« Die Welt: America's Trigger-Happy Jesus Rambos | Main | John Vinocur: "Trying to Legitimize Missile-Shield Hostility in Germany" »


The German media likes to publish biased pieces that appear initially in the American media and then say "what, we biased?? No way, we only translate".

I'm wondering how many German publications will translate this piece from the NYTimes(via Instapundit).

@ mir

conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy

wunsch never was a 'skeptic'. hence, there is no need for him to turn to the 'mainstream'. durkin distorted his comments. if this is an example of how 'the' skeptics work, no wonder hardly any scientists are taking them seriously.

And why should Durkin want to distort his comment? Is he also part of the big conspiracy of "climate deniers"? BTW: Have you even watched the documentation?

Why should Durkin distort? - I do not know and I won't speculate.
Has he done it before in other "documentaries"? - Yes, repeatedly. Please note that the article is from 2000.

Have you even watched the documentation?
Guess, why I know the timestamps.

I don't know about the exact NYT article you cite, but would you settle for this selection from spon:

google for "site:spiegel.de klima unterdrücken" or "site:spiegel.de klima Kritik" to find more.

Oviously by now Prof. Wunsch has seen the documentary but as I stated when he starte complaining about misrepresentation on the 9th he admits to not seeing it. While on the 10th in his complaint to Stephen Green he still does not give any indication that he has seen it. Compare the language to the complaint to the language in his Royal Society article and it is plain that he has no problem using the acive voice.

It's tantamount to a husband giving a statement to the police about someone robbing his wife after she called him on the phone to tell him about it.

Given blue’s past well researched positions that he now seems to be the world is ending because of climate change caused by man, I feel much more comfortable with my personal belief that this is a great hoax.

Pat, give Prof. Wunsch some credit. He is skeptic in the good sense, that he points out hype and overselling, where it is due. He was told it would be a balanced documentary. By looking at the advertising alone, anyone interested in the debate knows, what to expect. In the e-mail on the 9th he does not complain about being misrepresented (he is made aware of that by Rado), but is taken aback by what kind of program he landed in.

Was billed as a balanced discussion of the threat of global warming As I began to see ads for the program, I realized I'd been duped.
He does not complain about misrepresentation at that point, but asks to be kept informed on Rado's actions.

I don't know about the exact NYT article you cite

blue, that was a rethorical question, I don't know why you felt you have to answer it.

I still wonder if anyone in the German media will show the same interest in this NY Times article as they do with Bush critical articles.

"Take my word and a apply it liberally to both sides: misquoting and misrepresenting data is rampant - and yes, that is frustrating. Read the sources where ever possible. I even ask you to not trust myself to give you a 100% correct view."

I agree, it is frustrating that this issue has been hijacked by ideologues on both the right and left. As a result, distortion is rampant on both sides. I tend to believe that human-induced climate change is taking place. I base that belief less on the pronouncements of environmental scientists, who have done a fine job of destroying their own credibility, than on my knowledge of how radiant energy is absorbed in gases containing varying amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. No one can be certain at this point exactly what the ramifications will be, but the threat is sufficiently serious and the potential negative impact sufficiently probable that strong measures to address it are warranted, assuming those measures have any likelihood of really accomplishing anything significant. The probability that any such measures will be taken will vary inversely with the volume of pronouncements by the professional saviors of the world equating global warming skeptics to holocaust deniers, etc.

Unfortunately, I suspect the volume of propaganda on both sides will remain so high that nothing much of any significance will be undertaken. We will have to keep our fingers crossed that solar, wind, nuclear, etc., will become increasingly attractive from a purely economic point of view, and keep our eyes on land values in Labrador. We may be in for a bumpy ride. There are likely to be interesting political ramifications if Florida sinks beneath the waves.

helian, I wholeheartedly agree.


1) You write:"...read an article in the WSJ by an eminent climate scientist
Could you please be more specific? I would like to read it or at least get the name so I can find more info."

In fact I spent a lot of time trying to locate that article both before and after your request and am sorry and embarrassed to tell you that I failed. I am at a complete loss as to why.

However, we have an example of what he referred to readily at hand:

Whatever you may think of the alternative hypothesis recently put forward in the scientific community, and emphasized in the film, that cloud cover, (hence, water vapor, cosmic rays and the solar magnetic field) is the major factor in determining climate, it cannot be disputed that is at least a major factor. And it was one which was very poorly modeled (e.g.www.si.umich.edu/~pne/PDF/dataladen.pdf discusses model clouds that blink on and off))and not emphasized at the time that the greenhouse effect's supremacy was insisted upon. Thus all major variables were not known at a time when a "scientific consensus" was being proclaimed.

2)You write:"Morever, there are indeed short space-time range effects which have been shown to grow to influence climate predictions.
Again, I would like to learn more about this. Are they shown to influence the predicitions significantly over a timescale of 100 years?"

My immediate source for this comment (which is unsurprising to anyone who has dealt with complex numerical calculations) is the scholarly article already referred to (www.si.umich.edu/~pne/PDF/dataladen.pdf). As to significance of 100 years, you must realize that the source of error referred to never ceases. It arises from error introduced in each and every time step of the calculation...necessarily introduced as the modeler simplifies the system to make it calculable. So there is no decay in its effect over time.

I quote the umich article:We can describe the known physical laws
mathematically, at least in principle. In practice, however, solving these equations
in full, explicit detail is impossible. First, the possible scales of motion in the
atmospheric and oceanic components range from the submolecular to the global.
Second are the interactions of energy transfers among the different scales of
motion. Finally, many scales of disturbance are inherently unstable; small
disturbances, for example, grow rapidly in size if conditions are favorable
(Schneider, 1992)

3)You ask "Have you spent time reading the other side (e.g. realclimate.org, IPCC reports), not summaries thereof given by skeptics? "

Well, I read the reference you gave me, and it left me unimpressed. They seem to be pushing their filtering scheme--a scheme to eliminate all those pesky inherently unstable short range disturbances I have just referred to. They also do not address the continuous nature of these disturbance. If one butterfly takes x years to have an effect on weather, then a million butterflies flitting over a thousand years can have quite an effect on climate!? And you have not even taken into account the bat population which eats the butterflies, the hawks which eat the bats,.... A non-serious example this may be but it illustrates a very real point.

4) And I would bring to your attention that the second comment to this article, by a well known climate scientist reads as follows referring to remark made by the authors on why weather is so much harder to predict than climate: "Fortunately, the calculation of climatic variables (i.e., long-term averages) is much easier than weather forecasting, since weather is ruled by the vagaries of stochastic fluctuations, while climate is not. "

This is incorrect.

First, the more appropriate scientific definition of climate is that it is a system involving the oceans, land, atmosphere and continental ice sheets with interfacial fluxes between these components, as we concluded in the 2005 National Research Council report. Observations show chaotic behavior of the climate system on all time scales, including sudden regime transitions, as we documented in Rial, J., R.A. Pielke Sr., M. Beniston, M. Claussen, J. Canadell, P. Cox, H. Held, N. de Noblet-Ducoudre, R. Prinn, J. Reynolds, and J.D. Salas, 2004: Nonlinearities, feedbacks and critical thresholds within the Earth's climate system. Climatic Change, 65, 11-38.

5) Finally, I give you a quote from recent testimony to a Senate Committee to be found at

Climate change knows three realities. Science reality, which is what working scientists deal with on a daily basis. Virtual reality, which is the wholly imaginary world inside computer climate models. And public reality, which is the socio-political system within which politicians, business people and the general citizenry work.
The science reality is that climate is a complex, dynamic, natural system that no one wholly comprehends, though many scientists understand different small parts. Science provides no unambiguous empirical data that dangerous or even measurable human-caused global warming is occurring (e.g. Khilyuk & Chilingar, 2006). Second, the virtual reality is that deterministic computer models predict future climate according to the assumptions that are programmed into them. There is no “Theory of Climate”, and the potential output of all realistic GCMs therefore encompasses a range of both future warmings and coolings. The difference between these outputs can be changed at will, simply by adjusting such poorly known parameters as the effects of cloud cover. And third, public reality in 2006 is that there exists a widespread but erroneous belief amongst citizens, businessmen and politicians that dangerous global warming is occurring and that it has human causation.
Three main agents have driven the public to believe in dangerous global warming. They are reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), incessant lobbying by environmental NGOs and allied political groups, and the obliging conveyance of selectively alarmist information by the media. Alarmist writing displays two invariable characteristics. First, it is mostly concerned with the minutiae of meteorological measurements and trends over the last 150 years and the absence of a proper geological context. Second, there is an over-reliance on the outputs of unvalidated computer model scenarios and attribution studies, i.e. virtual reality is favoured over empirical testing.
I summarise first several arguments against the conventional IPCC view that dangerous warming is occurring. I then comment on ancient temperature records, greenhouse theory

@ Blue
Regarding the emission controls America vs EU.

The federal guidelines are identical to the EU. EU5
States such as California, NY, Vermont, Maine, Mass have much tighter restrictions. Soon they will be joined by NJ, Oregon, Washington, NH, Canada and others.
A little known fact that even most Americans don't know, since it has not received much mention in the MSM:
Lat October a law went into effet that reduces Soot from Diesel from 500 to 15!!!! particles.
Unlike the EU using Filters to trap those partices and provide jobs, here they used the refineries to reduce Russ from the Diesel itself.
As to reasons why there is such hysteria about global warming, just as always, follow the money. Governments do have to justify their Eco Tax and potential increases. :) Are they talking about a farting tax in Germany yet or are they going to use a different name? Aer all, Cows produce more gasses than cars. What abt human methane? :)Obviously I am doing something about the climate, I eat the Bovine.

When I asked "lars" a few questions, I got the answers from "blue". Hm.

Oh well, let's look at the alleged distortion of facts or statements by the author of the film. Who wrote the article blue in blue's link above? George Monbiot. He writes:

In 1997 he made a series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which compared environmentalists like me to Nazis, conspiring against the world's poor.


George Monbiot (born January 27, 1963) is a journalist, author, academic and environmental and leftwing political activist in the United Kingdom who writes a weekly column for The Guardian newspaper. [...]

Monbiot’s most recent book, Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning, published in 2006, focuses on the issue of climate change. In this book, Monbiot argues that a 90% reduction in carbon emissions is necessary in developed countries in order to prevent disastrous changes to the climate.

Yeah, the author of the article is a hysterical left-wing environmentalist himself who has a personal fight against the author of the documentation. How credible are his claims, how well-researched his facts, how balanced his presentation? Not much, I'd say. Once more, the MSM follows their own agendas.

Sorry for responding when lars for asked.



The ITC did not uphold the majority of the complaints. However, the programmes breached the Programme Code in respect of the failure to make the four interviewees adequately aware of the nature of the programmes, and the way their contributions were edited. The Commission directed Channel 4 to issue an on-screen apology to the individuals concerned. The apology was transmitted on Sunday 5 April.

Thank you Sagredo, for the in-depth reply. Don't fret about not finding some links, the ones you did find are good enough for me.

1) 40 pages? OK, that will take some time to read. :-)

2) Error in the predictions is inevitable, but some is tolerable. The reason I asked for significant is the following. Perfect knowledge is unattainable so we need to settle for a compromise. The IPCC projections go to 2100, so about 100 years into the future. A major source of the uncertainty in the predictions lies in the projected emission of green house gases by mankind. Let us set this aside and assume we know it for the sake of the argument. Say the models predict a rise in temperature of 5°C give or take 0.5°C. If the deficiencies in the models lead to an error of say 3°C, then they are significant. If they result in errors of say 0.1°C, then they are not significant. I need to read the details of your source to see what exactly the author is claiming. Keep in mind that the climate scientists do check their models for consistency and against known climate records and are able to at least hindcast (which in itself does however not imply, that they can forecast equally well).

3) In hindsight, my question looks a bit accusing, that was not intended. It's fair enough if your evaluation differs from mine.
If I understand your example correctly, you imply that the models have or could have systematic errors. I can't really argue against that, as that kind of errors are the most difficult to find and only become obvious in hindsight. I can only suggest to try and check the performance of the projections against known data. For example the very first hit googling for "Hansen prediction senate" gives this. I haven't read it in detail yet, but that's the kind of reality check one can do.

4) The discussion you point out goes a long way back and forward on that page, as it is a difficult subject. Again, make up your mind, I won't push you.

5) Thanks for the link, I'll have to read that, along with the other testimonies to the Hearing on Climate Change and the Media. BTW, you can find a prime example of what I told you about misrepresentation on that page in the news section, it happens to be a "skeptic" one. Compare the news bit Solar Physicist Rejects Belief Humans Are Driving Global Warming - Says 'The Heat's in the Sun' to the 2004 press release of the institute the scientist Solanki is working for and one of the actual peer reviewed articles cited: Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?. From the abstract

In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature increase that has taken place since then [roughly 1970], irrespective of which of the three considered channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric heating caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux.

"Second, the virtual reality is that deterministic computer models predict future climate according to the assumptions that are programmed into them. There is no “Theory of Climate”, and the potential output of all realistic GCMs therefore encompasses a range of both future warmings and coolings. The difference between these outputs can be changed at will, simply by adjusting such poorly known parameters as the effects of cloud cover."

This is not strictly true. None of the serious climate models I am aware of are deterministic. They all incorporate stochastic variables (quantities that can vary according to some probability distribution) in one form or another. Whether you agree that there is a "theory of climate" or not, the fact is that some of the best computational physicists and mathematicians in the world are working on and thinking about the problem, and not all of them have a political ax to grind. It is certainly not guaranteed that they will be able to come up with useful climate modeling tools any time in the near future, but one can't dismiss the possibility a priori.

With climate modeling, we are talking about a highly complex ocean/atmosphere interaction with, literally, billions of degrees of freedom. It does not appear that the usual brute force differencing methods that computational physicists often rely on will be able to usefully address the problem without some serious innovations, regardless of how fast we improve the speed and capacity of our computers. In a way, that's a good thing. The computational folks have had to take a step back and scratch their heads a bit. As a result, brute force methods are starting to yield to new, creative approaches that require input from people who computational physicists have tended to relegate to the sidelines as anachronisms in the past; the analytic mathematicians. Those are the paper and pencil guys who come up with lemmas, proofs, theorems, and other such mathematical esoterica. They are needed because, among other things, the new, simplified methods that are being proposed will be useless without rigorous error bounds, and only true blue mathematicians have the theoretical expertise to establish those error bounds.

The upshot of all this is that I am seeing more real creativity and innovation in computational physics than I have seen previously in my career to date. True, the problem is very complicated, and it may all come to nothing. However, given the brilliance of some of the people I know who are working this problem, I wouldn't leap to an ideologically based conclusion that all their efforts will come to nought based on what amounts to blind faith in the pronouncements of any favored expert or combination thereof.

I blame the termites.


Plus there are way too many 6's in that link for comfort.

Sorry, should read;


I give up, type some kind of combination of the two links.

Hmm, what made the termites become so agitated starting from about 1750?

Have once more a look at the numbers at

To convert from "Tg methane" to "Tg CO2 equivalent" multiply by 21:

@ blue

"And why should Durkin want to distort his comment?"
honestly, i don't know - and i don't care.

"Is he also part of the big conspiracy of "climate deniers"?"
i heard this was a set up by the ipcc and the evil environmentalists. they knew durkin would screw this one up, and therefore would make all those skeptics look stupid.

nah, just kidding.

"BTW: Have you even watched the documentation?"

"Oh well, let's look at the alleged distortion of facts or statements by the author of the film. Who wrote the article blue in blue's link above? George Monbiot."
monbiot is not the issue here. but since you mistrust him, here's what the itc had to say about 'against nature': http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/itc/itc_publications/complaints_reports/programme_complaints/show_complaint.asp-prog_complaint_id=40.html

sorry the post above was directed towards mir, not blue

Thanks for the link, lars. It proves that there was mostly a fair, if for once critical, representation of the issue. Let's assume that the ITC's findings are correct. The misrepresentation of facts and the misleading not of interviewees, but of the viewers are (un)pretty common in the MSM - even the BBC admitted their bias some time ago.

That doesn't make this case better, but it also doesn't change the fact that the documentation raises important and true concerns about the current debate.

Amazon has The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Unstoppable global Warming Every 1500 Years.

And don't forget exploding stars......

Hey, Tropby, how are you going to stop the Poles from reversing?

Supposed to happen every 43K years, and we're getting close.

Isn't RealClimate run or Mann and his bogus hockey stick have a hand in?

As to "consensus," that's not true, the other side hasn't been heard. The Canuck Broadcasting System refused to run a documentary on same a few years ago.

Via Rantburg:

Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun's activity is the common thread linking all these baking events. Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, such as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon. While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output....


Keep this up and blue's head will explode.

Glowball Warming

More natural influences on climate.

@ Sandy P.

"Hey, Tropby, how are you going to stop the Poles from reversing?"

We Germans traditionally have no problems dealing with Poles, they just need clear and simple orders.

Oops, You are talking about magnetic Poles. Their reversion did not result in a loss of species before, so why should it now. Some doves might be confused, and the last CRTs would need to be replaced. GPS and Galileo should not be affected ...

Global warming, on the other hand, is going to cost lives and money: Coastal areas will need expensive European-style levees to avoid even more expansive flooding and the resulting loss of life. Hurricanes will increase in number and severity ...

But I will sit in Berlin and enjoy home grown tropical fruits. Live is good.

After having made it through the entire 75 minutes of footage last night (with the help of a bottle of wine), I do remain with this conclusion.

Humans are not in control. If the climate was going to spiral out of control, as a species we were still helpless, and probably too busy with blaming each other to find a solution.

And I´m not talking about Obersalzberg becoming the new Hawaii of the Northatlantic, the political earthquakes from such a development would leave no Ananas Idyll untouched.

E.g. Tropby would have to worry whether Ghaddafi buys his lewd humor.

Clearly this thread has run out of steam. But I could not resist pointing to this new commentary on Melanie Phillips blog:http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1469

@ Sandy P.
Take a wider view:
Is the subject settled? - Not yet, either way.

@ Sagredo
Thanks, nice find. It is even more interesting, when you compare the commentary by Melanie Phillips to the full original article by Mike Hulme.

IIRC, the onset of more severe weather describes global cooling.

As to levees and such, why is man entitled to live there? It's cheaper to move them.

SoCal has houses sliding off mountains and they insist on rebuilding 2-3-4 times in the same place.

Why should I pay for this in increased premiums?

And if you're thinking about the 2005 hurricanes, this pattern was seen in the 30s and 40s, people forgot.

Maybe get 2 chances, after that, put the risk where it belongs.

"And if you're thinking about the 2005 hurricanes, this pattern was seen in the 30s and 40s, people forgot."

A couple of years ago, and shortly after I'd read "The Skeptical Environmentalist," a study came out claiming to document a major increase in large hurricanes in the Pacific region. I fact checked the study, and found the data points indicating a "trend" to ever bigger hurricanes had been chosen to start just after the last cycle of major hurricanes in the region. The study was complete BS, but it had been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The media made a big fuss about it. Lomborg documented a host of similarly sickening examples in his book. I've taken such "studies" with a grain of salt ever since. If the real wolf of global climate change ever appears, it will be just too bad that the environmental "scientists" who are supposed to warn us cried "wolf" so often before, won't it? It will also be just too bad that the editors of "scientific" journals published their crap and the reviewers who were supposed to be minding the shop played along. "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours." They compounded the problem by villifying and demonizing Lomborg and the others who pointed to the emperor's lack of clothes, rather than apologizing for their deceptions. The damage has been done. The ideological battle lines have hardened, and it will be very difficult if not impossible for legitimate scientists to regain the credibility that has been lost.

"The damage has been done. The ideological battle lines have hardened, and it will be very difficult if not impossible for legitimate scientists to regain the credibility that has been lost."

Unfortunately, it's not in the scientists' hands (was it ever?). The politicians are lapping this up (witness Al Gore). When politicians try to "fix" things...watch out! That can only mean BAD things for the rest of us. The law of unintended consequences has no ideological ax to grind.

The attempted vilification of Bjorn Lomborg - they brought him up before an ethics panel I believe - was the proverbial lightbulb over my head. (He was cleared, by the way.)

Keep an eye out for the economic beneficiaries of carbon caps, flourescent light bulbs, etc.

Complete scam.

Oh. And if you live in the U.S. your food is about to become more expensive.

The demand for corn-derived ethanol is going to distort ALL the ag markets.

thank you for your hilariously funny website. I have always loved great satire - and apart from the Flying Spaghetti Monster your website is the best satire site on the net. I honestly admire how you manage to come up with all the stuff here to provoke the stereotypical narrow-minded wannabe retards to foam at the Germans and Germany in general and the German media in particular in the comment section without them even realising that you are making fun of them for the amusement of your casual readers.

In terms of global warming, you come only second best to the Competitive Enterprise Institute - they took the game one step further with their satirical "CO2 - they call it pollution, we call it life" campaign (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA) which was one of the funniest things I have seen last year. :D

Keep up the great work, you have earned a spot in my daily satire bookmarks.

The poll results from the NPR debate are out, the podcast is not up, yet. They had an online poll and two audience polls. Here are the results.

Motion: Global warming is not a crisis

Votes..............Online Poll....Before Debate....After Debate
For....................54.76 %..........29.88 %............46.22 %
Against..............41.94 %..........57.32 %............42.22 %
Don’t Know..........3.30 %..........12.80 %............11.56 %

In total about 15% of the audience changed their vote to "Global warming is not a crisis".

Oh, the troll is still in Karneval mode...



"Oh. And if you live in the U.S. your food is about to become more expensive.
The demand for corn-derived ethanol is going to distort ALL the ag markets."

Too bad about ethanol. It seemed like such a great idea. What's not to like about taking oil money out of the pockets of our enemies? It's just that, the more you look into it, the less attractive it gets. You can't send it long distances through pipelines. The energy cost of producing it is about five times what you get out of the fuel, assuming you produce it with corn. If we diverted enough agricultural land to ethanol production to fuel our motor vehicles, the poor wouldn't be able to afford food anymore. There would be a massive cost in terms of degradation of the environment. The list goes on. It's depressing. I hope the Swedes are successful in their efforts to produce the stuff with high cellulose biomass. Meanwhile, the price of corn is already on the upswing, and, if you were planning to invest in agricultural land in Iowa, sorry, you missed the boat.


You have no idea what the farmers are experiencing here. It will be catastrophic. It is already becoming so.

If anyone thinks the politics of foreign oil are brutal, try the politics/economics of agriculture. I find ag economics fascinating, but I worry about ag econ more than I worry about Islam.

No joke.

And we have Bob Dole and Pat Roberts and a slew of others to thank for this corn-ethanol bullshit.


"You have no idea what the farmers are experiencing here. It will be catastrophic. It is already becoming so."

I grew up in the Midwest, and would be very interested to read more about what's going on. Can you elaborate, or post a link or two?

I've heard both sides of this issue, and I still can't be sure who's right. When in doubt, I usually lean toward the side of caution. And I ask myself what is more dangerous for the future – to believe and do something to solve the problem, or not to believe and do nothing. Politics and dogma be damned, it's the survival of the planet that is at stake.


I have no links because my husband and I know this stuff so well it's nothing I need to save. Nothing in the MSM or the innernut is going to tell me anything I don't already know.

One of our farmers testified before Congress last week (I think it was last week) that the price of concentrated feed has risen from $180 per hundred weight to $300.

I'll shoot you an email.

Pamela, which search engine terms can a first hand expert suggest to a neophyte?

End of debate for me. I was born and raised in Wisconsin (Eat cheese or die!)

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30