Godfrey Bloom

UK, Europe and Environment Blog

1 2 34

Is there a windfarm coming to a field near you?

image

Find out with my interactive windfarm map.

See where existing windfarms are located, where windfarms are being built,and where proposed windfarm sites are.

Click here.

Windarm campaigns

image

Are you running, or do you know of a windfarm campaign

Let me know on my windfarm campaigns page, and keep me up to date with your news.

Click here.

Ugly windfarms are spoiling Britain's natural beauty

image

Are you worried about what a planned windfarm will do to your favourite locations? Has a windfarm spoiled a place you know and love? Let me know - send me your stories, pictures and videos.

Click here.

J'Accuse Greenpeace...

image

Are the environmental NGO all that they seem?

Find out how this well-funded organisation uses violence and muscle to impose its ideology.

Click here.

<< >>
Play > Stop

Godfrey Bloom Portrait

Welcome to my blog. An unprecedented democratic deficit is developing in the UK. Our interests are being ignored for the benefit of pointless and self-serving EU and environmental bureaucracies. On this blog I will be offering unfashionable arguments in favour of freedom and democracy, and against the dangerous eco-zealots' attack on our economy, jobs, and industry. Read more...

I’m Dreamin’ of an Un-Green Christmas
Thursday, 24 December 2009 09:55
smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

So Copenhagen is over. A deal to “save the planet” from the ravages of global warming have failed. Meanwhile, in spite of all the hot air blowing in from Scandinavia, almost the entire of the UK has been under a sheet of snow and ice. Some parts of the UK have recorded temperatures as low as -16C.

What people will say to this is that weather is not climate. It’s a fair argument. But this weather is colder than the average by more than the amount of warming that alarmists get their knickers in a twist about. My point here is that while people are panicking about a rise of 2 or 3 degrees C over the next 100 years, a bigger drop in temperature has left many thousands of people across the UK – myself and my neighbours in Yorkshire included – stranded. It has caused travel chaos. It has caused accidents. It has cost a lot of money. It is cold weather that kills and costs.

Environmentalists will say that climate change will increase the frequency of extreme weather events. But there exists virtually no evidence that this is either happening, or will happen. Wild claims about increased storm intensity have proven to be sheer bunk. “But what about floods and droughts, Godfrey”, I hear the Greens whinging. To the first, I would point out that – if it is true that we face, or have faced increased rainfall as a result of climate change, which I happen to doubt – floods are more easily prevented than we like to imagine. We simply need to get off our arses, much as our Victorian great-great-grandfathers did, and start building the kind of things they managed to build over a century ago. Huge dams, reservoirs, and artificial lakes and channels were constructed during the industrial revolution. The stuff about droughts we can answer in the same way. Why was this possible over a century ago, but not now?

“But what about the thousands of people who died in the 2003 European heatwave, Godfrey”, the whinge continues. The fact that old people aren’t looked after properly on the continent has nothing to do with climate change. All that was needed to protect these people were air-conditioning units and glasses of water. Anyone who thinks that not driving your car will make life better for old people is already senile. And it is of course the cold which has always done for old people far worse than hot weather.

So there we have it. Three solutions to three problems of climate change – if it exists – solved in just two paragraphs.

But it’s not so easy to solve the problem of cold weather. Imagine the same conditions we are experiencing now, after Brown, Mandelson, and Miliband have constructed their Green Utopia in the UK. The snow rolls in. The ice grips. Temperatures plummet. What happens next? First, thousands of wind turbines stop moving as they either seize up in the frost, or the wind stops blowing as high pressure develops over the UK. This leads to blackouts, leaving millions of homes without electricity, heat and light. Nobody has gas anymore – it’s too polluting. And few people can afford to run a car on the measly carbon rations that the government doles out. People are stuck in their freezing homes, and unable to reach isolated and elderly friends and relatives. It is only now that we realise the value of things like 4x4 cars, and coal-fuelled power stations. Britain will be well and truly broken.

The deal that was sought last week at Copenhagen was intended – if you believe the hyperbole – to address the problem of climate change. If it turned out to be successful, would sea-level remain static? Would there be no more floods in Britain? Would there never be a drought again? No. No. And no.

Changes in sea level, and weather-related problems would continue, just as they always have. All that would happen after a deal in Copenhagen is that we would be poorer and less equipped to deal with them. By being poorer, the same weather might in fact affect us more severely. The world’s leaders are worried about climate. But what affects us is weather. We can deal with weather if we’ve got the right stuff... a functioning energy supply, good vehicles, and plenty of money to throw at problems when they turn up. ‘Climate’, to us folk who know what weather is because we live in it, is a nonsense term. It is a political invention, an absurd and useless abstract idea. I don’t care about the climate, I care about the weather. It’s not the climate that’s going to stop you getting to work, it’s the weather.

So, thank the heavens that a costly and dangerous treaty has been avoided.

In fact, thank China. The disappointed delegates returning from Copenhagen have started pointing their fingers at the East, saying that the Chinese delegation prevented a deal being reached.

It is curious, isn’t it, that it is a non-democratic country like China that is being blamed by representatives from ‘democratic’ countries like the UK for the failure of undemocratic conferences like the one in Copenhagen. As I’ve said in previous blog posts, polls show that most people in the UK aren’t buying the government’s green agenda at all. So the government’s campaign to get the entire world to sign up to a legally-binding treaty is a decision they have taken against the public mood and against the interests and will of individuals, and the country as a whole. Our arrogant politicians took it upon themselves to act without winning, let alone having, the public debate. It is China – where nobody votes – that best represented the interests of its own, and our populations. What does that say about our democracy?

Copenhagen is dead. But the ambition has not gone away. New ways will be found to ram the green agenda down your throats, whether you want it or not. The feckless and reckless at Westminster and Brussels won’t stop this nonsense just because they didn’t manage to bully the rest of the world into agreement. The new year, in the wake of Climategate, and the failure of Copenhagen, the way in which the debate has changed will become clearer.

But the next week is about ignoring environmentalists’ complaints about our Xmas-carbon-footprints, and eating until we pop, drinking until we drop, and enjoying ourselves. I wish you and your families a very happy Christmas, and a prosperous new year.

Comments
Add New
Reeta Sethi --- Subject: Earth Day --- posted at 2009-12-24 12:17:56
Earth Day – Reuseable Bags, Grocery Bags, Totes, cotton bags
Earth Day 2010 all people, regardless of race, gender, income, or geography, have a moral right to a healthy, sustainable environment. Our mission is to broaden and diversify the environmental movement worldwide, and to mobilize it as the most effective vehicle for promoting a healthy, sustainable environment. We at Crafts and Creations encourage registered charities eco-friendly cotton canvas fabric bags / totes at no profit no loss basis
We wish to encourage Teachers, Schools, Universities and Churches to promote this campaign across the world. Each one of us have to strive to create a healthy and sustainable environment and inform the public about the environmental issues – locally, nationally and globally.
Earth Day 2009, April 22 marked the beginning of The Green Campaign. Let us use, Organic Cotton bags, green totes, cotton bags, canvas bags and avoid usage of Plastics which are majorly responsible for the present Global Warming.
The desire is to broaden environmental sustainability by reaching out to all segments of the world by combing interactive social networking with proven environmental and behaviour. We welcome suggestions from people from all walks of life using a comprensive web-based blog Earth Day Blog
TheBigYin --- Subject: {title} --- posted at 2009-12-24 15:12:13
I won't go into all that green/Copenhagen gubbins as I just called into wish you, and UKIP all the best over the festive season and do wish that you come out with all guns blazing in 2010. You are a credit to your party.

Merry Christmas Godders.
George O'Connell --- Subject: MR --- posted at 2009-12-26 13:35:11
Well done Godfrey, it's so refreshing to find a party that speaks the truth, you my vote.
Adam R --- Subject: Enviro insanity in the US --- posted at 2009-12-27 12:51:48
Dear Mr. Bloom,

Here in the states, the House passed a Cap n' Trade bill back in June, but nothing came of it. Sarah Palin wrote an excellent article about why Cap and Trade is bad and it irritated Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Boxer (D-CA). The Dems probably won't try again in the coming midterm elections in '10 due to the fact that many tea partying conservative and libertarian minded individuals are getting ready to overhaul congress before it overhauls anything else.

My worthless Senator, Harry Reid is bragging about all of these "green jobs" that he created. He is a hack lawyer and greedy control freak. My mayor, Oscar Goodman, also seems to have been on the Copenhagen bandwagon with lots of green talk. We could use people like you, Nigel Farage and the rest of UKIP here in Nevada. Good luck in the next Gen Election.

-Vita, Libertas, Prosperitas
Adam
Norm Latham --- Subject: {title} --- posted at 2009-12-29 16:54:06
Mr. Bloom, what training or education qualifies you to speak on scientific issues? May I ask for your opinion on CERN and the Higgs Boson; what do you think they could have done to accelerate the project more efficiently?

The C=O bonds in CO2 adsorb electromagnetic radiation in the infra-red spectrum, and re-radiate it.

This causes CO2 to be a greenhouse gas; much of the heat radiated from the surface of the Earth is re-radiated back toward the Earth.

The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the lower the rate at which heat energy is lost from the Earth.

This energy is redistributed around the surface of the Earth by various physical processes, and is used to increase the kinetic energy of particles (temperature) and to do work against potential energy (melting, boiling).

Humans have been burning billions of tonnes of carbon since the industrial revolution. This carbon was fixed over hundreds of millions of years, was then stored for hundreds of millions of years, and is now being burned in about 200 years. At the same time, the forests of the world have been cleared by human activity - and have most certainly not been growing to counteract this increase in CO2.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the rate of heat energy loss from the Earth system is decreasing. This extra energy, at least at first, is redistributed around the Earth's surface by physical processes, which over the past hundred million years have acquired particular characteristics - they have settled into a dynamic equillibrium, a collection of climates. But significant and rapid changes in the heat retention of the Earth system distort this equillibrium and change the climates of the Earth.

'Global warming' in the form of increased heat retention (decreased heat loss) is causing 'Climate change'. 'Global warming' is not a uniform increase in temperature, it is an initial increase in the heat retained within the Earth system, and climate change is the consequence.

Europe could conceivably become a lot colder due to the ill-planned and dangerous dumping of billions of tonnes of fossil CO2 into the atmosphere by human industrial processes.

If the extra heat retained by the Earth system does work against the forces holding H20 molecules in close proximity within the Ice of Greenland and the Arctic Circle, the meltwater could alter the salinity of the North Atlantic and disrupt thermohaline circulation shutting down the 'trans-atlantic conveyor'.

The Gulf stream is part of this conveyor, and the warm current significantly increases the energy received by the landmasses of Western Europe. Without this, Western Europe would be much, much colder.

The consequences of 'global warming' are not uniform warming - the Earth is a vastly complicated, integrated system. You and Bloom clearly do not understand anything about it, and you are clearly not qualified to speak on this issue.
Godfrey Bloom --- Subject: {title} --- posted at 2009-12-30 13:26:24
Norm asks, "what training or education qualifies you to speak on scientific issues?"

The qualification for making arguments in a democracy is possession of a brain and a mouth, and something joining the two.

I have been an economic researcher for decades, and I can see where arguments such as Nicholas Stern's and emissions trading don't add up. I can see for myself that scare stories that have been cooked up by Greenpeace and other propagandists who bang on about 'the end of the world' do not have an iota of scientific credibility. I can see for myself that there are many debates to be had in the scientific world, and that rumours of a "scientific consensus" are wildly inaccurate and very much exaggerated. And it doesn't take a genius to work out that exaggeration, spin, propaganda, and lying is designed to serve a political purpose.

But please don't take my word for it. Unlike Norm, I think that we're all capable of understanding the climate debate. Sadly, he seems to think that "scientists" are the only people who ought to be allowed to make decisions and speak about matters that affect us. This is how "climate science" is being used to close down democracy and debate in this country, and to force changes to our economy, industry, and future without our consent.
Norm Latham --- Subject: {title} --- posted at 2009-12-30 17:46:10
Mr. Bloom,

I did not mean to imply that one must be 'a scientist' to discuss climate change, only to suggest that if one has had little or no scientific training in the appropriate fields then it is unlikely that one could consider these issues fully and discuss their implications appropriately. Lacking this training sometimes causes people to refer to climte change as Global warming (I will explain the distinction below), which is misleading because warming and temperature are often confused by the general public, as you yourself have done.

In my previous post I steered clear of the specific field of Climate Science, and focused only on the implications of elementary Physics. You did not respond to these points, and I'm wondering what your take on the matter is.

If your above argument discussed how we should respond to either the confirmation or (unlikely) refutation of human-caused climate change, I would agree completely that all one required to participate was a mouth and an appropriately informed brain. However, you have been making claims concerning the physical processes, and I am concerned that you are unaware of the most recent discoveries in this field.

For example, the term 'global warming' is old-fashioned, approximately 10 years out of date. You did not even select the marginally more appropriate term, 'global heating'. The phrase 'global warming' has been rendered inappropriate because media disinformation campaigns have preyed upon and cultivated confusion within the general public over the meaning of the term 'warming'. To warm an object is to heat it, to increase its thermal energy; and although this is related to temperature the two quantities are not identical.

For example, if you warm Ice by applying heat its temperature will increase until it reaches its melting point. Whilst melting, its temperature will not increase as you continue to warm it because all thermal energy given to the Ice is being used to do work against the bonds holding it in solid form.

The Earth is a much more complicated system than a block of ice, and there are many interacting systems and cycles that redistribute thermal energy accross the globe, tending to maintain a set of dynamic equillibrium conditions. But the block of ice example serves to debunk this ridiculous notion that 'warming' the Earth through heating the Earth would necessarily raise temperatures full stop - let alone uniformly accross the globe.

Your blog post contains at least one faulty premise, one that any college student taking a Physics AS could refute, because temperature measures a consequence of thermal energy, not thermal energy itself. An increase in retained thermal energy does not imply an increase in temperature, and certainly not a uniform increase in temperature within a complex system such as the Earth. This is an old misconception of the science, which even the media has managed to overcome in recent years.

Unfortunately you only found the time to respond to a limited number of my points. I am curious to know what you made of my outline of the potential problems posed by melt-water interfering with the trans-atlantic conveyor?

I beg your pardon if I seemed to imply that only fully fledged scientists could or should discuss these issues, but I do believe that only people who have performed at least the basic research necessary to understand current terminology and relevant issues are capable of discussing climate change in a way that can help the average person avoid significant barriers their continued way of life.

My advice to anyone reading this is to learn about the issue further; to seek a balanced discussion of the science from genuinely neutral parties that stand to gain no political or economic power or privilege from being believed.
A University of Cambridge stud --- Subject: {title} --- posted at 2009-12-31 06:05:08
Godfrey Bloom said:

>>> Norm asks, "what training or education qualifies you to speak on scientific issues?"

I have been an economic researcher for decades... > The qualification for making arguments in a democracy is possession of a brain and a mouth, and something joining the two.
A University of Cambridge stud --- Subject: {title} --- posted at 2009-12-31 06:07:34
Godfrey Bloom said:

>> Norm asks, "what training or education qualifies you to speak on scientific issues?"

I have been an economic researcher for decades... >> The qualification for making arguments in a democracy is possession of a brain and a mouth, and something joining the two.
A University of Cambridge sude --- Subject: {title} --- posted at 2009-12-31 06:10:40
Godfrey Bloom said:

"Norm asks, "what training or education qualifies you to speak on scientific issues?"

I have been an economic researcher for decades... "

My paraphrasing and reply:

"I am experienced in economics (a maths-arts) subject, so therefore have the authority and credibility to speak on a completely unrelated field"

The statement above is not a sound argument.

If you wish to be taken seriously in your argument concerning the reality/validity of climate change, then I suggest you comment on the science which you take issue with, rather than limit your discussion to a bit of snow outside your house, and present experience in an unrelated discipline as somehow giving you credibility to speak on this.

Godfrey Bloom said:

"The qualification for making arguments in a democracy is possession of a brain and a mouth, and something joining the two."

My reply:

However, as a politician you have a captive audience, who will trust in you to have been adequately advised by experts in what you are talking about. If you are unable to discuss with any knowledge or authority on these matters, then I suggest you either get an education in this field (not an unrealted one), or allow people who do have some knowledge and authority to advise you when you make public communications such as this one. If you are unable to take advice on matters such as this one, then how could you be trusted to seek good advice if you were allowed to get into power?

Had you actually studied anything about Earth systems science, you would be aware that the UK is on the same latitude as Canada, and that we only have temperatures considerably higher than Canada due to the Gulf stream warming the UK. Without the Gulf stream the UK would be plunged into considerably lower temperatures than we experienced this winter. The gulf stream is "powered" by the thermohaline conveyor (a current which travels the surface of the oceans, to sink to the deep ocean at the north pole, to rise again in the atlantic ocean, travel to the south pole, sink, circle the pole and rise to swoop around the Gulf and Africa and travel back up to Europe as the Gulf stream). The sinking of the conveyor at the north and south pole is due to the density and salinity of the water, and drives the reast of the Earth's oceans to keep moving. The whole cycle takes a few hundred years to complete, so we will only just be experiencing the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and melting of glaciers which happened decades to hundreds of years ago. There is some evidence that the downwards collumns of the thermohaline conveyor are shutting down.

The thermohaline conveyor is dependant upon a certain level of salinity and temperature in order to continue working. Should human activity sufficiently raise temperatures, thus de-salinating the sea at the poles, then the gulf stream would cease to be present to warm the UK. In which case, "a bigger drop in temperature [will leave] many thousands of people across the UK – myself and my neighbours in Yorkshire included – stranded. It [will cause] travel chaos. It [will cause] accidents. It [will] cost a lot of money. It is cold weather that kills and costs", to ammend a quote from someone else.

As I hope you are beginning to realise, climate change directly impacts people within the UK, as we will experience a considerable *drop* in temperature here, rather than warming - Ie, we will experience colder weather and more snow fall, which the UK is currently ill-equipped to deal with. How will we feed ourselves if supermarkets are left unstocked due to mass road closures?
Godfrey Bloom --- Subject: {title} --- posted at 2009-12-31 15:28:28
I hope Norm will understand that I have limited time to respond to his points.

I think the point about the difference between heating and warming is splitting hairs. At best it looks to me like an attempt to reformulate a buzz-phrase for political reasons, rather than an expression with greater scientific meaning than its predecessor. There are no references to "global heating" in the IPCC literature, as far as I can tell.

The point about me "making claims concerning the physical processes" would be easier to answer if you were to make it clear which of the claims is troubling you, Norm.

On thermohalaine circulation, it is my understanding that concerns about them changing and leaving us in the cold are highly speculative, with evidence being scant and research being very much inconclusive. I also remember noisy concerns about 'the shutdown of the gulf stream' receiving short shrift from even those fully behind the climate change agenda, such as Sir David King.

What I always wonder about demands that us 'deniers' prove our credentials to take part in the climate debate is what they say to people making statements on the other side. I wonder if Norm would ask my colleague in the EU parliament, Green MEP Caroline Lucas, what qualifies her to make statements about climate change? After all, she has nothing more than a PhD in women's literature, yet she talks endlessly about the end of the world "according to scientists", and the need for huge changes to our economic systems.

It is my many years experience of economics research that drew me in to the debate after reading nonsense from the likes of Nicholas Stern and IPCC Chair, Rajendra K. Pachauri - neither of whom are climate scientists. The more I looked, the more I found economic and policy arguments to be ill-conceived, and the more obvious it became that they had been created to serve political agendas. And the more I looked at the science, the more I saw that the idea that "the end is nigh" isn't supported by any serious scientific studies, and that it too is being used to further political agendas.

I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it. That is why this blog is here, and that is why I invite people to comment.
Ziigismund --- Subject: Get a grip --- posted at 2010-01-05 16:28:55
If Norm and those of his or her persuasion concerning things climatic were to "do the math" they would have something useful to say.
News sources, particularly the BBC, are locked into the 'heating / warming' theory so completely demolished by Christopher Monckton in Copenhagen for example. Those of us with a few years under our belts recall the old propaganda of Radio Moscow when we listen to the Beeb's climate change experts desperately demonstrating their ignorance and trying to square a circle. If we lived in a true democracy instead of the EU the BBC would be permitted to present balanced arguments, but having accepted loans from the European Central Bank the poor old Beeb has to promote the EU and its ludicrous policies. It doesn't help that that otherwise jolly nice chap HRH The Prince of Wales has been hoodwinked by this lot. Somebody should explain that his organic farms will flourish, he will need less pesticides and chemicals if the globe actually does warm up a bit. And as explained by the world's expert on sea-levels, Clarence House will not find itself under six feet of water.
To be pretty well equipped to discuss the matter one could do few things better than to read Professor Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth, in which the science of global warming and cooling - which is what he does for a living, he isn't a railway engineer like the boss of the IPCC - is gone through with a scalpel. You will find over 2000 references to scientific works on both sides of the argument ther. Go to! as Shakespeare put it.
Adam R. --- Subject: Stupidity from the EU Commission Climate Change Pa --- posted at 2010-01-06 13:28:47
Dear Mr. Bloom,
Please take a moment to read this. From the EU Commie Commission website (With my comments in standard format):

1. Travel responsibly!
Fly only for distances greater than 700 km. Otherwise take the train. A transatlantic flight produces almost half as much CO2 as an average person produces over a period of one year while meeting all his or her other needs, such as lighting, heating and car travel!


Everyone except for the politicians who need to discuss climate change nonsense can fly as much as much as they need or want.

2. Pay your bills online!
Eliminate your paper trail as well as the energy used to transport paper bills.


In the EU, you will be paying lots and lots of bills online. Thanks a lot Barroso!

3. Consume locally produced, seasonal food - it's better for the environment because produce grown in artificial ecosystems or greenhouses requires a tremendous amount of energy for temperatures to be maintained. And transporting goods by plane from one side of the world to the other generates about 1,700 times more CO2 emissions than transporting them by truck over 50km.

Don't the CAP and directives regarding crops grown for biofuel make this harder in the UK?

4. Use energy-saving light bulbs: just one can reduce your lighting costs by up to € 60 and avoid 400kg of CO2 emissions over the lifetime of the bulb - and they last up to 10 times longer than ordinary light bulbs. Energy-saving bulbs are more expensive to buy, but cheaper over their life span.

Since when has mercury been a "green" substance anyway? Most MEPs seem to be drinking quicksilver martinis if they think this was ever a good idea to make eco bulbs mandatory.

5. Print less!
At the office, encourage your colleagues to re-use the other side of paper and print less by archiving their emails and attachments. You can also try and create paperless habits. Some studies show that office paper consumption is rising by 20 % per year and web-based technology is actually increasing the printing of documents. On average each worker uses about 50 sheets of A4 per day. Must you print?


This is advice that the National Bank of Zimbabwe ought to take instead.

6. "Re-use paper!
Instead of using a fresh piece of paper for rough work, turn over a used copy and write on the other side. Use products made of recycled paper. Remember! Every ton of recycled paper saves 17 trees compared to paper made from virgin materials."

Try doing that with bathroom tissue. You'll lose any chance at finding a mate quickly and prevent future generations of humans from being born. All for Gaia!

7. Fill up that freezer!
Help it consume less energy by keeping it full. It requires less energy to cool a full freezer than an empty one. Should you not have filled it, add some plastic bottles filled with water or even old newspapers – until you need the space!


Speaking of cold places, sending Cathy Ashton and Herman Van Rompuy to Siberia would be a better plan.

There is more, but I think you get the idea.

Battle Born - Nevada's Motto
-Adam

caroline --- Subject: {title} --- posted at 2010-01-21 11:57:53
I am so glad you are not my MP
Norm --- Subject: {title} --- posted at 2010-02-16 22:07:32
IPCC errors: facts and spin

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/


Unfortunately I don't have time to continue this discussion =/ This link will need to do.
Godfrey Bloom --- Subject: {title} --- posted at 2010-02-18 06:53:07
Norm says "Unfortunately I don't have time to continue this discussion"

I wonder what's been keeping him so busy. The many hits we got from his Facebook profile indicated that he is a philosophy student from Leeds (and not called Norm).

There's obviously got some important socialising to do. Saving the planet can wait.

May the farce be with you, Luke.
Write comment
Name:
Email:
 
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

!joomlacomment 4.0 Copyright (C) 2009 Compojoom.com . All rights reserved."

 
< December 2009 >
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 25 26
27 28 29 30 31