The Big Dog Is Back

Once again, it’s time for a Sunday stroll through the climate blogosphere.

Well, of course it’s Saturday as I write  this, but I have to travel tomorrow so this if I miss any big Sunday headlines, you’ll have to wait until I get settled in.

Here’s the picture:

6a00d8341c570e53ef011570695146970b-800wi

And here’s what I see out there today:

The Big Dog is back. Steve McIntyre, after dealing with family issues, is back with–what else–a blistering critique of Michael Mann’s AGU presentation, where Mann argued that observations really do match well with models. Umm, yeah Mike–not.

I don’t know about other bloggers, but the minute McIntyre posted my traffic and comments went up. It’s like the whole community comes alive and starts to prowl, looking for some kind of close encounter. Long may you run, Mac.

The thoroughly detestable Eli Rabett actually has four good posts at the top of his blog, something I cannot ever remember seeing. Actually, I can never remember seeing much of anything I like there, but your mileage may vary.

Rabett actually has a decent (if too short) description of the second round of California’s Cap and Trade auction, shows a 40-minute clip of Jennifer Francis talking about Xtreme Weather (wrong on so many counts, but if you’re looking for their side of the story, there it is), a decent musical interlude (I did that once here and a couple of times on my other blog, but nobody ever clicked on the video–do climate enthusiasts just hate music?), and re-blogs a James Fallow article on China that is really quite good (although Revkin at Dot Earth links to a better article here). But don’t scroll down any further, thinking that Rabett continues in that vein. It’s back to the same old Rabett droppings after that. Still, maybe he’s changing direction. Hey, it could happen…

Anthony Watts is one of several bloggers to post on the revival of the 70s, meaning I’ll have to drag my bell bottoms out as we re-enact the Dildoic Era. People (including some famous scientists) were worried about global cooling back then, until it was discovered that the glitter balls in the discos were intercepting the radiation and sending it directly back into space. Even the Top of Atmosphere readings were getting nothing but Donna Summers.

Roger Pielke was busy stealing my thunder, writing an excellent article in the Breakthrough Institute about how much energy we’re going to be using in the future and how much more it is than we currently think. You can go read his blog post about the article, the article itself, or my masterly treatment of the topic in only 21 pages! Masterly, I tell you! Masterly!

Think Progress is getting so boring that I don’t think even the writers can stand to read it. TP’s strength was always their coverage of green technology news. So guess what they haven’t done in umpteen years? Yeah.

So that’s it for this week–sorry it’s a bit short, but I have to finish packing. Expect a lighter blog output from me for most of the week, but I’ll try and get something up now and then.

Enjoy your Sunday.

 

About these ads

47 responses to “The Big Dog Is Back

  1. Since you are mentioning a blast from the past – 70s cooling – and yesterday posted on Oregonians protesting bottled water, you might consider a post combining old news and Oregon. Specifically, the saga of the assistant State of Washington climatologist and the Oregon Climatologist being fired for telling the truth about snow.

    Actually, George Taylor took “early retirement” from Oregon State University and thus lost his position as state climatologist. His crime was showing that Pacific Northwest snowpack was cyclical, when the Oregon and Washington governors wished to show that global warming was reducing snow, with a blatant cherry-pick of starting the study period during snowy 1950, and ending it in the mid-1990s when there was little snow. The scientists’ crime was showing all the available data.

    Which brings us to Mann’s claiming the models were correct, and the Extreme weather claims. The people who over-reach and exaggerate just help their opponents, and further damage their credibility.

    • Coincidently, in a post yesterday at Master Resource, there was a link to an article about the Oregon State – George Taylor – snow saga. I had some of the details wrong, but I remembered this part correctly:

      “Mote’s previous position was Washington State Climatologist at the University of Washington, where he repeatedly pointed to a 50% decline in mountain snows between 1950 and the mid-1990s. But there are data available after 1995 and before 1950, and when all the data are taken together — thanks in part to the fact that it has snowed plenty there in the last 15 years — the strong decline is erased.”

      http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/more-political-climate-science

  2. I can see people having respect for Hansen to some degree, although I don’t share this due to his hyperbole once he gets on WP or NYT, but Mann is just a basket case, both politically and technically.

    If you started looking into climate science by investigating the Hockey Stick controversy (as I did), and you have the requisite technical skill to separate the wheat from the chaff, it is hard not to exit a skeptic.

    One of the ways you can tell climate science has run amok is their inability or unwillingness to throw Mann under the bus when he keeps running around in traffic like a crazy person. He has become a sacred cow (as has the HS) to the movement.

    Which leads him to do things such as his latest AGU trick without fear that anyone will call him on it. You would guess that half the audience just rolls there eyes when they see graphs like this and ask themselves “Is this really helping?”.

    Skeptics love him. He’s a target rich environment.

    • I think it just comes down to the fact that some on that aide of the fence just really want him to be right.

      Sent from my iPhone

      • CBDunkerson

        Ummm… ‘want’ has nothing to do with it. He simply WAS right. Every subsequent temperature reconstruction, including the few done by ‘skeptics’, have validated the conclusions of the hockey stick.

        Seriously, only climate ‘skeptics’ are irrational enough to look at a situation where ALL of the evidence gives one answer and conclude that the opposite MUST be true.

      • Thomas Fuller

        Yes, every study done using the same data and the same procedures will tend to produce similar results. And I guess it no longer matters if those results correspond to reality.

        Sent from my iPhone

      • CBD-

        “He simply WAS right.”

        Well,…no.

        On the hockey stick, his reconstruction does generally resemble many later ones (in particular those also using bristlecone pines, Yamal, Tiljander, etc.) but his statistical methodology was bad. If he had read the entrails of goats to come up with his reconstruction, would you still say he was ‘right’ because others had used proper statistics to reach the same conclusions?

        As for the latest post on Mannian follies at Climate Audit, SM makes very clear that Mann was, at best, inadvertently misleading, but misleading nonetheless. How could Mann not know that the last five years of data would have made his slide show a very different picture than his talk? It has the appearance of either ignorance or mendacity, and neither reflects well on him…

        The irrationality I see here is the pretense that Mann doesn’t make mistakes. When the mistakes are clear, yet denied so vehemently, it destroys trust in both the denier (you) and the object of denial (Mann). Honestly, this kind of crap has done more damage to ‘the cause’ than possibly anything else.

      • CBD

        Go look at the data. Look at all the individual trends of each separate tree. It’s an unbelievable mess. Putting them all in a blender and inventing new statistics to pull out a hockey stick isn’t very convincing, and neither is a “bad math, right answer” apology.

        I have no misgivings you are ever going to say anything but the party line, but when the data is that bad, you can pull just about any graph shape you want from it using different statistical methods. Unlike you, I’m not saying it is or isn’t a HS, I’m saying you can’t tell much of anything from that mess of data. You can do just as well with voodoo and astrology.

    • CBD is hallucinating again. This is fun.
      Thanks,CBD!

  3. Time for a Mac Attack.

  4. “Yes, every study done using the same data and the same procedures will tend to produce similar results.”

    That’s true… though obviously irrelevant since various subsequent studies did NOT use the same data OR procedures. But hey… any pretext needed to dismiss evidence you don’t want to believe, right?

  5. I never listen to music or click on video links. Give me text or give me hot dogs and mac, a baseball game, a day at the beach, a bike ride, a climb – anything but video.

  6. Conrad Dunkerson

    kch wrote: “The irrationality I see here is the pretense that Mann doesn’t make mistakes. When the mistakes are clear, yet denied so vehemently, it destroys trust in both the denier (you) and the object of denial (Mann).”

    Except, of course, that you just made this nonsense up. I never said Mann didn’t make mistakes. Heck, even Mann has acknowledged that principle component analysis wasn’t the best way to handle determination of the long term temperature. It would have worked better for pulling out the ‘natural cycles’ that they expected to find, but once it was clear that they weren’t seeing any on that timescale they should have gone back and redone the analysis. However, the mistake is understandable because the only notable conclusion they wound up finding was the large spike in temperatures at the end of the series… and that would not have (and has not) changed. So yes. Mistake. Just a rather insignificant one that ‘skeptics’ have distorted completely out of reality.

    BTW, you might want to be careful with that word ‘denier’. Our host supposedly doesn’t like it.

    • Thomas Fuller

      That’s corect, but will have to wait for remediation as I’m doing this via mobile.

      It’s not the blade CBd. It’s the shaft.

      Sent from my iPhone

      • Conrad Dunkerson

        “It’s not the blade CBd. It’s the shaft.”

        That’s actually what I was saying about PCA.

        Yes, fluctuations in the ‘shaft’ could be (and now have been) more accurately calculated using other methods… but only within the error bars of the original hockey stick… which were all below the ‘blade’. From their analysis Mann and co concluded that temperatures in recent decades were very likely the highest over the time period. Redoing the analysis to try to show more of the variation / narrow the error bars would not have changed that result. Once they realized that there were no ‘natural cycles’ in play they should have redone the analysis anyway, but I can understand how after having spent all that time to find that their initial assumptions were incorrect they just went out with the one notable result they did find rather than starting over.

        So again, mistake? Yep.
        ‘Evil scientist plot to deceive the world!’? Nope.

      • Thomas Fuller

        Well, we could just fast forward to the end of the discussion, after I quote Briffa and Cook about the MWP and Mann’s shoddy work, and after you say it doesn’t mean anything about global warming and I say of course not, this is about competence and ethics, not AGW and you get miffed because I used the E word and I say you need to choose better icons and you say that’s what you said when we had this discussion last time and I say yeah it’s Deja voodoo.

        Did I miss anything?

        Sent from my iPhone

      • Tom-

        Given that I used denied/denier/denial very clearly in their original sense, not in the current climate wars pejorative sense, what would your objection be? I understand, ‘your blog, your rules’, but I’m not sure what circumlocution you would prefer.

      • Thomas Fuller

        Hi kWh

        I’m not upset at all, but I think I should practice a foolish inconsistency.

        Sent from my iPhone

      • CBD-

        “‘Evil scientist plot to deceive the world!’?”

        You seem to be quoting someone here. Who? Or are you just making nonsense up?

    • CBD-

      Good to see that you are willing to admit Mann might have been mistaken in his earlier methodology. Still, you said “He simply WAS right.” If the math was bad, the conclusion being close to reality is merely accidental, not right. So why would you insist that he was right when even he seems to admits he was wrong? You’ll have to forgive me for reading your words as a reflexive defense of Mann’s infallibility.

      And as Tom Fuller points out, the notable conclusion was not the blade, but the shaft, and the shaft was the part of the reconstruction created by the Mann-o-matic. Hardly an insignificant error.

      • kch,
        You are making the fallacy of taking CBD and his rants seriously.
        Enjoy his spew as a nice example of the irrational fanatic it is. And he does this for free!

      • Hunter-

        No fallacy, really. I’ve long since discovered that I learn a great deal more by taking people seriously. Frequently it’s only learning more about them, not the subject at hand, but occasionally I do actually learn something new. Worth trying with everyone at least once.

        Of course, sometimes I’m just bored and want to poke under rocks with a stick…

      • As a former herper, I can relate to poking under rocks, lol. Perhaps that helps account for my reaction to the angry posters hiding (or not) in the blogosphere…. ;^)

  7. kch wrote: “Given that I used denied/denier/denial very clearly in their original sense, not in the current climate wars pejorative sense, what would your objection be?”

    Well, obviously, it would be the most ridiculous sort of hypocrisy to assume that whenever a ‘warmist’ uses the word “denier” they are making a vile and disgusting comparison to nazis (which is Tom’s stated position), but then to conversely assume that ‘skeptics’ using the same term are just saying that the person denies something.

    Also: “You seem to be quoting someone here.”

    Nope. Look up the term “scare quotes”. Generally, if I put something in single quotation marks (like, say, ‘skeptic’) that means the term is a paraphrase, approximation, or in some other way imprecise/inaccurate.

    Also: “If the math was bad, the conclusion being close to reality is merely accidental, not right.”

    No, this is incorrect. There was no ‘math error’ of the sort represented by ‘2+2=5′. Rather, the problem was the equivalent of using a telephoto lens to take a picture of an open field. A wide angle lens would have been a MUCH better choice for viewing the entire area… but either way you are going to be able to see that the field is full of blue flowers. To translate that into the actual situation… Mann & co were expecting to find that global temperatures went through repeating patterns of overlapping ‘natural cycles’ and thus used a methodology called principal component analysis, which is ideally suited for breaking such overlapping patterns into their component parts. Unfortunately for them, it turned out that there weren’t ANY such repeating cycles with impacts large enough to be detectable and thus the only statistically significant components they could identify were a long term gradual cooling (i.e. the shaft) and a sharp recent warming (i.e. the blade). Everything else failed to show an identifiable trend and thus had little impact on the analysis except to increase the error bars. Had there been the sort of pronounced natural cycles of temperature change which they expected to find then PCA would have been a perfect choice for identifying those cycles and showing past temperature fluctuations. Since there WEREN’T it turned out to be a poor choice in that it instead only showed the two major trends (i.e. long term cooling and short term warming) and left everything else (i.e. fluctuations on the ‘shaft’) as a huge potential error range. However, just as you can still tell that a field is full of blue flowers with a telephoto lens, so too can you tell that there was long term gradual cooling and short term rapid warming with PCA. Those findings are completely valid despite the fact that a different analysis method could have told us MORE.

    Finally: “And as Tom Fuller points out, the notable conclusion was not the blade, but the shaft…”

    I assumed that Tom was saying that the shaft being ‘mostly flat’ was the part that was incorrect (not the blade of rapidly increasing temperatures). That is true, as explained above. It is NOT correct that the notable conclusions of the study related to the shaft. Indeed, MBH 98 noted that the analysis method created a large uncertainty range for the shaft and thus prevented any conclusions regarding fluctuations therein. The ONLY notable conclusions of the study were in reference to the blade… most specifically that even with the huge uncertainty range on the shaft the blade still showed higher temperatures than any prior point for hundreds of years and likely for the entire data period.

    • So Mann and pals say that their work is correct, after careful review by Mann and pals..
      The Bible is true and accurate because the Bible says it is true and accurate.
      Keep the faith, CBD. keep the faith.

    • Roger Caiazza

      With all due respect you miss the point. The iconic graphic was the flat shaft and sharp blade described as an unprecedented rise in temperature over the period of record of the stick. Throw in the graphic of the CO2 emissions and concentrations rising at the same time as the blade and it was nobel prize winning sound byte science. That it was incorrect and not acknowledged as incorrect by the climate science establishment is sad, disappointing, frustrating and likely, in the long run, to set back the “cause”.

      • Conrad Dunkerson

        With all due respect, the “unprecedented rise in temperature over the period of record of the stick” was correct. As was the “graphic of the CO2 emissions and concentrations rising at the same time”.

        The incorrect part was that the wiggles in the stick should have been more wiggly. It is sad, disappointing, and frustrating that so many people continue to insist on believing in fiction.

    • If you want to argue about the math…

      The shaft takes a huge amount of conflicting data and processes it to try to arrive at something close to truth. Part of the processing is “fancy averaging” or low pass filtering. Regardless of the specifics of the numerical methods, it has that affect.

      You are removing the high frequency information from the tree ring data, or all the “spikey stuff” because it is so full of conflicts. Well OK I can live with that and it is commonly done with noisy data.

      However what you can’t do is than just append the recent raw temperature data (duh blade) from the last 150 years that hasn’t been low pass filtered (like the tree ring data), and then conclude:

      “Look, the end of the graph is the only place where spikey stuff has shown up and that means blah blah blah…”. It is literally comparing apples to oranges. Numerically invalid.

      It’s OK to make this mistake, hard core numerical statistical processing is hard to get right. What is not OK is to continue to use the same method after your mistake has been pointed out to you, and what is doubly not OK is to disparage the person who pointed out your error in the hopes that this will make people overlook your mistake.

      And triply not OK is when the surrounding fan boys elevate your stature as a defensive reflex to their perception you were unfairly attacked, but they clearly don’t understand the math.

      • Conrad Dunkerson

        Setting aside your dismissal of statistics in general… the claim that combining data sets (i.e. proxies vs thermometer readings) is some kind of verboten impossibility is just silly. It can be and is done all the time. You just have to demonstrate that the data sets match up for the period of overlap… which at this point is the ENTIRE “raw temperature data” record. Which also means that is now possible to do the ENTIRE ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction with proxy data if you really want to stick to the myth that using actual measurements is ‘inaccurate’.

      • Speaking of denial of stats, time after time real statisticians have pointed out how the AGW hypesters have abused stats. And of course the climategate leaks show the ‘team’ carefully deceiving people by way of math and stats.
        The amusing example we see on this thread of at once admitting the ‘shaft’ of Mann’s hockey stick is filled with huge error bars and guesstimates, and also fervently, rabidly and angrily defending the ‘blade’ is a source for endless entertainment.

      • CBD,

        Willfully ignoring my point?

        The data processing methods used on tree ring data and raw temperature records were very different. The high frequency info was maintained in the raw temp record, and the high freq info was purposefully removed in tree ring data. The observation was then made that only the end of the now appended graph had high freq info in it (a spike).

        This is bad math, bad science.

        And no, it is not good science to append disparate data sets. And if you do you should use the same numerical methods on both data sets, and you should make the fact clear to the viewer what you are using disparate data sets.

        The HS matches a portion of the temperature record up to 1980 because the proxy data was specifically and intentionally tuned to match it (the training period). That is how it is calibrated. Tree rings don’t come with Celsius gauges printed on them.

        The fact that the tree ring data diverged from the temperature record almost immediately after the training period is a bit worrisome, and has never been sufficiently explained. Nobody seems to be working on it either. Hmmmm…..

    • CBD –

      Let’s see now…

      Use of the d-word: Tom can defend himself and his policies on this. I’m not sure I agree with his policy, but again, his blog, his rules. If you or I dislike them, we can always go elsewhere. At least I tried to offer a coherent explanation for my use as per the original meaning. I’d love a suggestion for a word to replace it. It is useful in its older context.

      Quoting/paraphrasing: Thanks for the lesson on how *you* use quotes. Other people do use them differently or inconsistently. Of course, it does leave the unanswered question of who or what you were paraphrasing. I can’t find anything close to that above, so I’ll still have to go with ‘making up nonsense’ on your part.

      Bad math: Both Tom Scharf and Tom Fuller have expressed it better than I can (as have numerous individuals at Climate Audit). Argue with them. If you can convince them of your position I would entertain a change in my position. Besides that, I prefer my ‘goat entrails’ analogy to your ‘blue flowers’ analogy. Much punchier…

      Blade vs Shaft: see above comment. I would note, though that the rising temperatures weren’t really at issue – it was the ‘unprecedented rise’ that was trumpeted as notable. And that, of course, relied on the brand new flat shaft, making it the actually notable conclusion.

      Still, as Hunter says, “Keep the faith, CBD. keep the faith.” I think you need it more than I do.

      • Conrad Dunkerson

        So, basically… it doesn’t matter what I say. You’re going to believe what you want to believe. That’s fine. Just don’t pretend that you’ve arrived at your ‘conclusions’ by any method other than ‘I choose to believe Tom/Tom & Climate Audit rather than think for myself’.

        “I would note, though that the rising temperatures weren’t really at issue – it was the ‘unprecedented rise’ that was trumpeted as notable. And that, of course, relied on the brand new flat shaft, making it the actually notable conclusion. ”

        Yes indeed, the unprecedented rise in temperatures… aka ‘the blade’ was the notable conclusion. You seem to think that relied on ‘the shaft’ being ‘flat’, but of course it did not. Nothing even in the POTENTIAL range of variation of the shaft could match the sharp rise seen on the blade. That’s the point. The hockey stick and subsequent studies have shown that the recent rate of temperature rise is much greater than anything else in the period we have detailed data for.

      • CBD-

        Several quick points for you to continue to misinterpret or ignore (your choice):

        – I do think for myself, and one of the things I think is that other people are far better at explaining/debating certain things than I am. My invitation to you to debate those individuals was an acknowledgement of their superiority in these matters, nothing else. We can’t all be skilled at everything, can we? Any change in my position would come from following the debate, not some slavish devotion to the position of any one man.

        – If the shaft was incorrect, it’s really a stretch to claim that the rise was ‘unprecedented’. My goat entrails also indicated a huge POTENTIAL range of variation. That doesn’t make them right. And remember, you started this by claiming that “He simply WAS right.”

        – Please define ‘detailed data’. If by that you mean thermometer readings, of course there is a temperature rise: we’ve spent that era recovering from the LIA. Of course, that recovery started well before GHG’s really took effect. If you mean proxy data, well…it’s far too easy to have them demonstrate anything. You just have to choose your preferred proxies and methodology. Tom Sharf said it best: “Unlike you, I’m not saying it is or isn’t a HS, I’m saying you can’t tell much of anything from that mess of data.

  8. What’s most amazing and disconcerting in this whole thing is that nobody involved in these fights actually spends any time trying to actually understand the scientific and mathematical basis of how tree rings predict–or fail to predict–climatic states generally. It’s just a constant reference to Mann, McIntyre, and “hockey sticks”, as if those are the only three entities that matter. Truly, blog discussions have taken on a life of their own and become disconnected from actual science discussions. Don’t you people ever get tired of this crap?

    McIntyre will always be obsessed with Mann and Mann will always fire back at McIntyre. They always have and they likely always will. And then a bunch of hangers-on will be obsessed with the fight between them.

    Jesus Christ get past it already. Spend some time actually learning something about paleoclimatology and reading something other than blog pieces about Mann and McIntryre.

    • Jim, want a guest post on the subject? I’ve read on the subject and I don’t think I could write on it successfully.

      • Sorry for the slow reply Tom, and thanks for the offer.

        I’m over-loaded right now and the pieces on my own site take whatever time I do have. And those are more general and fundamental issues than the specifics of the hockey stick. And I may even have to drop that for a while.

    • Those are interesting points, but I’d challenge you to tell me why a non-scientist, like me, with three small kids, like me, and an active life, like me, should spend several days digging into the details of paleo. Is it because we can’t trust the paleo field to sort it out?
      It seems to me that paleo tells us either that temps have been flat for over a thousand years until they started spiking in the 1970s.
      Or that today’s warm period is about as warm, maybe even cooler, as ones during the Roman period, medieval times, and the 1930s.
      The path to reconciling those views is not to insist that salesmen, like me, read the peer-reviewed literature over a beer after a 10-hour day while the kids are begging for attention.

    • Relitigating the HS is a waste of everyone’s time.

      But what happens after you do investigate the subject and find out that things are not on the up and up? Mann’s math is sketchy? McIntyre’s points are valid? And the climate science community’s response to the errors is not to correct them, but to deflect, demonize, and obfuscate?

      What then?

      I conclude the field of climate science has science ethics issues, likely due to environmental activism fueled by politics. Possibly I’m wrong, but I did look into the HS in a fair amount of detail and have a technical background. If they are wrong on this high profile case, well…

    • “Spend some time actually learning something about paleoclimatology and reading something other than blog pieces about Mann and McIntryre.”
      I couldn’t agree more.

  9. Jeff, I’m not sure your position is tenable. We have all had to get up to speed on issues that we never imagined would be relevant to us in order to make decisions in the voting booth, business and household.

    Why should this be any different?

    • Not sure I agree. We do read up. I’ve read up enough to know there is a disagreement in paleo. Just as I read up enough to know there was a disagreement in the medical community as to whether we should put my son (born last September) to bed on his belly or his back. Ultimately, I trusted the doctor.
      Because I’m not going to go to medical school to derive my own answer.
      We read the back and forth between McIntyre and Mann because the former has raised some very good points and the latter isn’t answering them. We read the battles between those who think climate sensitivity is high and those who think it’s low because we (at least I) don’t know who’s right (though I’m leaning in a particular way).
      If you’re going to wait around for waitresses, salesmen and stock brokers to read the primary literature (and take some refresher courses at the local college so they can understand them) you will be waiting a long, long time. This is why the appeal to authority is so strong, but it’s also why Mann’s antics can so easily kill it.

    • Tom –

      “Why should this be any different?”

      Because Jim Bouldin is demanding a level of specialized knowledge well beyond the time constraints of most people, and certainly beyond the interest of most people. Decisions are made at the ballot box based, at best, on general, broad understandings. Climatology is a large field, and demanding that everyone have specialized knowledge of a sub-field within it before discussing the implications of its findings is just a little arrogant. Very few people have the time or energy to collect the level of knowledge in a sub field that Jim has. Lord knows I don’t.

      So we look for the findings and the implications reported. And the findings? Well yes, we mostly collect those from blogs, as the media are generally useless on technical matters. The blogs are our source of reports from the people who have spent the time to understand the subject. At least if you read enough blogs you can easily gain the broad understanding needed to make decisions – and that’s all most of us are after.

      So I’m with JeffN on this, Tom.

  10. JeffN and kch’s general points are valid. I’ll try to re-think and re-state my position.

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