UNFCCC Statement on the Latest IPCC Climate Change Report

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Come back to the Paris Agreement USA – poor countries need “financial support”.


UNFCCC Secretariat Welcomes IPCC’s Global Warming of 1.5°C Report

Statement on the Summary for Policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C:

“The Global Warming of 1.5C report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms the need to maintain the strongest commitment to the Paris Agreement’s aims of limiting global warming to well below 2ºC and pursuing efforts towards 1.5ºC.

The IPCC’s special report clearly states that the world has already warmed by 1ºC due to human activity. As a result, climate change is already affecting people, ecosystems and livelihoods across the globe, with impacts such as floods or droughts disproportionately affecting the poorest and most vulnerable. Some of the most affected areas are small islands, megacities, coastal regions and high mountain ranges.

The report provides an assessment of the latest science on warming of 1.5ºC as opposed to warming of 2ºC. The difference between these two numbers, a mere half of a degree, may not sound like much. But the IPCC projects that a 2°C rise in the global average temperature would lead to worse global and regional climate impacts. For example, limiting warming to 1.5ºC rather than 2ºC could result in 420 million fewer people being exposed to severe heatwaves.

A far-reaching transition

Given such impacts, the world needs to keep the Paris Agreement’s goals within its sight.

According to the IPCC’s report, limiting warming to 1.5ºC is possible, but requires unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society. To minimize future global warming, we will need to achieve zero net emissions by mid-century. This in turn will require us to rapidly transition the world’s economy onto such a pathway. Over the next 10 to 20 years we must transform our energy, agricultural, urban and industrial systems, engage non-state actors, and integrate climate action into the broader public policy framework that also addresses jobs, security and technology.

Tackling climate change can also be consistent with ensuring people around the world are healthy, prosperous, have food, clean air and water. Agriculture, water, energy, biodiversity, public health, cities – every sector addressed by the UN Sustainable Development Goals influences, and is influenced by, the climate. Everything is connected. Climate action towards 1.5ºC can be a significant step towards achieving the SDGs.

In the intergovernmental process under the Paris Agreement, this implies the clear need to work towards speedily implementing countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). In their NDCs, countries detail what they will contribute to the global response to climate change.

The global response includes emissions reductions and adapting to the impacts of climate change. Many developing countries need technological, financial and capacity building support to make their contribution to the global effort.

Action and cooperation

To unlock practical actions and contributions towards the Paris Agreement’s goals, governments have set a deadline for themselves to finalise the agreement’s implementation guidelines at the annual UN Climate Change Conference this December in Katowice, Poland.

These guidelines will build trust by ensuring transparency. They will enable each country to act and contribute, they will allow all of us to see what each country is doing, and they will allow us to have full clarity on the provision of support, especially climate finance now and in the long-term.

In this sense, a successful outcome in Katowice will be a first and most crucial step towards achieving the Paris Agreement’s goals of limiting global warming to well below 2ºC and pursuing efforts towards 1.5ºC.

Recognizing the need to promote greater international cooperation and more partnerships among local governments, business and civil society, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will host a Climate Summit in September 2019. The Summit will mobilize support for ambitious climate action that will help us to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. It will do this by engaging decisions-makers in all key sectors of society and inviting them to join together in building the green economy. Every delay now will only shift the burden to our children and grandchildren.

Pursuing efforts towards 1.5ºC is essential for our future and for future generations’ wellbeing. Accepting and rising to this challenge is the only way that we can ensure that nobody is left behind.”

Source: https://unfccc.int/news/unfccc-secretariat-welcomes-ipcc-s-global-warming-of-15degc-report

Its fun to pick apart some of the ridiculous claims of the alleged dangers of climate change.

Take the claim in the UNFCCC statement that allowing temperatures to rise to +2C rather than +1.5C would cause “420 million” more people to be exposed to heatwaves.

Assume for a moment this claim is true.

We could transform the economy to renewables (maybe) at the cost of who knows how many trillions of dollars. Or we could buy 100 million new air-conditioners for people allegedly exposed to heatwaves at a cost of 100 million x $1000 each = $100 billion. Still a lot of money, but way less than the cost of “transforming” the global economy.

Of course they would need a reliable source of electricity to run those air-conditioners, so better throw in a few coal plants.

Better still, instead of giving away money (or air conditioners) we could join China and Japan’s effort to finance new coal plants in poor countries, at a market rate of interest, so poor people could develop their economies to the point they could buy their own air conditioners.

Nothing about green plans to limit global warming makes sense, even if they are right about climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 8, 2018 3:08 pm

“…even if they are right about climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.”

Guess what: They are not!!!

Reply to  tomwys
October 8, 2018 4:29 pm

Meanwhile, for the Nobel Prize: The Yale economist William D. Nordhaus has spent the better part of four decades trying to persuade governments to address climate change, preferably by imposing a tax on carbon emissions.
His careful work has long since convinced most members of his own profession, and on Monday he was awarded the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in recognition of that achievement.

John Tillman
Reply to  Whiskey
October 8, 2018 4:32 pm

A career is a terrible thing to waste.

But it worked for him and his comrade.

For global economies, not so much.

The CACA scam has cost humanity millions of lives and squandered trillions in treasure.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  John Tillman
October 8, 2018 9:18 pm

It works now, but his place in history may not be illustrious.

John Tillman
Reply to  Whiskey
October 8, 2018 4:40 pm

And, as you may know, it’s not actually a Nobel Prize. It’s the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”.

The prize selection committee consists of six Scandinavian socialist academics.

Reply to  John Tillman
October 8, 2018 8:55 pm

Thank you. I tire of reminding you people of the fake Nobel prize for economics.

John Tillman
Reply to  BCBill
October 8, 2018 9:00 pm

Only too happy to take over the tiring, boring chore.

Not that even real Nobels carry much clout.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  BCBill
October 8, 2018 9:21 pm

Oh come on! That’s nothing compared to the hypocrisy we in Norway provide every year by giving the Nobel Peace Prize to angels of peace like…Obama.

Reply to  John Tillman
October 9, 2018 10:26 am

It’s really hilarious that they awarded the prize to Fritz Hayak for his work on the privatization of money, but then that was over four decades ago. Things have changed somewhat since then in Sweden.

Reply to  Whiskey
October 8, 2018 4:41 pm

More evidence that the Nobel process has been politicized beyond recognition.

PS: If someone who doesn’t have a degree in “climate science” says anything against climate science, you and the other alarmists scream that how dare anyone not in the priesthood speak.
On the other hand, if they agree with you, they get instantly canonized.

Reply to  Whiskey
October 8, 2018 5:53 pm

Dr Nordhaus relies on assumptions about the climate that are WRONG.
Hence, his work is WRONG – because the foundations are wrong.

Scott Adams (who has a degree in economics) sums it up perfectly in his cartoon on the subject:

The fact that neither you nor the Swedes (whose country will disappear from the West within 2 decades because they are utter morons) seem to understand that if your foundations are wrong then everything else is wrong.

Dr Nordhaus was given the prize for the same reason President Obama was given the Peace Prize before he initiated several wars of aggression – the prize is awarded for propaganda purposes to those who advance the Extreme Left globalist agenda that the Swedes subscribe to, not because their work reflects reality.

Yes, we understand you do not understand this. We are hoping one day you do.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Moa
October 9, 2018 4:09 am

A Nobel lie.

Reply to  Roger Knights
October 9, 2018 12:36 pm

A Nobel gas, I believe.

Reply to  Whiskey
October 8, 2018 7:20 pm

The Nobel: Just another bastion of political ignobility:


Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Whiskey
October 8, 2018 7:21 pm

“…has spent the better part of four decades trying to persuade governments to address climate change, preferably by imposing a tax on carbon emissions…”

“Better part of four decades”…do you mean “just over two decades?” Come on with the rhetoric.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Whiskey
October 8, 2018 10:07 pm

With economics as my background, I am ashamed of the Nobel committee, of the economics profession, at my Canadian government’s involvement with this scam, at my Canadian government’s involvement even with the UN itself, at the climate science industry, the green industry, the lawyers who feed off these 2 industries, the climate speakers who feed off these 2 industries, the alarmist climate scientists themselves who feed off the climate industry, ashamed of all those who are and were involved in the ozone hole scam, the politicians who regurgitate these scams and the MSM for promoting them and the solar and wind industries that leech off of society. It has been said before that Bernie Madoff with his $ 7 billion ponzi scheme (the largest in history) ; looks like a 2 bit corner store petty thief when compared to the above scams.

Reply to  Whiskey
October 9, 2018 11:14 am

The ecoloons are spitting at Nordhaus because he wrote that the optimal increase of temp is 3.5 K.


Reply to  tomwys
October 9, 2018 12:56 am

The gas tax might need to be $1 per gallon, or it might need to be $240 per gallon. Or maybe $19,000 per gallon.

If the IPCC is ‘right’ if their prediction of any value from $1 to $19,000 is accurate, then maybe they are ‘right’ after all. But the comically large predictions show clearly how truly unscientific this entire charade is, far beyond the point of irrelevance.

Chad Irby
October 8, 2018 3:17 pm

I still think the funniest part of the UNCC conferences was the 2010 one in Cancun.

After the conference started, the weather turned unseasonably cool in Cancun (50 degrees F or so), and cloudy.

…so all of the actual important people left, because they couldn’t sit on the beach and party for the next week.

Ron Long
Reply to  Chad Irby
October 8, 2018 3:30 pm

Get ready for that to worsen significantly. December in Poland? They’ll be looking for some climate change!

Reply to  Ron Long
October 8, 2018 6:25 pm

I am actually looking forward to Poland it will be among some of the best comedy in a long time. Everyone already knows the outcome that absolutely nothing will happen as no country has the political will to do anything. So the greens groups and NGO will end up outraged again and those there will be making the funniest excuses.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  LdB
October 8, 2018 9:25 pm

I’m looking forward to activists demonstrating against Polish coal power. You don’t mess with the Poles.

Reply to  Chad Irby
October 9, 2018 11:57 am

So climate change is ruining Cancun tourism?

Geoff Sherrington
October 8, 2018 3:52 pm

What is the real damage caused to 420 million people sitting through a handful of heatwave days per year that might be a half a degree hotter than usual. Don’t know about you, but in the few genuine heatwaves I have sat through, half a degree for an hour or two at the peak was not detected by the body. Half a degree is so tiny, it is noise. But, when I leave Melbourne and go to Darwin to work for a few days at 20 degrees hotter at the peak, the body certainly registers that change. I volunteer for that change and do not approach it with fear of the harm that some experts claim will kill people at half a degree change.
IPCC reports have long been disconnected from the reality that we are testing all the time. In my 75 years on earth, I cannot find a single effect on me that might be caused by global warming. Not a single effect. I think just about everyone fails to find any adverse personal effect from climate change. I do not see stories from people claiming to have been harmed, other than by IPCC propaganda. Geoff.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
October 8, 2018 4:45 pm

Heat waves are defined by how warm the temperature is compared to the normal for that place and season.
To the extent that CO2 has any impact at all, it will increase the average, so by definition there will be no increase in heat waves.

Another point is that it isn’t heat that kills, it’s changes from the norm that kill.
A temperature that is considered a warm spring day in Pheonix would have them declaring a weather emergency in Minneapolis.

Reply to  MarkW
October 8, 2018 5:23 pm

I think it has to be 9 degrees above the normal temp for a certain length of time too…

Robert of Texas
Reply to  MarkW
October 8, 2018 6:28 pm

“Another point is that it isn’t heat that kills…”

Come visit Texas in August and say that! You will blunder from one air-conditioned safe-spot to the next, thinking you are submerged in hot water… (High humidity).

But the “1/2 a degree” is a global average, and no indication of what local areas are going to rise. Colder places should get the most heat, so the “heat wave” could be raising 70 degree (F) temperatures to 75! OMG! The hot areas (like Texas) will likely see very little change. And most of the heat rise should be at night, not during the day.

With any luck, the amount of land area that is comfortable will rise dramatically in Russia and Canada.

Bob Denby
October 8, 2018 3:59 pm

In this matter this is not even an ordinary tail wagging an ordinary dog! In this matter the IPCC is the tiniest of all hairs, on the tail of the tiniest flea, on the tiniest end of the tail, wagging the biggest dog imaginable!

It’s time to get this dog ‘de-loused’ while all the world watches!

October 8, 2018 4:02 pm

What’s the temperature difference of Florida vs. NY in winter or Southern California and Arizona and the Rio Grande in winter vs. Canada and the Rust Belt? And these people fly south in just a few hours or drive down with their gas-guzzling RVs every winter. They don’t croak. But 420 million will be cooked with a temp of just a fraction of a degree rising in say 30-40-50 years?

Total illogic by the climate modelers once again.

October 8, 2018 4:03 pm

“Nothing about green plans to limit global warming makes sense, even if they are right about climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.”

If they are right, and surface emissions increase by 4.3 W/m^2 (0.8C) for each W/m^2 of forcing, the 239 W/m^2 of total forcing would result in surface emissions of 4.3*239 = 1027.7 W/m^2 corresponding to a temperature close to the boiling point of water. If they are right, nothing makes sense since we would all be dead and nobody would care.

If anyone wishes to dispute this, you need to explain how the next W/m^2 of solar input can increase surface emissions by 4.3 W/m^2 while each of the existing 239 W/m^2 from the Sun only contributes 1.6 W/m^2 to the NET AVERAGE surface emissions. What’s so special about the next Joule from the Sun that it can be 2.7 times more powerful at warming the surface than any other Joule it sends our way?

Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 8, 2018 6:03 pm

Consider an alternative hypothesis:
The goal of the Greens has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with globalism.

In that case their resistance to facts, evidence and science makes perfect sense. Everything becomes consistent. You could talk until you a blue (or green) in the face about sensitivity and forcings and you don’t dissuade them one little bit – because they don’t actually care about those things.

They care about globalism (rule by unelected elites who treat the peoples of the World as tax slaves to be exploited and deceived).

CO2 is not evil – but ‘Green’ gloablism most certainly is !

Reply to  Moa
October 9, 2018 9:21 am

The goal of the Greens is misguided environmental activism and while this is stupid and counterproductive relative the developed world which has real pollution mostly under control, it’s not evil, just ignorant. The evil originates from the IPCC/UNFCCC and who took advantage of the gullible Greens to push their evil globalist agenda of implementing ‘fairness’ by dragging the developed world down to the level of the developing world under the guise of climate reparations.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 8, 2018 10:25 pm

“each of the existing 239 W/m^2 from the Sun only contributes 1.6 W/m^2 to the NET AVERAGE surface emissions. ”

My calcs disregarding back radiation (which really only is valid with clouds) give land surface emissions of IR at 19W/m^2 with the oceans not emitting anything that can be measured.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
October 8, 2018 11:11 pm

19 W/m^2 corresponds to a temperature of only 135K. The current average surface temperature is about 288K, which per the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW, corresponds to emissions of 390 W/m^2, or about 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing, where the surface whose temperature we care about is defined as the top of the oceans and bits of land that poke through.

If you define ‘back radiation’ as the rate of surface energy temporarily stored by the atmosphere and re-emitted back to the surface, it must be 390-239 = 151 W/m^2 in order for the surface to be in balance. You should ignore latent heat, thermals and any other non radiant transports of energy plus their return to the surface which combined have a zero sum influence on the energy balance at the surface. You can not ignore GHG’s and clouds which combined are responsible for the 0.6 W per W/m^2 of surface input arriving from the atmosphere which combined with solar input offsets surface emissions.

Trenberth inflates his ‘back radiation’ term with the return to the surface of non radiant energy entering the atmosphere which must be returned to the surface as only radiant energy can leave the planet. For example, latent heat is mostly returned to the surface as liquid water returning as rain that’s warmer than it would be otherwise. Just as evaporation cools the water being evaporated, condensation warms the water being condensed upon.

October 8, 2018 4:08 pm

“Take the claim in the UNFCCC statement that allowing temperatures to rise to +2C rather than +1.5C would cause “420 million” more people to be exposed to heatwaves.”

And how about the 120,000,000 people in developing countries who will die from smoke inhalation alone by 2015 (only 32 years away) because they are forced to burn animal faeces and wood for cooking and heating, WHO numbers.

The wealthy western politicians and green activists won’t let them build fossil fuelled power stations to provide reliable and plentiful, cheap electricity because of green climate mania.

Never mind our kids and grand kids, what about today’s kids in these countries?

How about the villagers in remote regions who are granted a single stand pipe for fresh running water? Why shouldn’t they have the benefit of fresh, treated water to every home, thanks to cheap electricity, just like we do in the west?

John B
Reply to  HotScot
October 8, 2018 7:21 pm

Because of sustainability. If, as the Greens believe, the resources of the planet are finite then if brown and black people have grandchildren, then there will be less for the grandchildren of the rich, white greenies.

So it’s vital for the future of the affluent and predominantly white environmental movement for as many people to die in the third world as possible. Deny them clean water, sanitation and electricity and they’ll die like flies, leaving a bigger share for the grandchildren of the environmentalists.

Reply to  HotScot
October 9, 2018 2:47 am

That’s the cause of the mass migration. Look at the approach of the EU – no attempt to foster development, rather concentration camps – sorry, detention centers, along the coasts. Add in the bombing of Libya to the stone age, the use of terrorism in Syria – development absolutely ruled out.
No EU support for Transaqua Chad-Congo development, an Italian project.
And Italy is stuck between a migration rock and a budget hard-place. No development for Italy nor Greece either.
Luckily we have China’s BRI win-win approach. Hence VP Pence’s China bashing now.

October 8, 2018 4:34 pm

A prominent MIT climate scientist seems to disagree with the UNFCCC’s emphasis that developing countries should get financial help from developed countries.



‘Trump is stating a distinction between developed and developing nations…Such differential treatment “has nothing to do with the Paris Agreement,” said Henry “Jake”

UNFCCC statement:

“Many developing countries need technological, financial and capacity building support to make their contribution to the global effort.”

Reply to  Scute
October 8, 2018 4:36 pm

Henry “Jake” should read Henry “Jake” Jacoby.

Pat Frank
October 8, 2018 4:40 pm

Northern hemisphere air temperature increases about 1 C per 154 km.

So, a 1.5 C increase in temperature approximates a move of 231 km = 138 miles south. That’s a little less than the N-S from Knoxville TN to Atlanta GA; a fatal trip known to be lethal to all.

Milder winters and modestly warmer summers are going to cause agonizing deaths to poor people, and to third world folks of whom most already live in tropical regions anyway.

Reply to  Pat Frank
October 8, 2018 5:50 pm

It also varies by 3C (5F) per 1000′ feet of elevation. From Sonora at 1926′ to Sonora Pass at 9623′ is 62 miles and about 37F (23C). If 1.5C is too much, go 500′ up any mountain.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Pat Frank
October 8, 2018 11:09 pm

So because we are dealing with on the spot heat death ( alarmist fear) ; Pat, you have to take the one month latitude figure in the report. That is 231 km per C. So if temperatures go up 1 degree and people want to experience no change in their temperature lives, they will have to move 231 km farther north. Since each degree of latitude is ~111km (reduces slightly as you move north), that means roughly, the US citizens will have to move 2 degrees latitude northward. Looking at a latitude by population map the only citizens of the US that will have to emigrate ( if they feel they are climate refugees) will be the ones in northern Maine, North Dakota , northern Michigan, Montana, northern Idaho, northern Washington, and northern Minnesota. This shouldn’t amount to more than about 2 million people. All the others in the contiguous 48 could move northward, and some northeast ward to northern Maine (if they have to , to remain in the same temperature situation as before the increase ). However, I know our Canadian PM Trudeau is promoting open borders so he would be happy to see them.

E J Zuiderwijk
October 8, 2018 5:28 pm

Good heavens. What a load of crap.

October 8, 2018 6:39 pm

I note that the l latest from the IPCC is that the point 7 C now said to be 1 C. is blamed on th Global warming come the rest of the rubbish.

Now that is said to be from 1880, but as we had some hundreds of years of the Little Ice Age, that point 7 C would be from just a warming from the ice age. . So in that case we only have to “Worry”about point 5 of a degree. What a shocking thing , a point .5 C hotter, Oh the sheer horror of it.


October 8, 2018 8:32 pm

“The exponential rise in C02 is now the leading cause of gratuitous first-class international flights.” – UN IPCC

October 8, 2018 11:15 pm

These tiny minds at the IPCC, still haven”t made the connection that the carbon cycle simply passes through livestock and that they contribute nothing to the atmosphere.Atmosphere-grass-animals- atmosphere. Much of the carbon is sequestered as roots,which get dropped as surplus to requirements, every time it is cropped low or gets mowed

Alan Tomalty
October 8, 2018 11:33 pm

“limiting warming to 1.5ºC rather than 2ºC could result in 420 million fewer people being exposed to severe heatwaves.”

Since we have already warmed by 1 C since 1850, our cushion is only 0.5C according to the alarmists. The above statement seems to indicate that if we push it to 2C above 1850, we are then in CAGW territory. Since we have gone up .5 C just in last 40 years according to UAH satellite figures, that means we have 80 years left or approximately 2100. So the alarmists have been able to squeeze the goalposts as well as move them. They have squeezed the RCP8.5 scenario by 2100 to a CAGW 1C change( from now) by 2100 . So even if we get close to the goalpost (after the IPCC moved them so much), they now have moved them inward so it it gets harder and harder to kick that field goal. Of course we have to act sooner than 2100 because the long term climate equilibrium( as distinct from climate sensitivity) takes ~70 years to play out(according to alarmist theory). It would be actually be fun laughing at all this, if it wasn’t for the carbon taxes and the green subsidies.

Steve O
October 9, 2018 4:27 am

If they really believed what they pretend to believe, the UN would be encouraging research on how to make nuclear power plants less expensive — not encouraging the adoption of wind and solar.

Ulric Lyons
October 9, 2018 5:19 am

“For example, limiting warming to 1.5ºC rather than 2ºC could result in 420 million fewer people being exposed to severe heatwaves.”

Major heatwaves are mostly discretely solar driven, either directly through atmospheric circulation, or indirectly through El Nino episodes and changes in regional rainfall, irrespective of small changes in the global mean surface temperature.

October 9, 2018 6:18 am

Can someone review the graphics on summary page spm-6 and tease out meaning making the assumption all the data supporting the graphic are true and accurate and depict real earth systems?

Bruce Cobb
October 9, 2018 7:02 am

Ok, here in the US is our NDC: “Go frack yerselves, you fracking morons”.

Gary Pearse
October 9, 2018 1:32 pm

“Even if they are right about global warming …”..Empirical data shows they have over eastimated warming from CO2 by 300% at least. There is no doubt that they would never underestimate the effect because they have had to trim down their previous high expecrations to remain credible.

Here is what they really think from ‘tells’ over the past decade. It became clear they were running away too hot with the theory. Doubts caused by the Dreaded Pause suggested that warming may well be another 0.6 C at most over the next century whatever we did. So, they pushed the former neasuring date from 1950 back to 1850 so they vould put the first 0.8C in the bank. That msde it already half way there instead of a business as usual ‘increase’ of the impossible 1.5 over a century. They saw the 2C rise earlier posited as unattainable and therefore beat the drum that the
possible +0.7C increase from the present was even not quite safe, but it was small enough that they could take credit for keeping it under this danger threshold whether the targets are met or not. It is clear that the wishy washy commitments of the Paris Joke are not even exoected to be met. They will fiddle everything later.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 9, 2018 1:38 pm

The above analysis used the poker player ‘tells’ model which over the long haul has proven to be very reliable in knowing what an opponent has in his hand or a mental patient has 8n his head.

October 9, 2018 9:55 pm

I assure you, if I purchase 100 million air conditioners, they won’t cost $1000 each. Likely you’ll get the price down to $100 bucks at most. I can already buy a basic single unit for around $USD200-$USD300 and I’m sure others can do a lot better than that. 😉

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights