• 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

Could CO2 Be Convicted Of Overheating The Planet In A Criminal Court?

by I & I Editorial Board
May 21, 2024, 9:54 AM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 5 mins read
A A
2

protest climate deaths
Showing that there are no loons quite like global warming loons, Jim Dale, founder of the British Weather Services, recently “​​demanded” that “climate denial” should be “criminalized.” [emphasis, links added]

According to news from the “United Kingdom’s News Channel,” Dale “likened climate denial to flat earth conspiracy theories, arguing they are too dangerous for public discourse.”

As our favorite Looney Tunes character would say, “What a maroon.”

Yet it makes us wonder: If carbon dioxide were put on trial, charged with overheating our only planet, would it be convicted?

Not if the trial was fair.

Let’s examine the evidence.

CO2 is a trace gas. As a portion of our atmosphere, it is now 425 parts per million (or 0.0425%), as measured at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory. The rest of our atmosphere is made up primarily of nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%), percent argon (0.9%), and other gases (0.1%), which includes CO2.

Yes, CO2 concentrations have grown. In 1960 they were 317 PPM, in 1970 roughly 325 PPM. By October 1980, they had reached 336 PPM.

But let’s go back further, about 500 million years ago. At that time, long before man’s industrial age, CO2 hit 7,000 PPM, and “the planet was maybe as much as 10 degrees C (18°F) warmer than today,” says Yale Environment 360.

Yale admits that “might seem surprisingly cool for that level of greenhouse gas.” But there are “so many factors at play, the link between CO2 and temperature isn’t always easy to see.”

Or maybe it’s not even there.

Or maybe, as some researchers – and not just these two but also others – believe that increasing carbon levels follow higher temperatures, not the other way around, as the alarmists claim.

To illustrate just how minuscule today’s carbon concentration is, imagine a 100,000-seat football stadium, say Bryant-Denny on the campus of the University of Alabama.

Each seat is one part of the atmosphere. In that stadium, CO2 would take up 42.5 of those seats. And most of that is naturally occurring carbon. Only 13 or 14 represent man’s CO2 contributions – maybe even less.

So how does such a small part of the atmosphere have such a cataclysmic impact? There is no evidence that it does.

We have computer models that show warming along with rising CO2 levels, but those are only models and they are unreliable, predicting higher temperatures that never arrived.

Now, let’s call our first expert witness, Kunihiko Takeda, a credentialed Japanese scholar and researcher. He’s told us that carbon dioxide was not present at the scene of the “crime.”

“​​CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another … Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so … global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”

Our next witness, Delgado Domingos, an environmental scientist professor from Portugal, testifies that “creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense … The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battles. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”

Following up on that is Geoffrey G. Duffy, a chemical and materials engineering professor at the University of Auckland.

He has said that “even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”

Now we enter into evidence the declaration of more than 1,900 scientists and professionals, including a pair of Nobel winners, who say “enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial,” reminds us that CO2 is plant food responsible for greening the Earth, and “additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass.”

“It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.”

The group further points out for our court that “climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools,” as “they blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2.”

These models are the prosecutors’ best evidence. Which means their entire case against CO2 is theoretical. We need empirical proof, not speculation, for a guilty verdict, and when carbon dioxide is put to the test, we learn that it “does not cause warming.”

That statement was made by James T. Moodey, who wrote the paper Three Proofs Carbon Dioxide Causes No Warming in the Atmosphere — No Gas Causes Warming.

He performed what he calls “a true scientific test because it observes actual measurements of the atmosphere,” and found that “carbon dioxide does not cause warming.”

Now some might point to the fact that more than 10,000 research papers were retracted last year – “smashing annual records” – and say his findings cannot be trusted. To that, he says “any high school class can repeat these observations over a school year.”

Read rest at Issues & Insights

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

Popular Posts

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
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 2

  1. Spurwing Plover says:
    1 year ago

    American Citizens should be allowed to Sue the Eco-Freaks and their Groups(Greenpeace, Sierra Club, NRDC, Friends of the Earth, Etc.)for lost jobs and livelyhoods over their own load of Poppycock, Malarkey and Balderdash

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

    In order for any climate-related lawsuit to proceed, plaintiff must be forced to prove physicality.

    If plaintiff sued a company because plaintiff believed that the company was funding pink unicorns to fart rainbow-colored glitter into the atmosphere to warm it, the judge would dismiss the case because it’s not based upon physical reality.

    The same applies to any lawsuit premised upon AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2)… plaintiff cannot prove physicality… and I’ll mathematically prove that below.

    There are two forms of the S-B equation:

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

    [1] Idealized Blackbody Object form (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
    q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
    = 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K)
    = σ T^4

    [2] Graybody Object form (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε < 1):
    q_gb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)

    Climatologists misuse the S-B equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon real-world graybody objects. This essentially isolates each object into its own system so objects cannot interact via the ambient EM field, it assumes emission to 0 K, and it thus artificially inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects. Thus the climatologists must carry these incorrect values through their calculations 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.

    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. This is true even for the traditional form of the S-B equation, because temperature is a measure of radiation energy density, per Stefan’s Law.

    That wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is otherwise known as ‘backradiation’. It is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the misuse of the S-B equation. It does not and cannot exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws.

    Temperature (T) is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density (e) divided by Stefan’s Constant (a) (ie: the radiation constant), per Stefan’s Law.

    e = T^4 a
    a = 4σ/c
    e = T^4 4σ/c
    T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
    T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
    T = 4^√(e/a)
    where:
    a = 4σ/c = 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4
    where:
    σ = (2 π^5 k_B^4) / (15 h^3 c^2) = 5.6703744191844294539709967318892308758401229702913e-8 W m-2 K-4
    where:
    σ = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
    k_B = Boltzmann Constant (1.380649e−23 J K−1)
    h = Planck Constant (6.62607015e−34 J Hz−1)
    c = light speed (299792458 m sec-1)

    σ / a = 74948114.502437694376419756266673 W J-1 m (W m-2 / J m-3)

    The traditional Stefan-Boltzmann equation for graybody objects:
    q = ε_h σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)

    [1] ∴ q = ε_h σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c)))

    Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
    W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))

    [2] ∴ q = (ε_h c (e_h – e_c)) / 4

    Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
    W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4

    [3] ∴ q = (ε_h * (σ / a) * Δe)

    Canceling units, we get W m-2.
    W m-2 = ((W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3)

    One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation for graybody objects is all about subtracting the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object.

    You will note that σ = (a * c) / 4… the S-B Constant equals Stefan’s Constant multiplied by the speed of light in vacua divided by 4.

    [4] ∴ q = (ε_h * ((a * c) / a) * Δe) / 4 = (ε_h * c * Δe) / 4

    Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
    W m-2 = (m sec-1 * ΔJ m-3) / 4

    The Stefan-Boltzmann equation in energy density form ([3] above):
    σ / a * Δe * ε_h = W m-2

    σ / a = 5.6703744191844294539709967318892308758401229702913e-8 W m-2 K-4 / 7.5657332500339284719430800357226e-16 J m-3 K-4 = 74948114.502437694376419756266673 W m-2 / J m-3.

    Well, what do you know… that’s the conversion factor for radiant exitance (W m-2) and energy density (J m-3)!

    It’s almost as if the radiant exitance of graybody objects is determined by the energy density gradient, right?

    Energy can’t even spontaneously flow when there is zero energy density gradient:

    σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * Δe [J m-3] * ε_h = [W m-2]

    σ [W m-2 K-4] / a [J m-3 K-4] * 0 [J m-3] * ε_h = 0 [W m-2]

    … it is certainly not going to spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.

    Note 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense:
    “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

    ‘Heat’ is definitionally an energy flux, thus equivalently:
    “Energy can never flow from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

    That “some other change” typically being external energy doing work upon the system energy to pump it up the energy density gradient, which is what occurs in, for example, AC units and refrigerators.

    Remember that temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant, per Stefan’s Law, thus equivalently:
    “Energy can never flow from a lower to a higher energy density without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”

    Or, as I put it:
    “Energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.”

    My statement is merely a restatement of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense.

    Do remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:

    https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJ94.png

    … so there is no physical way possible by which energy can spontaneously flow from cooler (lower energy density) to warmer (higher energy density). ‘Backradiation’ is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to the climatologists misusing the S-B equation.

    The above completely destroys AGW and CAGW, because they are predicated upon the existence of “backradiation” (radiation spontaneously flowing up an energy density gradient) as the causative agent for the climatologists’ claimed “greenhouse effect”.

    The CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) hypothesis has been disproved… it does not reflect reality.

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

    The takeaways:
    1) The climatologists have conflated their purported “greenhouse effect” with the Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect (aka the lapse rate).

    2) The climatologists claim the causative agent for their purported “greenhouse effect” to be “backradiation”.

    3) The Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect’s causative agent is, of course, gravity.

    4) “Backradiation” is physically impossible because energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.

    5) The climatologists misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon graybody objects, which manufactures out of thin air their purported “backradiation”. It is only a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation. It does not and cannot actually exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws.

    6) Polyatomic molecules are net atmospheric radiative coolants, not “global warming” gases. Far from the ‘global warming gas’ claimed by the climatologists, water acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle‘ sense) below the tropopause. CO2 is the most prevalent atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause and the second-most prevalent (behind water vapor) below the tropopause. Peer-reviewed studies corroborating the above are referenced in the paper at the link above.

    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