Let’s talk climate

Ordinarily I don’t read RedState.com, but they had a couple reader questions there I’d like to pose to my audience.  I am not convinced that any warming which may be taking place (even though reports now show no warming in at least 16 years) is the result of human intervention.  As I come across links from reputable news sources and educational institutions which calls into question the alarmist’s call to action to save the world, I save them for future reference.  I’ve got quite a few.

Over the past couple of years I have discovered that everything causes climate change, and that man is chiefly responsible.  Honestly, it’s difficult to take seriously climate change Gurus such as Al Gore, who has made hundreds of millions of dollars foisting upon the populace the notion that we are doomed unless we use curly light bulbs.  Buying into his premise is made all the more difficult when he sells his failed TV channel, Current TV, to Al-Jezzera, a foreign news station funded largely by “Big Oil”.  Regardless, Al Gore’s flaming hypocrisy doesn’t mean he’s wrong, just that he’s a flaming hypocrite.

Such is life.  Here are the questions:

Comments

  1. There have been global warming and cooling periods throughout history – it’s just a cycle and man can do nothing about it. Follow the money to see who is getting rich or getting monetary benefits from the “man-caused global warming” propaganda.

  2. This idea that the planet has gone through heating and cooling periods previously is used to throw out all sorts of environmental science by the christian right. For instance for the last 7 years, the world, led by China and the US, has produced 33 million metric tonnes of CO2. The anthropogenic production of these greenhouse gasses have increased on an average of 1,200% since the beginning of the Industrial revolution, led by CO2, methane and ozone. The greenhouse effect is a fact, not some flighty scare tactic invented by Gore. The radiative forcing effects are measurable. Even by christians. What if for the sake of a million other reasons we agreed just for shits and giggles that global warming has no human element and it was a completely natural/god manufactured event, that could lead to 100’s of millions of deaths, prior to the 2nd coming no doubt. Shouldn’t we, as a matter of the moral imperative, seek to reduce the cumulative gasses and subsequent effects? Al Gore is as relevant to legitimate environmental science as your “reputable” news outlets and educational institutions.

    • R.Nash,
      Yeah, yeah, yeah. And how recent was it that both Time and Newsweek were clamoring about “Global Cooling” because of the same events?

      How many metric tons of CO2 have been spewed for by massive volcanic eruptions, and yet we still go on as before. No amount of Federal laws or waste of tax dollars will change anything about the climate, but they will certainly cost more jobs and place more people at the poverty level.

      God is not going to let His planet be destroyed. You may not accept that as a truism because you don’t accept God. You can suppress the truth all you want, but God is still there.

    • There it is again! Is global warming a religious issue? Isn’t Al Gore a Christian? Or is he just one of “the good ones”?

      And since when is nature seen by atheists to be God? When a Christian uses nature as a cause for a physical phenomenon? Atheists always ask for scientific proof. We provide it (natural cycles), and we’re accused of invoking God?

      If you want to attack something that’s been said by a Christian, I’d suggest you go back to Al Gore. Perhaps his belief in the culpability of God’s children should give you some reason to question him.

  3. Glenn, science tells us that if you jump off a cliff, gravity will cause you to fall and harm or kill yourself. It’s a scientific fact that you WILL fall and a reasonable guess as to the harm done to your body can be offered.

    Now, you could say, “God isn’t going to let God’s People be destroyed,” but that belief won’t change the science behind your stepping off a cliff.

    You’re welcome to all your opinions you want. You’re not welcome to your own facts.

    Our actions DO have consequences. This is not only a real-world, observable Fact, it is a biblical Truth. It would be blind folly to say, “We can do whatever we want to this world and God will stop it from being damaged/destroyed,” and rational people would reject that claim, as would people who are concerned about Truth as it relates to God.

    • Dan,
      Again you go right to the logic fallacy of reification. “Science” doesn’t say anything. People do. Scientists do.

      Gravity is something that is observed on a daily basis and has been proven to exist by daily experience. Man-caused global warming has NOT been proven, and is debated among scientists (or do you read only data from scientists who walk lock-step with liberal political agenda?), and is still only a theory. What has been proven is that climate change is affected by sunspots. To what degree, I haven’t read of any certain conclusions.

      You sure like that little worthless cliche of yours – You’re not welcome to your own facts.. Facts are facts no matter who gives them. Truth is truth no matter who says it. Facts and truth are what conform to reality. It is you who make thing up out of whole cloth and then call it fact.

      No one denies that our actions have consequences. That does not therefore follow that there is such a thing as man-caused global warming. The actual FACTS are that the world has gone through warming and cooling cycles throughout history. The actual FACT is that God is not going to allow man to destroy the atmosphere before He calls all things to an end. The actual FACT is that man is arrogant to think that his anything he does can change that.

  4. Oh, and one more thing, Trabue, You have no business even mentioning “Truth as it relates to God” – You don’t even know what that is. You twist the Truth of God into lies all the time so as to support your immoral and heretical belief system called the social gospel, including the blasphemy of claiming God approves of the sin of homosexual behavior even though God called it an abomination in his sight!

  5. First, I wasn’t able to answer the first poll question, because it mentions both climate change and environment, and I see those as two seperate questions. Also, it does not specify whether it’s anthropogenic climate change or not; again, two different issues.

    Second, oh how predictable! Nash jumps right into the science vs Christianity trope (and, of course, it’s the Christian *right*). That is so full of BS, it’s tiresome. Seriously.

    I’ve been researching ACC (anthropogenic climate change) for about 6-7 years now. Not as much anymore, as the evidence against ACC has become so overwhelming, I’m honestly surprised when I hear someone say they still believe in it. It’s not science. It’s dogma. A conclusion is already predetermined (evil humans are killing the planet) and any evidence to the contrary is rejected simply because it does not match the predetermined conclusion.

    CO2 does not drive climate change. It’s effects are algorythmic. The more there is, the less of an affect is has on temperature. This has been known for decades. Claims to the contrary require deliberately ignoring established, scientifically measurable, results.

    CO2 levels have fluctuated a great deal over the millenia. It is vital to the health of plant life on our planet. At 250ppm, growth begins to stagnate. At 200ppm, it begins to have a detrimental effect on plant growth. In the past, CO2 levels have been as high as 4000ppm, and it was a time of explosive growth.

    For the sake of space, I’m not going to go on about water vapour (the dominant greenhouse gas) or methane. I could also go on for pages about people not being able to tell the difference between CO, CO2 and carbon, or the changes from anthropogenic global warming to ACC to “global weirding”. Not only is the physical evidence clear that humans are too insignificant to influence climate on a global scale, the so-called scientists that have been most dedicated to proving ACC have been found to be incredibly and deliberately fraudulant. They’ve had to fudge the data to do things like “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” and the Roman Climate Optimum, both periods that saw much warmer global temperatures then we’ve had in the past century, and both periods that saw significant improvement in life conditions for humans, flora and fauna.

    I’m old enough to remember being taught in school that we were about to go into a new ice age. We were going to run out of oil before I hit high school. Humanity was doomed, and it was all our own fault, because we are parasites. A disease on the face of the Earth. This sort of attitude has been around for as long as humanity, predating Christianity. In the past, people would blame it on things like witchcraft. Today, it’s blamed on the use of hydrocarbons. It’s still a witch hunt.

  6. The byplay between Dan and Glen is interesting. It seems as though Glen is arguing that God is, in fact, sovereign and the He has a plan. Glen also seems to be arguing that God’s plan has a specific end scenario, and that God will do what is necessary for His plan to play out the way He intends.

    Dan, on the other hand, seems to be arguing that the consequences of human action can somehow trump God’s sovereign plan.

    I could be mistaken about either or both positions, but it sure seems as though those are the two positions being taken.

    • Craig,
      You are correct that I am saying that God is sovereign, and the Bible tells us his end plan. Since God has decided when and how he will bring everything to an end, there is nothing man can do to mess up His timetable.

  7. Climate Change is very real.

    Anthropologic Climate Change is bullshit.

    Answers:

    1). Not at all concerned.

    2. Natural Gas, Oil, Nuclear.

    Who is this R. Nash dip-shit? The Ordovician-Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous saw C02 levels greater than 4000 parts per million by volume, yet it was a time of intense glaciation.

    So damaging is that fact to Nash’s argument, he’ll give us a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about growing mountains, dim suns, and a litany of other unproven “scientific” nonsense utilized to safeguard their Pagan faith from real science.

    These clowns aren’t scientists, but followers of a new religion, a quasi-paganism, and that which they repeat is something close to scripture. Ye of little faith? No, he’s not.

    “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them. No common man could be that foolish.” George Orwell.

    • A lot of casting aspersions, judgements and the invoking of truths/facts. It is this same line of of pseudo-intellectual banter from the likes of the clubsters on here to fall prey continuously to both confirmation and omission bias. No discourse on the questions I posed. Just more blathering and self righteous gibberish from those who have no relevant scientific background and are spoon fed anything and everything regarding science by the likes of AFR or some equivalent. I mean by your collective logic the list of Superfund sites just here in the states is just part of your gods plan and none of the PCB’s in the Hudson are a bad thing….sorry I just can’t get there. By the dreamy and godly reasoning here the cleanup in Ashford NY of radioactive leachate (2.4 mil gallons) is a ok because it didn’t affect global warming. This is just 1 of 323 RCRA/NPL sites just in NY state.
      And the real howl is the invoking of Orwell on this list to attempt to justify moral and intellectual clarity and absolute rightness. He is spinning in his grave at high speed over that folly.

  8. Paul Alexander says:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com <– if you can posit an argument against climate change that isn't directly addressed and rebutted in the contents of this site, boy, would I love to hear it.

    The science on man-made climate change is quite settled. The only debate is a political and cultural one.

  9. Nash, words flow out, but meaninglessness abounds. Gibberish is a good word for whatever the heck you’re trying to say here.

    Paul, any site that starts by talking about “climate change deniers” is clearly not going to be about “science”, but about the demonization of anyone who disagrees. This is not a science site. It’s an activist site. The claims made on this site have been repeatedly refuted, and they have been frequently revealed to be fast and loose with the truth.

    However, if you care to look, here’s a few sites you might want to start with. I realize they are run by some of those evil “deniers”, which likely means you’ve already rejected them, but hey; it’s worth a shot.

    http://www.co2science.org/ – specifically studying the effects of CO2 and posting the results.
    http://climateaudit.org/ – from one of the people who exposed the “hockey stick” as the fraud it was.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/ – covering a wide range of related topics, run by the person who exposed this…
    http://surfacestations.org/ – exposing the problems with so many stations, with such incredible examples as having stations built over BBQs, in parking lots, etc.
    http://www.climategate.com/ – more links then you can shake a stick at
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ – more relevant links
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/ – the blog of an author that has revealed many of the IPCCs false claims

    Just the tip of the iceberg…

  10. sally1137 says:

    Kunoichi,

    Good arguments and I agree, but for me they are overshadowed by the awesome pun you (inadvertently?) used:

    “CO2 does not drive climate change. It’s effects are algorythmic.”

    Al-Gorythmic. SRBON! (Snort Root Beer Out Nose) :)

    • Your problem, Nash, is that you’re all over the place, making accusations, throwing out unrelated drivel, then projecting your own assumptions onto me. You’re clearly not at all interested in actually looking at all the information out there, other than that which corresponds with your preconcieved conclusions. Then you turn and accuse *me* of avoiding things because they don’t match *my* world view? That’s laughable.

      Your “queries” are strawman distractions, and I don’t play those games.

      • So easily distracted…. I didn’t mean to so easily confuse you with so much gibberish. My apologies. I will try to bring it down a few notches so you don’t have to play catch up all the time.

        • Nash, will you be addressing my follow up post which links to climate related news stories with any specificity, or will you be avoiding it?

          • I could John, but to what end? I could post just as many links relating human activities to global warming. Then we just distill this discourse down to the usual you vs me. I made an attempt to get some sort of clarification as to whether or not we had, as a group, any common ground. It appears that largely we do not. And for the record I was kicked out of my first environmental ethics class in 2003 because of my inability to just swallow the drivel that was passed for scientific inquiry in this field. It was just as bad as much of the “anti global warming, it’s all just a conspiracy yapping”. It’s not in my nature to just take anothers opinion or “truth” as being factual.

            • nash, I’m not asking you to post links. I’m asking how is it there can be reputable studies and sources which completely contradict the narrative you offer? If the science is so settled, that is.

              • Firstly, “reputable” should be called into question since so much research in any field is special interest driven. Secondly, I honestly don’t think that we are at a point with respect to the types of data needed or the sheer magnitude of it that we are technologically in a place to conclusively say one way or another, which I think I should have explained in my very first post.

            • Nash, who is James Hansen and what side of the aisle does he fall on the climate debate? Is he reputable?

              • Why are you asking me a rhetorical question with regards to Hansen. It is obvious what side of the aisle he falls on. His work is some of the best and most objectively legitimate research in the field. His resume is impeccable. I would ask that if you don’t trust his work, then what “special interest” axe is he grinding? I would suggest reading Bowen’s book on the matter of the censorship Hansen has faced. Its a good read. Anytime we see a scientist/researcher in any field being censored, it should perk our ears up.

                Please tell me why his work in the fields of astrophysics and climatology should be called bunk across the board.

                That said there are a few things that I think if he manages to live another 25 years he will alter his position on. Namely the carbon sink idea.

              • I’m seriously asking what side he falls on, because he recently admitted there’s been no warming for at least a decade

  11. Please answer the query Kunoichi, don’t just purposefully avoid it because it doesn’t match your world view. Do you think, along with glenn that the actions we take and the messes we fabricate, i.e. Love Canal or Rocky Flats Arsenal, are irrelevant? Just part of the status quo? No need to worry because it’s all part of your gods plan? What about the aforementioned greenhouse gas output? Should those and their related particulates only increase? Should we return the lead and sulphur to gasoline? What about MBTE? If we agree to say that the anthropogenic cause regarding global warming is inconclusive, can we agree that these other events and by products are a net negative for all of us? To what extent are any of you capable of objectively assessing any and all of the information that you so willingly disseminate? If you are always in lockstep with everything that your cultural/political demographic espouses as “the” truth and its rightness, how can you ever be considered capable of any objectivity?

    • R.Nash,
      You made a false charge with your addition of pollution problems that were not the subject of the article, i.e., man-caused global warming.

      I firmly believe, and every Christian I know believes, that we are indeed called to be good stewards of the earth. The Love Canal, etc, are problem areas caused by man which can be rectified. These are not in the same category as global warming, because man has not caused global warming and there is nothing we can do to fix it. It has been proven to be a cyclic thing, going from cooling periods to warming periods, without any input from man.

      If you want to discuss man-caused pollution in all those other venues, do it at another blog which is discussing that topic, or wait for John to post one on that topic. This blog article is only about “climate change” and not about all those other issues which you have decided to attack at least ME for saying something I never even intimated.

      • Sorry glenn, no false charge. I purposefully stated in my first post a different question. As long as you want to unflinchingly grasp at your illogical idea that humans are not in the least bit responsible for global warming, that dialogue wasn’t going to go anywhere. At a minimum, the jury is still out as to the extent our involvement. Where I see the data as showing that we still have a lot of work to do in determining how much of a role we may or may not play, you unequivocally say that the truth is yours, in denying that we could possibly play any role. Your absolutionist delusion makes you an easy mark.

  12. @sally – I completely missed the pun! *L*

  13. Sure thing, Nash. Whatever strokes your ego.

    Let’s be clear about something, here. We do know that humans can affect regional climate. Gardeners create micro-climates all the time, and experiments in controlling the weather, which had its hey-day in the 70’s, continue – with limited success, and almost no control at all.

    We now know that deforestration, for example influences local climate (explaining the real reason the “snows of Kilimanjaro” were disappearing, not ACC). We know that our activities can dramatically change regions. An example of just how much and how permanently is an area in Europe (sorry, no longer remember exactly what countries this area is in) that was once heavily forested. As humans moved into the copper age, they built their smelters near their fuel source. As the tree line got further from their smelters, they moved their melters, eventually deforesting the entire region. Normally, it would have grown back, but these ancient smelters left high levels of copper in the soil, and the trees that were there originally could not grow in soil with high levels of copper. A different ecosystem moved in, instead, which remains to this day.

    Cities also create their own microclimates. So do cliff walls, bodies of water, open fields and forests. These are all things that have small, regional affects.

    When it comes to weather systems and global climate, however, we’re talking about a whole different animal. These are influenced by everything from sun spots, solar wind and cosmic wind, to where the Earth is in relation to the sun in its elliptical orbit combine with the tilt of the axis, to the coriolis effect, ENSO and La Nina, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and other oceanic events, volcanoes (surface and marine), and geology. Even continental drift has affected our planet’s climate dramatically. The minimal affects of human activities are blown away (literally, at times) by the Earth itself. Our daily activities are miniscule in comparison.

    Now, before the accusation predictably comes out again, pointing this out is not endorsing evironmental irresponsibility. That is a completely different issue.

    What’s concerning is that so many “solutions” to ACC involve geo-engineering on a global scale. We have people saying we should see the oceans with iron (and one idiot even went and tried it, off the coast of BC), seed the air with reflective aerosols or have solar powered, automated ships drawing in ocean water and sending it into the atmosphere. Perhaps the most dangerous of these is “carbon capture and sequestration”, which involves taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, where it is needed and safe, and injecting it into the Earth. CO2, on its own, is safe, but if there’s to much of it (greater than 75%), it displaces enough oxygen as to be deadly. CO2 is a heavy gas, so it sinks. There is an area in the US where high levels of CO2 are seeping from the earth and the gas is “pooling” in lowlying areas. There are warning signs to keep people out for their own safety. Then there’s that lake that “burped” staggering levels of CO2, killing an entire village. CCS opens up the danger of creating another Nyos. The other “solutions” are also disasters waiting to happen.

  14. Craig…

    Dan, on the other hand, seems to be arguing that the consequences of human action can somehow trump God’s sovereign plan.

    You are, as is often the case, guessing wrongly/mistaken.

    God can do anything God wants. I’m not doubting God, I’m doubting Glenn’s expertise in the area of speaking for God. That is, unlike Glenn appears to do, I do not conflate Glenn’s hunches with God’s Word.

  15. Glenn, God HAS told you (in Scripture) to give to one who asks of you: I’m asking for $1,000.00. When will you be giving it to me? It’s quite clear – right there in black and white (and RED – it’s JESUS’ OWN WORDS), are you going to ignore God’s clear Word or are you going to give me $1,000?

    Since you haven’t obeyed God’s Word on this point in the past, I’m guessing you won’t now.

    Typical of a hypocrite.

    Now are we done with the ad homs and ready to move on to the post at hand, Brother Hypocrite?

    (oh, and you really should repent of all this hypocrisy and pharisaism, my brother, in the name of Christ our Lord.)

  16. Dan,
    Perhaps you don’t understand the word “seem(s)”. I intentionally used that word to indicate that I was not quoting you, I was giving the impression that your words made. Now, you could have demonstrated where I was incorrect in how I interpreted your words, instead you chose to accuse me of doing something I didn’t do. Now you have a choice, you can explain why you disagree with Glen that God is sovereign and that God has a plan and that humans can’t change or thwart God’s plan. Or you can agree that God does have a plan, and the He will work out His plan despite what we might do, or not do.

    Your choice, just stop accusing me of doing something that I didn’t do, it just seems irrational.

  17. “His work is some of the best and most objectively legitimate research in the field. His resume is impeccable. ”

    As I read your post, I heard a strange choking sound over my shoulder. My daughter, who was standing behind me and reading this, just about spit her drink all over me. This has got to be the funniest thing you’ve said yet!

    Hansen’s career is alarmism. This is the guy who said that, within 20 years, sea levels would rise to the point that the shore he could see outside his office window would completely cover the streets and buildings between the current shore and his building. After 20 years, the same interviewer talked to him and challenged him with the fact that the shore was in the same place. Hansen had the gall to stand by his obvious error.

    Hansen has broken his contract with NASA, but they don’t dare fire him for it because he’s too much of a political hot potato. He manipulated data, people and events. He’s been wrong time and time again. He’s no longer a scientist, but an activist and a law breaker who has used incendiary rhetoric to encourage others to break the law and engage in eco-terrorism.

    Yet even Hansen has had to admit that global warming has been “stalled.” None of the computer model predictions have been accurate.

    • Go ahead Kun, tell us about how in every other scientific field how so many have never been wrong. The lead researcher at the NIH’s cancer research institute said there would be a cure for cancer by 1990. Do you hold any other folks to the same standards, or just the ones that your told to by your cheesey anti science lobby? Hansen’s being wrong about sea levels does nothing to dismiss his perfect record with regards to his research on the radiative affects of the two primary greenhouse gasses in the upper atmosphere. You call him an alarmist because somewhere some global warming denier did. You sound like the perfect automaton tool. Anytime I hear a christian call someone else an alarmist I do a little choking myself. You guys have been spouting off about salvation and the end of the world for how long? Nice to hear that your daughter has been taught the opposite of critical thinking by you. Congrats on that.

  18. FALSE: Man activity doesn’t change climate.
    TRUE:
    1. The higher the concentration of CO2 in an atmosphere, the higher the heat retained in it.
    2. The human activity has increased the CO2 in the atmosphere.
    3. Therefore, man activity does change climate.

    HALF TRUE: There are many circumstances which alter the climate.
    TRUE: That doesn’t mean man activity doesn’t change climate.

    • Isu

      To date there is merely a correlation between CO2 and warming. There is no evidence for its presence causes warming. It may well be the case that warming causes CO2 levels to rise.

  19. John,

    Are you joking or talking seriously?

    It’s not a mere correlation but a causation.
    If you make an controlled atmosphere, heating it doesn’t increase CO2, but if you introduce more CO2 it has more heat retaining.
    It’s well known that CO2 quantity is increased by combustion. For example, if you burn natural gas which consists mainly of methane (CH4), you get CO2. CH4+O2->Energy+H2O+CO2 -> Causation, not mere correlation.

    • Isu, you seem to have no understanding of how CO2 reacts in the atmosphere. Solar radiation, which has passed through the atmosphere, gets absorbed and reflected by the Earth. CO2 can, at this point, absorb the solar radiation, then reflects it out again – in all directions – in another form. (note: where the CO2 is in the atmosphere also changes its action, but for this, we’ll talk about in the upper atmosphere only) This results in a small “warming” affect. Water vapour has a far greater affect then CO2. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere changes little – doubling CO2 does not = doubling temperature. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the *less* “warming” it contributes, in a mathematically predictable manner. The important thing, however, is that CO2 (and the other greenhouse gases) do not warm the earth, so much as insulate it. There is only so much solar energy available for these gases to absorb and reflect. Unless there is an increase in solar energy (such as when there are a lot of sun spots), there is no way for increased CO2, or any other greenhouse gas, to increase temperature *because there is no more solar energy to absorb and reflect*.

      We have long known that higher CO2 levels are not only not harmful, but essential. We have been in a CO2 deficit for quite some time. Earth would actually benefit from higher atmospheric CO2 levels, as it leads to improved plant growth (see the co2science link above, where you can browse through the database as see just how different plant species react to different CO2 levels).

      And Nash (do we really have to have the conversation about shortening my alias again?), do you have anything other then insults and rants to offer? Hansen has a “perfect record?” At what? Promoting himself? He’s been wrong about CO2, he’s been wrong about weather event correlation, he’s been repeatedly wrong in climate forecasting, etc.

      Oh, and at what point have *I* brought religion into this? You can stop projecting your own intellectual flaws onto other people any time now.

      • We have never had a conversation about your alias. Try harder. As for Hansen you are simply repeating what you have been told. You have done nothing but repeat ad nauseum the same droning and inadequate findings that the rest of your automaton army has already. Read my post more clearly. Promoting himself? Hah. You mean all of his movies and books…oh wait….zero movies and books. His list of achievements makes yours look like an angry old know it all wailing away on his keyboard to no end.

  20. Perhaps I’m mistating you for someone else who decided to reduce my alias to an inappropriate honorific.

    You do realize that you are making blanket assumptions by saying I’m just repeating what I’ve been told, etc. etc., right? Seriously, you’re being nothing more than a troll, and a rather inept one, at that. You have, however, managed to reveal your own ignorance and prejudices very well.

Any Thoughts?

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

%d bloggers like this: