Media Ignore Deposed UN Climate Chief: Fighting Climate Change Is ‘My Religion’
By Tim Graham | February 28, 2015 | 9:57 AM EST
As Joseph Rossell noted earlier, Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, the scientist leading the fight against “climate change” at the United Nations, resigned after some sexual-harassment allegations surfaced against him in his home country of India, and the networks completely ignored it.
So it’s also obvious that they also ignored the shocking admission in Dr. Pachauri’s resignation letter: fighting against global warming, he said, was “my religion.”
“For me, the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma [the path of righteousness].”
Investors’ Business Daily explored this on its editorial page on Friday:
And all this time we were supposed to believe that global warming and climate change were about rigorous science. Pachauri’s admission merely confirms what we have said for years. The zealots have concocted a warming religion .
This is an observation also made by Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who told a gathering at the Cato Institute in fall 2009 that all of environmentalism, not just the climate-change belief system, “is a religion.”
University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse made a similar remark a year later. “When everything is evidence of the thing you want to believe, it might be time to stop pretending you’re all about science,” she wrote in her blog.
Flashback: Meteorologist Anthony Watts on ‘adjusted’ U.S. temperature data: ‘In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data’
Watts: ‘Is history malleable? Can temperature data of the past be molded to fit a purpose? It certainly seems to be the case here, where the temperature for July 1936 reported … changes with the moment’
Updated Feb. 8, 2015: ‘BREATHTAKING’ ADJUSTMENTS TO ARCTIC TEMPERATURE RECORD. IS THERE ANY ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ WE CAN TRUST?
Satellites: Warming pause continues & 2014 not the hottest
UK Telegraph on new climategate: ‘Fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever’
By: Marc Morano – Climate DepotJanuary 10, 2013 1:40 PM with 912 comments
Related Links updated February 8, 2015:
Flashback: Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: ‘The raw temperature data is continually adjusted to show more warming’ – PATRICK J. MICHAELS and PAUL C. “CHIP” KNAPPENBERGER: U.S. temperature ‘history has been repeatedly “revised” to either make temperatures colder in the earlier years or warmer at the end’ -‘A major and ongoing federal effort has been to try and cram these numbers into the box imposed by the theory that gives the government the most power—i.e., strong global warming.’ – ‘Please be advised that this history has been repeatedly “revised” to either make temperatures colder in the earlier years or warmer at the end. Not one “adjustment” has the opposite effect, a clear contravention of logic and probability. While the US has gotten slightly warmer in recent decades, compared to the early 20th century, so have the data themselves. It’s a fact that if you just take all the thousands of fairly evenly-spaced “official” weather stations around the country and average them up since 1895, that you won’t get much of a warming trend at all. Consequently a major and ongoing federal effort has been to try and cram these numbers into the box imposed by the theory that gives the government the most power—i.e., strong global warming.’
NOAA’s National Climatic Data center caught cooling the past – modern processed records don’t match paper records – ‘The average state temp records used in current trends analysis by NCDC do not reflect actual published records of such as they appeared in Monthly Weather Reviews and Climatological Data Summaries of years past…looked at entire years of data from 1920s & 1930s for numerous different states & found that this ‘cooling’ of old data was fairly consistent across the board…Is this purposeful mendacity, or just another example of confirmation bias at work?’
Rewriting Their Own Temperature Past At The National Academy Of Sciences: ‘Massively altered temp history since their 1975 report. They have eliminated most of the 1940-1970 cooling’ – ‘If they didn’t tamper with the data, there is no global warming since 1940.’ – In 1978, NOAA reported 0.5C global cooling from 1960-1965. NAS has almost completely erased that.’
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming
By Christopher Booker
10:15PM GMT 07 Feb 2015
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
According to Professor John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama/Huntsville, October 1 marked the 18th anniversary of no warming as measured by Earth’s climate satellite system. Despite a continued and marked rise in emissions and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, Earth’s temperature has plateaued for the past 18 years.
Christy told CNS News, “That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on.”
Christy and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer compiled raw temperature data collected from 14 instruments aboard various weather satellites. The data show no warming. While all of the climate models used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted steeply rising temperatures over the past two decades, the data show they were wrong.
The gap between the data and the model projections shows scientists have a very limited understanding of the complexity of the climate system and the factors that affect climate changes. And because the model projections were all wrong in one direction – all projecting ongoing, increasing warming – the assumptions were biased toward predicting warming.
Christy says it is “a fool’s errand” to base government policies affecting millions of Americans and billions of people around the world on these badly flawed models.
CNS News quotes Christy saying:
Our ignorance is simply enormous when it comes to the climate system, and our understanding is certainly not strong and solid enough to make policy about climate because we don’t even know what it’s going to do, so how can we make a policy that says ‘I want to make the climate do something’ when we don’t know what makes the climate do what it does?
Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year
Ice is covering 16m sq km, more than 2.1m unusual for time of year UN computer models say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing
By DAVID ROSE
PUBLISHED: 16:01 EST, 5 July 2014 The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.
America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.
It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979. In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.
Oops: Got the Sign Wrong Trying to Explain Away the Global Warming “Pause” JUNE 26, 2014 12:16PM By PATRICK J. MICHAELS and PAUL C. “CHIP” KNAPPENBERGER SHARE
Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
A couple of years ago, when it was starting to become obvious that the average global surface temperature was not rising at anywhere near the rate that climate models projected, and in fact seemed to be leveling off rather than speeding up, explanations for the slowdown sprouted like mushrooms in compost.
We humbly suggested a combination of natural variability and a lower “sensitivity” of surface temperature to rising carbon dioxide.
Now, several years later, the “pause” continues. Natural variability is now widely accepted as making a significant contribution and our argument for a lowered climate sensitivity—which would indicate that existing climate models are not reliable tools for projecting future climate trends—is buoyed by accumulating evidence and is gaining support in the broader climate research community. Yet is largely rejected by federal regulators and their scientific supporters. These folks prefer rather more exotic explanations that seek to deflect the blame away from the climate models and thus preserve their over-heated projections of future global warming.
The problem with exotic explanations is that they tend to unravel like exotic dancers.
Such is the case for the explanation—popular with the press when it was first proposed—that an increase in aerosol emissions, particularly from China, was acting to help offset the warming influence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.
The suggestion was made back in 2011 by a team of researchers led by Boston University’s Robert Kaufmann and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Shortly after it appeared, we were critical of it in these pages, pointing out how the explanation was inconsistent with several lines of data.
Now, a new paper appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature takes a deeper view of aerosol emissions during the past 15 years and finds that, in net, changes in aerosol emissions over the period 1996-2010 contributed a net warming pressure to the earth’s climate.
Kühn et al. (2014) write:
Increases in Asian aerosol emissions have been suggested as one possible reason for the hiatus in global temperature increase during the past 15 years. We study the effect of sulphur and black carbon (BC) emission changes between 1996-2010 on the global energy balance. We find that the increased Asian emissions have had very little regional or global effects, while the emission reductions in Europe and the U.S. have caused a positive radiative forcing. In our simulations, the global-mean aerosol direct radiative effect changes 0.06 W/m2 during 1996–2010, while the effective radiative forcing (ERF) is 0.42 W/m2.
So in other words, rather than acting to slow global warming during the past decade and a half as proposed by Kaufmann et al. (2011), changes in anthropogenic aerosol emissions (including declining emissions trends in North America and Europe) have acted to enhance global warming (described as contributing to a positive increase in the radiative forcing in the above quote).
This means that the “pause,” or whatever you want to call it, in the rise of global surface temperatures is even more significant than it is generally taken to be, because whatever is the reason behind it, it is not only acting to slow the rise from greenhouse gas emissions but also the added rise from changes in aerosol emissions.
Until we understand what this sizeable mechanism is and how it works, our ability to reliably look into the future and foresee what climate lies ahead is a mirage. Yet, somehow, the Obama Administration is progressing full speed ahead with regulations about the kinds of cars and trucks we can drive, the appliances we use, and the types of energy available, etc., all in the name of mitigating future climate change.
As we repeatedly point out, not only will the Obama Administration’s actions have no meaningful impact on the amount of future climate change, but it is far from clear that the rate of future change will even be enough to mitigate—or even to worry about.
References
Kaufmann, R. K., et al., 2011. Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102467108
Kühn, T., et al., 2014. Climate impacts of changing aersol emission since 1996. Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 10.1002/2014GL060349
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
By Christopher Booker 4:04PM BST 21 Jun 2014
When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
CLIMATE MCCARTHYISM CLAIMS YET ANOTHER VICTIM by JAMES DELINGPOLE 13 Jun 2014
Climate McCarthyism has claimed another victim. Dr Caleb Rossiter – an adjunct professor at American University, Washington DC – has been fired by a progressive think tank after publicly expressing doubtabout man-made global warming.
Rossiter, a former Democratic congressional candidate, has impeccably liberal credentials. As the founder of Demilitarization for Democracy he has campaigned against US backed wars in Central America and Southern Africa, against US military support for dictators and against anti-personnel landmines. But none of this was enough to spare him the wrath of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) when he wrote an OpEd in the Wall Street Journal describing man-made global warming as an “unproved science.”
Two days later, he was sacked by email. The IPS said: “We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies…Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of US policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours.”
In the WSJ OpEd entitled Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change, Rossiter argued that Africans should benefit from the same mixed energy policy as Americans rather than being denied access to fossil fuels on spurious environmental grounds by green activists. He wrote: “The left wants to stop industrialization – even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false.”
Piling On: More New Research Shows No Link Between “Polar Vortex” and Global Warming MAY 29, 2014 1:27PM By PAUL C. “CHIP” KNAPPENBERGER and PATRICK J. MICHAELS
Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”
This is getting embarrassing.
Another scientific paper has just been published that again finds no association between Arctic sea ice loss and extreme cold and wintery conditions across the U.S.—White House Science Advisor John Holdren’s favorite mechanism for tying last winter’s persistent “polar vortex” over the eastern US to anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
We wonder just what it will take for the White House to publicly admit that it was grossly wrong. At the very least, it needs to disavow a widely-disseminated YouTube video featuring Holdren explaining the link between last winter’s polar vortex and human-caused climate change. There is no such link. Of course, this won’t happen, as Holdren was simply engaging in a publicity stunt relying on tenuous science to scare up support for President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. The President is hell-bent on an endless string of executive actions aimed at manipulating the energy market and reducing our energy choices along the way.
As we reported when the video was first released last January, the science linking human-caused climate change to the southward excursions of the polar vortex was a stretch to begin with. It was then dealt a major blow by a study led by Colorado State climate researcher Elizabeth Barnes that was coincidentally published a few days after Holdren’s YouTube video. Barnes’s found that natural variability dominates the observed record, making it impossible to detect any human-caused global warming signal even if one were to exist in the vortex data (which there is no proof of). Shortly after that, a collection of very prominent climate scientists specializing in research into atmospheric circulation patterns wrote a letter to a prominent journal stating that drawing the type of connection that Holdren did was not scientifically advisable
Spurred by all of this, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent apetition to the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) to force Holdren issue a correction under the terms of the Data Quality Act. According to CEI, “OSTP guidelines require the agency to correct any published information that does not meet ‘basic standards of quality, including objectivity, utility, and integrity.’”
Holdren and the White House have been unmoved.
Now comes this: a brand new study, led by Thomas Ballinger of Kent State University, which directly examined the size and magnitude of the 2014 “polar vortex” event and found it to be not particularly unusual. Yes, it was a significant event ushering a lot of really cold air southward over the eastern 2/3rds of the U.S. and bringing with it all sorts of winter misery, but it wasn’t historically unusual. In fact, Ballinger’s team, found, in examining polar vortex behavior across North America since 1948, that the 2014 polar vortex excursion into the lower 48 ranked 6th in southerly extent and 7th in total area. The authors concluded that their analysis “revealed that the spatial features of the January 2014 [polar vortex over the U.S.] were not extreme relative to certain 1948-2013 Januaries.”
Ballinger and colleagues took their analysis one step further and examined the historical record to see if they could find a link between the loss of Arctic sea ice and an increase in polar vortex excursions into the U.S.—Holdren’s favored explanation for tying human actions into their own winter suffering. Here is what they wrote:
While this [polar vortex] study solely examines January, a regional domain, and uses different data to quantify atmospheric circulation, the results presented here are not congruent with the large-scale flow changes suggested in those latter papers [linking Arctic sea ice loss to polar vortex behavior].
Sorry, John.
So with a large and growing body of scientists and scientific evidence aligning against Holdren’s explanation of things, it is high time for a recognition of this by the White House. But since they are no doubt too focused on pushing their new carbon dioxide emissions regulations to find the time to insure that their justification for the regulations are based in fact, we thought we’d help them out and draft a public announcement for them. Here is what we have come up with:
From the White House:
We’d like to take this opportunity to correct something that we put forward regarding human-caused climate change and the polar vortex from this past winter. In actuality, and as a collection of new science has shown, that linkage is much more tenuous that we stated, if it even exists at all.
Our purpose for releasing that video and associated press material was to take advantage of an extreme weather event that was inconveniencing a large number of Americans. We wanted to use the opportunity to try to scare you into supporting our executive actions aimed at restricting carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to mitigate future climate change. Admittedly, the science is much weaker than federal pronouncements like these make it out to be. But if we were forthcoming with all the data and the complete story that it told, there would be even less support for the Climate Action Plan than currently exists. And since we’re coming clean about things, we’ll go ahead and admit that we realize the regulations forwarded under the Climate Action Plan, most notably the soon-to-be-announced sweeping carbon dioxide emissions restrictions on existing power plants, will have no measureable impact on the very thing that they aim to achieve—mitigating climate change—unless, by eliminating coal-fired electricity generation, there is a technological miracle that no one can anticipate or forecast. While waiting, you’ll just have to live with more expensive electricity.
We really aren’t very concerned about this because one of the confident predictions from government scientists is that winters should warm preferentially to summers. So you won’t need as much electricity to heat your house. If we were right about the polar vortex and very cold temperatures in the East, that would be too bad, but we were wrong.
So, next time you hear a federal pronouncement about climate change and extreme weather (likely coming sometime this summer when it gets hot), note that we are largely making it up and that the larger body of science, economics, and statistics, generally doesn’t support our wild assertions.
We’ll let you know when our phone rings.
References:
Ballinger, T., M.J. Allen, and R.V. Rohli, 2014. Spatiotemporal analysis of the January Northern Hemisphere circumpolar vortex over the contiguous United States. Geophysical Research Letters,doi:10.1002/2014GL060285.
Barnes, E., et al., 2014. Exploring recent trends in Northern Hemisphere blocking. Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/2013GL058745.
A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?
By Axel Bojanowski
News that Lennart Bengtsson, the respected former director of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, had joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), sent shockwaves through the climate research community. GWPF is most notable for its skepticism about climate change and its efforts to undermine the position of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The tremors his decision sent through the scientific community shocked Bengtsson.
The scientist said colleagues placed so much pressure on him after joining GWPF that he withdrew from the group out of fear for his own health. Bengtsson added that his treatment had been reminiscent of the persecution of suspected Communists in the United States during the era of McCarthyism in the 1950s.
Not all of his fellow climatologists agree. Gavin Schmidt a climatologist and climate modeler at NASA described the “alleged connection to McCarthy” as “ridiculous.” “As someone who has actually been threatened with criminal sanctions by a United States Senator only because of published science, I don’t quite see why Bengtsson’s total freedom to associate with anyone he wants — and let me be clear, he has this freedom — has in any way been compromised,” he said.
But Bengtsson insists that even close colleagues shunned him. He says that one research partner, apparently fearing damage to his reputation, withdrew from a study they had been conducting together. Bengtsson added no further details other than to state that the incident had been hurtful.
Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.
In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.
The ‘Cure’ for Climate Change Is Far Worse than the Disease Nicolas Loris May 6, 2014 at 8:18 pm
Manmade greenhouse gas emissions already are causing gloom and doom and adversely affecting our way of life. That’s the conclusion of the National Climate Assessment released today by the Obama administration. But before we trade our Buicks for bikes, it’s important to highlight the climate realities and show that the administration’s proposed policy solutions will drive up the cost of energy for Americans and have no meaningful impact on climate.
Although the planet has warmed over the past six decades and a broad consensus exists that part of that warming is attributed to manmade emissions, what we’re seeing and where we’re headed is not toward climate catastrophe. As my colleague David Kreutzer writes, the climate threats do not match up with reality. Sea levels are rising but not as fast as projected. There have been no significant trends for floods, droughts, hurricanes or tornadoes. Although the report does not address hurricanes, it does admit that “other trends in severe storms, including tornadoes, hail, and thunderstorms, are still uncertain.”
The report has a variety of serious problem. Many of the models the federal government relied on to promulgate these regulations projected a 0.3-degree Celsius warming over the past 17 years, when in reality no warming occurred (although CO2 emissions have increased). Since 2011, 16 experiments published in peer-reviewed literature found the equilibrium climate sensitivity (the effect that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have), is 40 percent lower than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the NCA project. In other words, a lot of variability exists in projecting what impact increased GHGs will have on the planet, which has serious implications not just for future temperature projections but all the other scary scenarios NCA outlines.
What’s most troubling is, even if climate change were occurring at an unsustainable rate, the administration’s policy prescriptions will not fix anything but will further harm the economy. The proposed limits for carbon dioxide emissions essentially would prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants and force existing ones into early retirement, driving up the cost of energy on American families and businesses. Higher energy prices shrink production in consumption, resulting in less income for families, more people in the unemployment line and less economic growth. And even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gas emissions entirely, we would not moderate the Earth’s temperature more than a few tenths of a degree Celsius by the end of the century.
Some of the NCA’s policy solutions are even more invasive. The report says greenhouse gas reductions is one of the co-benefits of replacing short vehicle commutes with biking or walking and reducing your red meat intake to reduce the amount of methane emitted from the animals we eat. Not that federal government nudging and taking away choice from consumers and businesses is new. Over several decades the Department of Energy now has set efficiency regulations for more than 50 commercial and industrial products, including everything from dehumidifiers to illuminated exit signs. DOE touts these regulations not only as ways to save energy and money for consumers but as greenhouse gas reducers as well.
What today’s report and the latest data show are that the cure for climate change, as envisioned by the Obama administration, is far worse than the disease. Congress needs to step up and stop the administration’s costly and ineffective solution to a non-problem.
Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals
By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Brussels
The EU’s reputation as a model of environmental responsibility may soon be history. The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking — jeopardizing Germany’s touted energy revolution in the process.
The climate between Brussels and Berlin is polluted, something European Commission officials attribute, among other things, to the “reckless” way German Chancellor Angela Merkel blocked stricter exhaust emissions during her re-election campaign to placate domestic automotive manufacturers like Daimler and BMW. This kind of blatant self-interest, officials complained at the time, is poisoning the climate.
But now it seems that the climate is no longer of much importance to the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, either. Commission sources have long been hinting that the body intends to move away from ambitious climate protection goals. On Tuesday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported as much.
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_riaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 165
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_inhaIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 166
Warning: Undefined array key "sfsi_mastodonIcon_order" in /home/eagle1522/public_html/theridgewoodblog.net/wp-content/plugins/ultimate-social-media-icons/libs/controllers/sfsi_frontpopUp.php on line 177
