t offset the soaring living costs and utility hikes her green-energy agenda created. […]
  • South Asia monsoonSouth Asia Monsoons Not Becoming More Dangerous From Climate Change, Data Confirms
    Oct 1, 2025
    Claims that climate change is making South Asia’s monsoons more extreme ignore history, data, and other major causes of flooding. […]
  • wildfire carsRick Scott Wants Answers On What California Did With Federal Wildfire Funds
    Oct 1, 2025
    Sen. Rick Scott is demanding answers on how California spent federal money earmarked for preventing and fighting wildfires. […]
  • Biden test driving an all-electric Ford F-150.Ford CEO Warns U.S. EV Sales Could Halve After Federal Subsidies End
    Oct 1, 2025
    Ford warns U.S. electric vehicle sales could drop as much as 5% after the $7,500 taxpayer-funded federal subsidies expire in a month. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky