Exposed ‘science’ of Man-Made Global Warming!

Consensus is often used against creationism and those who are skeptical of man-made global warming.  However, consensus with certain scientists is not the same as the true prophets of God found in the Bible. What has become known as “Climate Gate” has good and bad news. Firstly, someone in the Climatic Research Unit, decided to hack into a server used by scientists, gathered data (160mb) which most likely he or she was familiar with and posted on the internet for everyone to read.

Secondly, the data consisted of  3,000 e-mails over a 13 year period of time. These documents revealed some very embarrassing details on how they conducted research that supposedly points to global warming.

The Wallstreet Journal reports in their opinion piece…

“Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn’t toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. “It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow,” glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents “could scarcely be more damaging.” And that’s from a believer.”

These e-mails with major implications also shows what creationists and intelligent design proponents have been accusing academic journals and Universities for years of doing the same thing to them. Liberals worldwide including a popular blog of PZ Myers are so embarrassed that some are now restricting people from commenting on their forums or blogs such as Greg Laden who stated his blog will not become “a dumping ground”  but many of his readers as well as himself cannot bare to take what they normally dish out on a regular basis!

What is really interesting PZ Myers hasn’t posted anything on his popular blog about the incident (most likely fearing an onslaught of criticism) rather he’s keeping to his normal pattern which is the “Discovery Institute hates science” slogan, crashing polls, and complaining about creationists.

All the e-mails which excludes the 3,000 currently online were not released to the public. Most likely there are more e-mails which we haven’t seen yet that could tell us of more scientists engaging in an unethical way. Competitive Enterprise Institute, filed a lawsuit against NASA because the suit alleges, for the past three years they have refused to make public any documents under the freedom of information act.

In light of all this,  investigations are being put in place while Democrats are being pressured to hold hearings. Could we see the release of more conversations between climate scientists? According to the Telegraph, “Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.” There is now a high change of data getting deleted before these figures are released.

Many billions of dollars have been spent on the research, which is another possible motivation for scientists in climate research to be deceptive. It’s practically the same thing  happening with  the hypothesis of evolution!

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Exposed ‘science’ of Man-Made Global Warming!

  1. I will predict that Darwinists will stick there fingers in the ears, close their eyes and never speak on this event. They have made a ideology out of ignoring rational evidence of corruption with in the science community and this story will not shake their faith.

    Good post Michael, more needs to be said about this exposure of the bias within academia.

  2. Religious dogma is handed down by revelation, is by definition correct and to be accepted without question. Any disagreement or reinterpretation is heresy.

    To those who are entirely ignorant of science and the scientific method, the internal disagreements of scientists may seem to be of the same ilk. Scientists are people. They differ as to the significance of data. They differ as to its interpretation. Arguments among scientists are frequently heated, since almost by definition they do not have the herd mentality of religious followers.

    At the same time, scientific subjects that have political implications must deal with laymen who are ignorant of the most basic concepts of the science involved. “What if the public should find out we disagree on a point?” Global warming is one such issue, because there are so many denialists, that any outlier data, and disagreement, will be perceived as a major flaw in the overall result—which is in fact not disputed.

    Please remember this about global warming. The planet is warming, and most of the increase is caused by human activity. This is not in doubt. Models continue to be refined—a recent addition gauges the effect of aerosols on warming for the first time. We do not yet know where all of the thresholds are—how much of this or that change will constitute an irretrievable change. But the present course of most world governments is to speed toward the cliff in the fog. They don’;t know where the cliff is, and they can’t see the road more than a few feet ahead, but their foot remains fully on the accelerator. And we’re all in the car with them.

    Remember this about global warming. If you deny it too long, your grandchildren will curse you for putting your comfort ahead of their lives. They will curse you for your disregard of their welfare. They will curse you.

  3. Olorin you stated,

    “Religious dogma is handed down by revelation, is by definition correct and to be accepted without question. Any disagreement or reinterpretation is heresy.” In such religions as Islam, that is true, but in Christianity the Word didn’t always come in a form of a “revelation”, you find such things as “inspired” letters to other churches written by the Apostles. You are right about disagreement or another interpretation would be considered a heresy.

    I agree, scientists are fallible men. But I disagree with scientists who have to deal with what you have described as “ignorant laymen.” First of all, in the case of research about the patterns of the Earth’s weather, Stephen McIntyre is a businessman not a climate scientist who has found errors in the data concerning climate change. Michael Mann one of the major players in advocating man-made global warming, told the media the likes of Mr. McIntyre and others who are skeptical of man-made global warming cannot be trusted, yet Mr. Mann was forced to correct one of his own mistakes that was pointed out by McIntyre’s blog, called; “Rigging a Climate Consensus.”

    The internet is changing the dynamics on how and whom are being critical of data presented by researchers. It’s not solely subjective in a bubble to “peer review” publications which most liberal would like it to be. You basically agree with the “bubble” method and blame certain others for disagreements. Scientists should have the freedom to display all sorts of opinions in public and in their research even if it goes against what is inside the current structure of the “bubble.”

  4. mcoville,

    The hardcore generally will and yes I believe some have even avoided about speaking about it on purpose as they are very embarrassed by it. I didn’t like however, the method in which the e-mails were obtained. That’s the only thing that bothers me about this exposing to the public on how data can be ridged for a cause or belief. Hopefully more conversations will be put out there for the public to read. I believe for now on, many climate scientists are going to be careful what they write in their e-mails…lol

  5. Micahel: I believe for now on, many climate scientists are going to be careful what they write in their e-mails…lol”

    Yes, they will be careful. Unfortunately. Discussion should be open, with all points of view represented. Scientific discussion should not be restricted because of what kind of publicity that denialists may make of it.

    Have any of you snickerers read the IPCC report? Have you followed any of the research papers? Or do you only seek out those who agree with you, and not many of them?

    What do you think they’re fighting about in Darfur? The people whose water is going away are killing the people who still have some. What do you think is causing the inland migration of millions of Bangladeshi? Their farmland is becoming contaminated with salt from the ocean. Why do you think the fire season in California is 77 days longer than it was 15 years ago? Canada and Russia are at at the boiling point with each other. Over what? Over territorial rights to newly opened passages in the Arctic Ocean. It’s not just polar bears and monk seals.

    The others seems to get it. Europe is going sustainable. Even China is coming to Copenhagen with promises of greenhouse-gas reduction. China! When my son got back from Shanghai last summer he had to wear a mask to breathe properly. When the rest of the world decides they will tax carbon and the US does not, guess what will happen? They will slap a tax on all exports from the US. Our balance of trade isn’t too good right now. How much will we sell when our exports cost 25% more?

    you can deny evolution. All that will do is move drug research offshore. You can resist vaccination. Mostly only your own families will suffer. But global warming has everyone in the whole world linked together. Your recklessness wounds everyone.

    The earth has undergone several mass extinctions in the past. 250 Mya, 96% of all species died out. It wasn’t random. The dinosaurs could “adapt” as well as anything else. Their problem was that they were at the top of the food chain. Animals at the top of the food chain die in every extinction.

    Guess who is at the top of the food chain today? We will not succeed in killing the earth with our actions. But we may well kill ourselves off. The earth will start over. Minus you. And me. And our grandchildren. Believe me, they will curse your memory for that.

    We do not inherit the earth form our parents. We borrow it from our children. You may wish to think about that.

  6. Michael: I heard a report from London that is saying it may have been a whistle blower and not a hacker. These emails where also requested through proper channels according the UK’s freedom of information act, these emails where unlawfully being hidden from the public. Other emails have been deleted before the release, I wounder what they said in them. All though I do not condone hacking the info is now public and needs to be examined.

    Olorin: It is clear that you have completely bought into the “global warming” propaganda. You are a perfect example of what is wrong with the modern scientific community. These “scientists” admit in their emails that they had to change the data to support their theory. What data do you use to support your belief that the temperature of the earth is rising due to man? I hope it wasn’t from these guys.

    I will say that God has put us on earth to be stewards of His creation and that we should do our best not to destroy it. This should not include down grading living conditions or destroying national economics to do so. We have been promised that heaven and earth will not pass away before Jesus returns, so I am not worried about the conditions of the earth my children will live in, I am more concerned with the destination of their, and your, soul.

  7. mcoville,

    Thanks for the info, I’ll have to check it out and revise the post. Deletion of e-mails means guilt, must have even more embarrassing to them when they realized they had to turn it over for public viewing. I too, wonder what those e-mails said.

    Olorin,

    As far as computer models that claim man-made global warming. Greenland had a warming trend back in the middle ages which was the premises of it’s name, the Vikings lived there till the 1400 or so…They had to leave because of a cooling trend. Historically there has been cooling and warming trends, the crux of these computer models do not make a distinction between the two and it doesn’t grasp the complexity of the weather.

    A decline in temp has been going on since 1998, yet CO2 has been on the raise. This indicates more of an historical pattern than man-made. China isn’t coming with promises in fact they have refused to cap any of their emissions, rather they say all the rich nations should be the only ones to cap their omissions. Even though it’s a communist country, they do understand some business aspects and have made tons of money. It’s cheap labor draws in other countries so why cap emissions when it would cost them billions and the companies that do business there, money that otherwise would be taxed and put in their pockets of the communist party…? Rather, China is working on producing renewable technology for profit while claiming it’s goal will be 15 percent of renewable energy by 2020. They will be the top manufacturer of wind turbines soon, again this is a business decision by China.

  8. Instead of clucking your tongues over who might have admitted what, and who is guilty of hiding what, you might want to look at the tons of reports that show man-made warming unequivocally. Denialists keep forgetting that weight of evidence establishes correctness, not authority, not moral purity, not faith nor popularity. Instead, denialists search only for crumbs that will support their position.

    One problem, of course, is that you are totally unqualified to read any scientific research report, and can only perceive, in glaring highlights, the words that you like to see, that reinforce your beliefs..

    Tell you what. Here are a few elementary questions relating to scientific studies in general. Anyone who pretends to understand research on global warming will have no problems with them . The questions are elementary. Here we go.

    (A) A study shows that counties with the smallest populations in the US have the lowest cancer rates. In which counties would you expect to find the highest cancer rates? Why?[1]

    (B) The Science candidate leads the Creationist candidate in an election by 55% to 45% in a poll. The error rate of the poll is +/-5%. What is the approximate probability that the Creationist candidate will win?[2]

    (C) A school district divides each oif its students into one of several racial groups. The superintendent says that the average math score of each racial group went up last year–yet the average score of all students went down. Explain how this happens.[3]

    (D) You have come up with a test for a disease that kills 100 Americans every year. The test is 95% accurate, and very inexpensive. Why would the Centers for Disease Control kick you out without even hearing about your test?[4]

    So, four questions that anyone not too stupid to read a climate paper would be able to answer in about 15 seconds each. If you can’t begin to answer them, all you’re doing is mindlessly repeating drivel that someone whom you like told you. There are legitimate controversies in climate change research. But you dumkopfs wouldn’t recognize them if they bit you in the tukhas.

    And these questions don’t even require any subject knowledge—such as why a flat mirror reverses left and right but not up and down, no matter how you rotate it. All you need is a little reasoning ability.

    Have at it, ignoramuses. Lack of response indicates abject failure of any qualification to have an opinion on global warming. You just might be wrong. You should think about that. Only your grandchildren will understand. And they will curse you for your wanton destruction of their planet.

    =================
    [1] Translated into a global-warming context, this question is relevant to periods of global cooling interspersed in a general warming trend. For example, how often would you expect a 1998-2008 period of cooler weather in an overall warming, of, say 1000 years? (A recent article in Science calculated this and compared it to temperature records )

    [2] This relates to confidence levels in experimental results on, say, global-temperature trends.

    [3] Climatologists divide extreme weather into groups of events, such as fires, floods, tornados, etc. Sometimes we look at each class, sometimes at the whole.

    [4] Climate-change deniers have come up with similar “tests.” (This question is also relevant to the recent donnybrook over mammogram screening frequencies.)

  9. mcoville: “I will say that God has put us on earth to be stewards of His creation and that we should do our best not to destroy it. This should not include down grading living conditions or destroying national economics to do so.”

    I understand your point. We should protect the earth—unless it causes us some discomfort. Unless it downgrades our cushy living standard. Unless it impacts national economies. Then destroying the world is OK.

    Yes, I certainly do understand. But I care more about the welfare of my grandchildren than you do about yours.

  10. Olorin, if you feel we should reduce living standards in order to protect the earth then you would be a hypocrite if you had a heater or ac unit in your home. In fact you should move your family into a grass hut.

    God gave us the ability to improve our living conditions. He knows how far we will use that ability and how damaging it will be to the environment and He still said that heaven and earth will not pass away before He returns.

  11. No takers on the minimum-qualifications questions. Somehow I thought not.Darwin once commented on the inverse relationship between knowledge and confidence in one’s opinion.

    These questions are very general, and apply to all different subject areas. In fact, Question D was in the news this morning—concerning a quickie test for H1N1 flu. Since the parents involved misunderstood the test, they got their kid in trouble. Ignorance is not necessarily bliss….

  12. mcoville: “God gave us the ability to improve our living conditions. He knows how far we will use that ability and how damaging it will be to the environment and He still said that heaven and earth will not pass away before He returns.”

    This parallels the story of a man trapped on a rooftop in a flood. A neighbor came by in a boat, but the man waved him off, saying “God will provide.” Later a sherrif’s boat offered to rescue him, with the same response. Then the man waved off a helicopter—“God will save me.”

    When the man was finally swept away and drowned, he approached the Throne, and demanded, “Why didn’t you save me??” God replied, “Well I did send two boats and a helicopter.”

    If you wish to lie back and let God do it all, please move to another planet. Or at least get out of the way.

  13. Just in time, Michael! You can’t begin to qualify as having any knowledge anboput global warming, so start a new post: “Intelligent Designed Biomaterials Is The Future”

    No one will notice your total ignorance of this subject, will they?

  14. Socrates Puppette,

    Did you live during the 70’s? I did, in fact the winter of 79 sparked more conversations about a mini-ice age. That winter I experienced for the first time and it was a record back then when the conditions was -28 below zero with a windchill factor of -76 below zero. It was one of the coldest winters on record plus it had record snow levels which wasn’t broken till 2007. The colder temps and more snow wasn’t a factor because scientists back then said the mini-ice age wouldn’t happen for another 10,000 years…lol…There was no global warming warnings back then till about the mid 1980s. Not only do I have knowledge about the weather, I actually have experienced it…Have you?

    By the way all the e-mails that were obtained by the BBC are available for public viewing…

  15. Michael his own self: “Did you live during the 70’s? I did, in fact the winter of 79 sparked more conversations about a mini-ice age. That winter I experienced for the first time and it was a record back then when the conditions was -28 below zero with a windchill factor of -76 below zero. It was one of the coldest winters on record plus it had record snow levels which wasn’t broken till 2007.”

    The soi-disant “cooling trend” of the 1970s is mostly a myth dragged out of a small number of reports in the 1970s that were later pumped up and then discredited.[1]

    So how to explain your (and my) experiences in the 1970s? First, psychologically. People tend to remember extreme experiences out of all proportion to their actual significance—especially when they are young at the time.[2]

    Second, statistically. If you can’t answer Questions (A) and (C) in the basic test above,[3] then you are clueless to understand how a period of flat or declining temperatures does not negate a long-term trend. If you’d like to apply this principle to the present period of flat temperatures, a simulated run of warming taken from current warming estimates for the 21st century produced no less than 17 decade-long periods of cooling temperatures in 700 years.[4]

    Curriculum planners should give up trying to teach algebra and calculus in high schools. Elementary statistics would be a lot more practical—even more fun. And it would save people from getting taken in by quack medical “studies”, proposed terrorist screenings, dubious TV claims for products, unneeded medical tests[5]—and global-warming denialists. One can only hope.

    ============
    [1] cf., e.g., Peterson, Thomas & Connolley, William & Fleck, John (September 2008). The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. American Meteorological Society. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. report “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis” also discusses this period, if you would condescend to read it.

    [2] I was in my 40s in the winter of 1979.

    [3] “(A) A study shows that counties with the smallest populations in the US have the lowest cancer rates. In which counties would you expect to find the highest cancer rates? Why?
    (C) A school district divides each oif its students into one of several racial groups. The superintendent says that the average math score of each racial group went up last year–yet the average score of all students went down. Explain how this happens.”

    [4] “What Happened to Global Warming? Just Wait a Bit,” Science 326:28-29 (2 Oct 2009). You were probably so busty trying to deny the Ardi fossils in this issue that you missed this little news item.

    [5] The mammograms that everyone is now clamoring for can actually cause breast cancer. But no; Congress is going to encourage even more tests. Hunnhhhh.

  16. mcoville (Nov 28, 2009 at 11:26 am): “I will predict that Darwinists will stick there fingers in the ears, close their eyes and never speak on this event.”

    Well, so much for creationist predictions. Have you been reading the news lately?

    While we’re at it, however, a climatologist at U. Minn. wrote an op-ed piece[1] on what the tree-ring “trick”[2] to “hide the decline” relates to. Briefly, the recent large increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has altered the correlation between tree-ring thickness and temperature.

    So, instead of using tree rings to indicate temperature, we now use—gasp—THERMOMETERS. You will probably now argue that thermometers are less accurate than tree rings. Good luck.

    ====================
    [1] http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/why_climatologists_used_the_tr.php

    [2] If you had spent any time in research yourself, you would know what the term “trick” refers to. And maybe a couple others, too, such as “fudge factor” and “Jesus factor.”

  17. Oh, yeah. Another term frequently heard in all fields of scientific research is “toy.”

    Michael, please explain what a “toy” is?

  18. Olorin,

    Where is the evidence that computer models can tell the difference between historical warming and cooling and man’s tiny contribution of CO2 compared to what nature produces? RIONOVOSTI reports UK Climatologists have tampered with the data…

    “Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.”

    Now President Obama is advocating cap and trade, right? This is to help save the planet, right? Cap and trade helps big business and collects more taxes while not polluting less! Cap and trade allows companies which cannot reduce their emissions pay for carbon credits while smaller companies have to comply. This in turns allows those companies to then claim they are carbon neutral. So if the earth is coming to an end if CO2 emissions are not reduced by global alarmists standards, and if President Obama really believes in this, then cap and trade is a scam.

    Surface temperatures thermometers have been showing a warming trend (depending upon what block of years your looking at). While the temperatures collected by satellites and weather balloons displayed no warming trend.

    I always wondered why temperature reports would always flux for the same block years. Now I know why, it’s because the data gets revised quite often. The IPCC surface record was lowered a number of times during the 1950’s for example, which it would make it more of a warming trend years later. The balloon temperatures were adjusted as well. They showed no warming trend in the late 70’s early 80’s. When certain countries whose data was removed from the record, it would show more of a warming trend. So each time this part of the record was attempted to be fix, the results would be more of a warming trend.

    Satellites not thermometers are the most accurate in collecting temperature data that we know of, but space is a rough and hostile environment which create flaws. The sensors generally don’t last that long and always are in need of replacements. For example, the National Snow and Ice Data Center had removed it’s January and February 2009 arctic ice data because a sensor on a satellite was starting to deteriorate so badly that the sensor was slowly changing ice into water. The error wasn’t detected until a month later concerning the flawed data. Also, satellites tend not to stay on the same orbit, but drift. As a result, the data gets tainted. There have been six major revisions to fix the flaws. And again, the adjustment makes it look like there is a warming trend. Now when you take non-climate factors such as water, the Earth is mostly covered in water, the reduction in temperature data begins to appear. This sort of finding never gets included in the IPCC historical data collection.

    Here is something interesting…

    “The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the sea. The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.”

    Sounds like something in what you believe, right? Olorin

    Guess what, that report was by the US Weather Bureau in 1922! There is an old saying the more things change, the more they remain the same…lol

  19. Michael: “Where is the evidence that computer models can tell the difference between historical warming and cooling and man’s tiny contribution of CO2 compared to what nature produces? ”

    Your question makes no sense–a model of the effects of CO2 can’t tell the difference, because there is no difference. As to the amount of human produced contribution, the current concentration ios 384ppm. In 1822 it was 285. I’d hardy call a 70% increase “tiny.” Orbital and solar-output changes have been negligible during that time. Right now, CO2 is increasing during a 25-year decrease in solar output.

    It’s very obvious that you have no idea what a computer model (simulation) does, much less how to construct one.

    Michael: “Guess what, that report was by the US Weather Bureau in 1922! There is an old saying the more things change, the more they remain the same…lol”

    Guess what yourself. Human CO2 has been significant since the industrial revolution started in 1840. At that time, atmospheric CO2 was 260ppm, and had remained at substantially that level for the past 10,000 years.[1]

    RIA Novosti: ““Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.”

    I know you prefer the popular press over peer-reviewed literature, but since when is the Russian Communist Party’s foreign news organ entitled to that much weight?[2]

    There are all kinds of reasons for using some data but not others. The “heat-island” remark is just plain false. Data have been corrected for heat-island effect for many decades. As to “tampering”[3] with Russian data, very few data are actually used in their raw state. All kinds of corrections have to be made. The tree-ring data from East Anglia, for example, were found to have been influenced by drought conditions, and had to be revised in accordance with experiments on how rainfall affects ring size. (Even so, these papers were included in the IPCC report. You didn’t see them because you didn’t read the report.)

    RIA Novosti: “The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.”

    You can almost always show a contrary trend by cherry-picking the data. But it reappears when you put many different sets of data together, as the CRU has done.

    There are a few AGW skeptics who know what they are talking about, Michael. You are not one of them.

    I remember going to university football games with my kids. The fans all around us seemed to know more about what to do next than the coaches did, and were a lot more confident in their knowledge. I had to wonder why the coaches were paid megabucks when most of the fans were better then they were…..

    ===============
    [0] You can’t even get the name right: R(ossiiskoe) A(gentstvo) M(ezhdunarodnikh) Novostei. Usually rendered in English as R(ussian) I(nformation) A(gency) Novosti.

    [1] Quick science quiz. How do we measure the amount of atmospheric CO2 100,000 years ago? … chirp … chirp … I thought not.

    [2] The joke about Russian news is, “S Izvestia ne pravda, s pravda ne isvestia.” Sorry; the pun only works in Russian.

    [3] I’m still waiting for your explanation of what scientists mean by the words “trick,” “toy,” and “finagle.”

  20. Footnote [0] above was directed at your hash-up “RIONOVOSTI” for “RIA Novosti.” My Russian may be from 1957, but yours is from pure ignorance.

  21. You were lucky, Michael, that your source came along with some material that could be shoehorned into a reply on the 18th.

    You’d better ask him for another save. That one didn’t work. And you have no knowledge yourself to counter the comment on the 22d.

    What does that mean? It means time to start another subject, to draw attention away from your ignorance of climate change.

  22. Michael has no answers.

    His puppeteer has hung him out to twist in the wind.

    Chirp …… chirp …… chirp….. chirp ……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s