Andrew Dessler Cancels Economists from the Climate Debate

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr. — July 11, 2022

“In order to solve the climate problem, the first thing we need to do is ignore the economists.” – Andrew Dessler, May 14, 2022

“If you’re pushing fossil fuels at this point, you’re anti-human.” – Dessler, June 28, 2022

Andrew Dessler is the alarmist’s alarmist, joining Michael Mann and others who have declared war not only against fossil fuels but also against anyone who thinks otherwise. The two bring to mind the infamous Joe Romm, who carried the ugly torch back in his heyday.

Dessler is angry. His message of doom-and-gloom is not convincing many outside of the Church of Climate. And his emotions and disrespect work against his (hyped) activism. Consider his sarcastic paraphrase of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers:

Hey assholes. We’ve been telling you for decades that this was going to happen if we didn’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions. You didn’t listen and now it’s all happening. We hope you’re happy. Enjoy the heatwaves, intense rainfall, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and many other things, you fucking morons.

That’s Angry Andy, to whom every negative weather event is due to us and every positive weather event is, well, in spite of us.

Dessler will not debate physical climate science against an able opponent (why not?) as if fundamental questions of natural-versus-manmade warming were settled (they are not). He ignores plant biology (the work of Craig Idso) since that is on the benefit side of CO2 emissions and increasing atmospheric concentrations.

Dessler looks the other way at the profound problems of climate modeling where causality is sub-grid scale, for starters. He tries to cancel the esteemed Steven Koonin whose influential book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters (2021) explains what Dessler does not want you to know.

Dessler does not understand Economics 101 either. Such concepts as opportunity cost and anticipatory entrepreneurship do not register well in his natural science mind. Energy density? Not part of his thinking. Energy affordability? That’s not an energy crisis.


Andrew Dessler now traffics on the economics and policy sides of the climate debate, far outside of his expertise–and his job as a chair professor in geosciences. (His colleagues in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University must wonder about his agenda and priorities. But with tenure ….. )

Dessler’s latest is … ban the economists! On the one hand, he wants to cancel the “climate deniers” as out of the mainstream. Yet he relies on Stanford University engineer Mark Jacobson, an outlier for sure, to argue that renewables are cheap, reliable, and scalable. (They are not.)

Economists do not give Dessler the answers he so desperately wants, so he dismisses them. Bjorn Lomborg is one critic that wants to cancel. But the list of leading climate economists who cannot find a way to justify pricing carbon dioxide (CO2) anywhere close to Net Zero runs deep. Climate economists, in fact, are important to tone down climate activism, as Bryan Gould recently explained:

Rhetoric about climate change being an “existential threat,” a “crisis,” an “emergency” and even an “extinction-level event” has come, not just from overheated activists, but also from corporate leaders, bankers, bureaucrats, politicians, United Nations officials and more than a few scientists.”

Missing from that list? Economists. If the climate-emergency crowd were right, we should have stopped using fossil fuels and demanded that major producers immediately sequester the stuff underground. Most economists, by contrast, view the climate-change cost of fossil fuel use as a relatively small side effect that should not stand in the way of continued enjoyment of the global benefits of inexpensive and reliable energy.

How do I know? Partly because in 2018 the Nobel Prize committee for economics gave the award to Yale’s William Nordhaus for work on the economics of climate change that showed, among other things, both that aggressive emission reductions were costlier than doing nothing and that the optimal course of action would be to reduce emissions to only slightly below the business-as-usual case. As Robert Murphy and I explained in a study published by the Fraser Institute last year, Nordhaus’ analysis does not support the 1.5°C policy [of CO2 mitigation] or anything close to it….

[M]ainstream climate economists … view carbon dioxide emissions as a global problem, but not a huge one and not one that should cause us to radically alter the role of fossil energy in economic growth and development…. [T]he economic implication is that the optimal response to climate change is to keep using fossil fuels almost as much as if carbon dioxide wasn’t a greenhouse gas.

The way out of this mess begins by getting back to mainstream economics, mainstream science, and the more than occasional exercise of common sense.


Andrew Dessler has a problem, a big one. He is emotionally wed to a cause that is both wrongheaded and futile. He is in denial about the benefits of fossil fuels and CO2 greening, not to mention the benefit side of the human influence on climate. And Andy is mad as the world correctly prioritizes here-and-now problems over future, speculative ones.

Will this activist make mid-course corrections with climate and energy realism in place of exaggeration and alarm? Or will be become more and more shrill, while demeaning and teasing his adversaries who value economic freedom, affordable and reliable energy, and a greener, more productive earth?

4.8 37 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
July 12, 2022 10:15 am

Looks like Andrew Dessler needs a tune-up. I’m busy, or I would do it. Anybody?

Reply to  Ron Long
July 12, 2022 10:43 am

Perhaps Joe Bastardi and Andrew could settle it in a wrestling match, keep in mind Andrew is about a decade younger than Joe.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Scissor
July 12, 2022 12:36 pm

And alot heavier. Of course, Joe has wrestling experience and physical conditioning on his side.

Reply to  Dave Fair
July 12, 2022 4:55 pm

Yeah, he looks like he was an elephant seal in a previous life.

Brandon Galt
Reply to  Ron Long
July 12, 2022 11:19 am

He’d stop and get a tune up, but he’s too busy traveling to climate conferences.

alastair gray
Reply to  Ron Long
July 12, 2022 1:20 pm

Actually I am thinking that he and other climate scientists need a reboot. You know switch them off for 5 minutes and then switch them on again and hey presto logical reasoning returns. The first part of the reboot works fine but quite often they don’t turn back on again. Oh dear. How sad!

July 12, 2022 10:19 am

The closing paragraph begins, “Will this activist make mid-course corrections with climate and energy realism in place of exaggeration and alarm?”

Nope. This climate nonsense has reached religious levels for Dessler. It, like with so many others, is his reason for existence.


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 13, 2022 5:47 pm

And when the natural cycles turn things cold, perhaps, if we’re lucky, he and many like him will fail to find a reason to continue to exist. And I mean that!

Tom Halla
July 12, 2022 10:22 am

A moral crusader like Anthony Comstock, who blamed all social ills on casual sex.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 12, 2022 12:37 pm

Casual sex been berry, berry good to me.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 12, 2022 2:38 pm

Well you CAN blame the Monkey Pox spread on “casual Sex”. If by that you mean unprotected random, promiscuous male on male homosexual sex.

But don’t worry, all of us who are not promiscuous will be paying the freight for the Monkey Pox vaccine so that homosexual men can continue to behave as they wish.

Heck, we are still paying for HIV/AIDS, originally and primarily spread the same way. And will be for years to come.

July 12, 2022 10:29 am

Obviously, this one was a spoiled brat

July 12, 2022 10:43 am

Send him to the forward trenches in Ukraine. He might be good for diverting Russian fire.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 13, 2022 8:37 pm

Perhaps Russian remote technology will be able to destroy fat and slow blobs for the first time?

July 12, 2022 10:49 am

I didn’t realize monkeypox was this bad.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 12, 2022 3:53 pm

I think there are 800 cases out of 8 billion people.
Time to panic !

Reply to  Richard Greene
July 13, 2022 8:03 am

That was last week. I’m sure there are 805 cases by now.
Either that, or there’s a bazillion cases. I’m always getting those two numbers confused.

Last edited 2 months ago by MarkW
john harmsworth
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 13, 2022 12:30 pm

I understand Monkeypox was under study at the Wuhan lab also. Have we heard anything yet about Humanpox in monkeys? I’m starting to wonder if it was monkeys doing the research.

Cheshire Red
July 12, 2022 10:50 am

Here in the UK the 2006 Stern Review was an important propaganda tool to convince both Parliament and the wider public to accept the case for ‘renewables’ and ‘tackling climate change’.

But guess what? The major pitch was economic!

The Stern Review’s main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the costs of not acting.’

16 years later we see all around the world how ‘renewables’ are actually ‘ruinables’, causing financial mayhem everywhere they’re rolled out. And as if that wasn’t enough the past two years has emphatically proven the world isn’t anywhere near ready to ditch fossil fuels.

No wonder Dessler is angry!

Stern Review – Wikipedia

Reply to  Cheshire Red
July 20, 2022 3:39 am

With the likelihood that Russia will cut off the gas supply to Germany this coming winter, won’t the one degree rise in the global temperature to date be a net benefit to Germans and reduce the number of deaths due to freezing?

Snarling Dolphin
July 12, 2022 10:53 am

I dunno, Andy sounds like a credible scientist to me. /s

July 12, 2022 10:54 am

The Attack of the Bald Guys is in theaters near you.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 12, 2022 11:01 am

Is this the long-awaited sequel to ‘The Attack of the Partly Bald Guys with Goatees’?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 12, 2022 4:23 pm

No goatees, Van Dykes.

joe x
July 12, 2022 10:56 am

a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Jeroen B.
Reply to  joe x
July 12, 2022 11:30 am

Objection! Assumes organ not in evidence!

Reply to  Jeroen B.
July 12, 2022 2:23 pm

Never Mind

Reply to  joe x
July 13, 2022 8:05 am

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

July 12, 2022 10:59 am

The Dessler clown show continues. He won’t debate deniers because when he did he gets his butt handed to him. After listening to him on Joe Rogan I simply asked God to let me cross examine him for 1/2 an hour. I feel sorry for his students.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Terry
July 12, 2022 11:31 am

He won’t debate deniers because when he did he gets his butt handed to him


As far as I am concerned, Dressler’s refusal to debate the climate skeptics is his implicit admission that the climate scare narrative doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny. He knows that, and that is why he engages in personal attacks (and cancels Steve Koonin and climate economists) rather than address and debate the science. It’s all he has.

And that is all we need to know.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
July 12, 2022 12:39 pm

Anyone who has confidence in their data and science would be eager to debate with skeptics. Every time they win such a debate they could sway hundreds of people who are undecided. The fact that they refuse just proves that even they know they are shoveling sh#t.

Reply to  MarkW
July 12, 2022 3:55 pm

There are no data.
Climate change is predictions of FUTURE climate doom.
Data are only available for the present and past.
There are no data for the future.

Reply to  Richard Greene
July 12, 2022 7:47 pm

Does that mean we are just arguing error bars and anomalies?

john harmsworth
Reply to  yirgach
July 13, 2022 12:32 pm

We would be…if they ever included error bars.

Reply to  john harmsworth
July 14, 2022 9:40 am

Oh the error bars are there, john. They are just so wide that they don’t fit on the page with the graph.

Now if they plotted the letter size graphs on poster board, then the error bars would show.

Charles Martell
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 24, 2022 3:02 pm

All models are wrong. Some models are useful. George Box (not talking about Cindy Crawford).
The clear follow up is model results are not data. They might be interesting, but as stated they are not data,

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Charles Martell
July 24, 2022 4:15 pm


Richard Page
Reply to  Terry
July 12, 2022 3:51 pm

It would take something like a libel case to get him into a position where he could be put on the spot. Is he stupid enough to go after someone like that?

Reply to  Richard Page
July 12, 2022 8:11 pm

You mean like Mann v. Steyn?

Rud Istvan
July 12, 2022 11:03 am

Of course Dessler is angry. Nothing he and his predicted has happened—Arctic summer ice didn’t disappear, sea level rise didn’t accelerate, models provably way off… Ruinables cannot work on the grid as advertised; rather they are expensive and intermittent. But his job and self esteem cannot let him admit any of this, which really pisses him off. Fun to watch his anger grow.

Richard Page
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 12, 2022 3:53 pm

It will boil over pretty spectacularly at some point – something like a volcano blowing it’s top! Just hope there are objective witnesses around when they are needed.

Steve Case
July 12, 2022 11:06 am

Hey a******s….Blah blah blah blah…you f*****g morons.

Did he really write that? That’s the kind of unprofessionalism that gets most people off the team.

After following the links above, yeah, he wrote that.

Richard Page
Reply to  Steve Case
July 12, 2022 3:55 pm

Climate activism is one of the few arena’s where this sort of nonsense is allowed, indeed positively encouraged. Kind of says it all about the level of professionalism of all involved really.

Reply to  Steve Case
July 12, 2022 3:57 pm

gets most people off the team.

obviously it depends on what team is in control.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Steve Case
July 12, 2022 4:21 pm

It’s not science, therefore it’s just fine

It’s justified when saving the world.

Guaranteed he’s sure he’s saving the world

July 12, 2022 11:07 am

Director of Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bjorn Stevens, who concedes some warming, is a strong opponent of drawing conclusions about ‘weather’ from current generation GCMs.

His interpretation is that they have really not taught us anything beyond our basic assumptions from 40 years ago. He also admits that current generation GCMs tell us nothing about how, where, or if weather has/will change. It is refreshing. I do not know how this reconciles with weather attribution ‘science’. Stevens says look at the observations.

His recent talk here gets into some details of his reasoning

Most interestingly, he directly challenges Dessler’s modelling discussion group after his brief discussion in Q&A at the ongoing symposium session. Here they are actively discussing what has gone wrong with CMIP6. He calls the current gen CMIP “uncertainties” simple biases. Where one could draw all the same conclusions cheaply from reanalysis. The discussion after his brief presentation here is very informative.

I have noticed in the 18 sessions that Dessler doesn’t talk much, but he gets really excited when the discussion talks about potentially disastrous warming. He is a cherry picker of the talking points he likes. Otherwise he remains quite silent when the bulk of presentations show the opposite of worse case scenarios etc. The psychological bias is unbelievably strong – I think this is common when one’s entire identify rides the on apocalyptic tales that brought one to notoriety. A few other names in this category also come to mind.

Dessler’s entire twitter rantings yesterday were in pre-emptive defense of renewables during the ERCOT Texas warnings. Climate scientists have a tendency to claim expertise way outside of their fields, but are highly hypocritical when it goes the other way. This twitter rant indicated deep insecurity to me. A fear of wrong-think.

Dessler’s recent presentation to Rotarians completely side-steps energy transition costs and other problems as he completely hacks up his own talking points. This is because energy is outside his field of expertise. After this level of embarrassment it is time to resign.

There is no need to butcher communication of the costs out of some interest to propagandize. Publicly funded scientists must never be paid to propagandize, but now it appears to be socially acceptable in their circles. I can’t imagine why their peers tolerate such crooked and biased behavior. Economists and Engineers are trained to discuss such matters.

The direct costs have been spelled out quite clearly by many organizations, particularly McKinsey consultants

The range of cost is plainly estimated to be 150-$300 trillion over the next 30 years. That is $5 to $10 trillion each and every year, for 30 years. This just to get existing customers connected. Nevermind the billions of humans with no access currently. Dessler tries to hide it for some reason in consumer unit costs and a bunch of other malarkey. If he believes the world is ending there should be no reason to sugar-coat the costs.

Reply to  JCM
July 12, 2022 3:48 pm

Thanks for the links!
The 2020 McKinsey report of >$270T by 2050 is even more ominous since
1) the costs need to front-loaded in the early years [not ‘just’ $9T per year] to give time for [the magic] to work and
2) ALL the nations of the world have to work together [or at least 80% of the economically important ones with minimal freeloaders] and
3) ALL the new technology has to work as predicted
And you believe that, I have a bridge over Lake Havasu, AZ I can sell you.

July 12, 2022 11:30 am

At first the message was AGW was going to kill us in X years. X years passed with business as usual. Now they’re trying to tell us it wasn’t business as usual and all their prognostications were realized despite no data to support them. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

James Schrumpf
Reply to  markl
July 12, 2022 12:13 pm

Maybe it’s like Steve Martin said a while back:

Remember a couple of years back when the earth… exploded? Remember how they built that giant space ark and loaded all of humanity into it, but the government decided not to tell the stupid people what was going on so that they wouldn’t panic…..

Oooooooh! Uh….. Never mind!

July 12, 2022 11:39 am

Climateers like Mann, Dessler, Oreskes and Cook collectively fired the first artillery barrage on behalf of Vladimir Putin in preparation for Russia’s Ukraine invasion.

They succeeded in the planned result of weakening the west’s energy security.

Spassiba Tovarisch Dessler!

william Johnston
July 12, 2022 11:47 am

He evidently also has a limited vocabulary.

Richard Page
Reply to  william Johnston
July 13, 2022 9:09 am

Not necessarily. People who swear a lot often have a greater vocabulary than others; it’s just that sometimes only swearing will really and truly convey that level of feelings!

July 12, 2022 11:47 am

Andrew Epstein’s Steamboat Institute debate with Andrew Dessler is good, the 2 Andrews do combat. One lies and the other speaks the truth.

Debate on Climate Change with Authors Alex Epstein and Andrew Dressler

Last edited 2 months ago by ThisWasTheGoal
David Baird
July 12, 2022 11:49 am

In order to solve the economic crisis, ignore the climate change zealots. Any guess which option works best.

July 12, 2022 12:09 pm

Maybe if enough people make fun of his preposterous pseudoscience shame will do what logic and empirical reality has failed at. Pointing fingers and laughing unmercifully at his idiotic proclamations should at least get curious bystanders to step back from the madness.

Stephen Skinner
July 12, 2022 12:33 pm

“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield” – G. Orwell

Laws of Nature
July 12, 2022 12:41 pm

>> Consider his sarcastic paraphrase of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers:
Why should I?
It only reiterates the same unproven and such unscientific points, but shorter and in a foul language.

I think my time is better spend to look once more that there is still no published answer to McKitirck´s critique on attribution. Without that Dessler and all other alarmists just expose themself as not understanding at all how science works.
Saying the same things again, but louder might work in politics, but that is not what they claim they are doing, right?

David Dibbell
July 12, 2022 12:57 pm

Wow, he sure seems angry. If only there were a way to physically flip the atmosphere, and throw in some high altitude ice balls, maybe he would not be so worried about harmful warming down here. /sarc

Nah, given how he expresses himself he’ll never admit that the atmosphere disagrees with him.

John VC
July 12, 2022 1:22 pm

He’s an Aggie–what do you expect
BU class of 68

July 12, 2022 1:46 pm

Dessler has agreed to debate me in public.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Richard S.J. Tol
July 12, 2022 2:28 pm

That should be interesting

Reply to  Richard S.J. Tol
July 12, 2022 2:36 pm

Good-o Richard.

What you should really announce though is –

“Dessler has agreed to debate ABUSE me in public.”

Reply to  Mr.
July 12, 2022 10:24 pm

try me

Reply to  Richard S.J. Tol
July 12, 2022 2:55 pm


Reply to  kim
July 12, 2022 3:16 pm

kim, you’ve lost me. Sorry for the question: Why Woof!?


Reply to  Richard S.J. Tol
July 12, 2022 3:19 pm

Richard, will the debate be broadcast? If so, make sure Anthony, et al., know so we can watch it live.


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
July 12, 2022 10:23 pm

Live + recorded

Reply to  Richard S.J. Tol
July 13, 2022 11:24 am

Thanks, Richard, looking forward to it.


Laws of Nature
Reply to  Richard S.J. Tol
July 13, 2022 5:49 am

Please make him talk about the McKitirck attribution critique.. This one of the fastest way to bring some very needed realism into that “debate”!

Reply to  Richard S.J. Tol
July 13, 2022 5:52 am

Dessler has agreed to debate me in public.”

Be sure to film and record the debate by your team, Dr. Tol.
Dessler is not trustworthy to honestly publish the debate.

Welcome back, Dr. Tol!

July 12, 2022 3:05 pm

He’s right, but noit for his reasons. Economists are just astrologers for finances; astrologers need licenses for entertainment, and even then they are bad.

H. D. Hoese
July 12, 2022 3:15 pm

Massachusetts marsh biologists have switched from studying bad nutrients to ice.
Wittyngham, S.S., et al.2022.Biotic Recovery Following Ice-Rafting in a Salt Marsh. Estuaries and Coasts 45, 1361–1370.

July 12, 2022 3:49 pm

I hate to bash all economists since I have a Finance MBA and wrote a for profit finance and economics newsletter for 43 years … but it is a fact, that as a group, American economists have never predicted a US recession. Not even once. Not that it’s ever easy to predict the future.

By the way, there is moderately strong evidence the US has been
in a mild recession this year. Very low U of M consumer confidence
is evidence. The low unemployment rate is a contradicting variable.
Any recession with such a low unemployment rate must be a mild recession.

Recessions tend to be recognized up to six months after they begin (the actual starting month is sometimes not specified by NBER before the recession has ended).

Since 8 to 9 years of every 10 years are NOT recession years, financial people who deal with the public are perma-bulls, expecting to be “right” for 8 pr 9 years of every ten. Which makes them look “smart”, in their opinion.

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 12, 2022 4:02 pm

I can never remember –
are economists there to make weather forecasters look good, or is it the other way around?

July 12, 2022 4:10 pm

Climate Loonies do not have an economic input circuit available to them.

July 12, 2022 4:14 pm

This guys great. He needs to be on the talk show circuit being the new face of climate change (sorry Greta). The more the public see how unhinged he is the better.

July 12, 2022 7:31 pm

Someone whose last name starts with a D is acting like a spoiled punk

Philip CM
July 12, 2022 7:36 pm

Stupid has become the new social achievement. Between them, and there are plenty, the followers who just want to be on side with the virtuous in-crowd, regardless of outcome, and the cowards, of which there are as many in number as there are the stupid. On the international level money has bought them all off, and all they had to do was promise to participate and/or support the destruction of the world democratic, private capital economy. Something the left has been promising, and very proud of its nearing achievement.

July 12, 2022 8:11 pm

I know a few people who cannot, at all, argue their position. Try to tell them something that does fit with their imaginings and their likely response is to get angry and walk out.

Andy H
July 13, 2022 9:29 am

Why would a group of people who want to take away the fundamental resource of modern life (energy) want to listen to economists, who study and manage resources?

Doug Proctor
July 13, 2022 5:26 pm

He was on Rogan. When asked specifically ruled out a debate. The science was settled and treating dissenters and their arguments as respectable and worthy of a platform only creates doubt where none exists and plays into the corruption of fossil fuel advocates.

July 13, 2022 8:33 pm

If renewables are so cheap, greenies should be celebrating high fossil prices.
Let the market forces push fossils out of the market.
~2 trillion per year spent on renewables should be more than enough for a quick transition.
Sadly I have not seen a single business plan from anyone to shows me that renewables are cheaper.
Levelised energy comparison are not business plans.
Typical lefty wolf cry. If only we had more subsidies, just another say 100 trillion then all will be good.

July 14, 2022 5:26 am

Economists would be delighted by a solution to reduce atmospheric CO2 that is profitable. Not all climate activists agree.

Increasing plankton biomass in the oceans would do great work to restore fisheries (see Russ George’s work with the Haida and how Canada shut him down) and coincidentally would sequester an awful lot of CO2 while increasing economic activity. Feeding more people would be popular with the general public too.

I don’t know Andrew Dessler’s opinion on this but I strongly suspect it is negative.

July 14, 2022 10:39 am

They will go on and on about those who don’t have a degree in climate science should just listen to the experts.
On the other hand, none of the people being quoted by the people who say this, have degrees in climate science.

July 15, 2022 5:22 am

It is such fun watching these dumb climate nutters bash their heads against the brick wall of economic reality. Hopefully, the first places that are hit by the inevitable cuts they caused, will be their own institutions.

%d bloggers like this: