the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Maintaining the Consensus

Posted by Jeff Id on April 15, 2009

agree.jpg agree image by banditmistress

I’ve been thrown out of better for less.

It has been an odd week for me. I’ve been tossed from two more pro AGW internet sites in the last day. First there was the Huffington Post’s online comment where the um … reporter Michael Coniff was blasting conservatives for not looking at the data. Now I admit I was a little strong worded in my reply but only to the point where I was direct, no swearing or misleading statements.

Michael Conniff is the founder, chairman, and chief executive officer of Post Time Media Inc., the leading community blogging company; the editor-at-large of Aspen Peak magazine; and the host of “Con Games,” the #1-rated radio talk show in Aspen and Vail.

Here’s a few of the comments he gets paid to make.

The ability of conservatives to remain numb and number to climate change runs into a cold hard slap in the face with a double dose of data from the ends of the earth.

Data from NASA, the University of Colorado’s (CU) National Snow and Ice Data Center, and other research organizations — encompassing both Antartica and the Arctic — is about as damning as can be to those who prefer to bury their heads in the snow.

Conservatives, of course, tend to be all but immune to inconvenient data of climate change, citing marginal studies and anecdotal evidence scientifically proven by looking out your bedroom window. The difference now is not just the overwhelming data and the word of eminent scientists but the satellite video and computer renderings in your face of what’s going down. Like watching a baby in the womb, the enhanced views visible in time-lapse photography render the skeptic all but defenseless, left to rely on rigor-mortis rhetoric and blowhard bluster in the face of fact after fact from those who actually know jack.


CON GAMES: Double-Whammy Puts Right on Thin Ice

Someone dropped a noconsensus link on this page which led to clicks here so of course I had to reply to this. After all, arctic and Antarctic sea ice are new specialties of mine and as some have noted, I have an ever so slight conservative streak about me which I don’t care to hide.

I didn’t save this post unfortunately so you’ll have to take my word that it went something like this.

I’m a conservative and I have looked at the data at my blog LINK.

Have you ever taken the time to look at the data? Or are you just a friggin reporter with no knowledge about what you’re reporting?

Are you aware that the antarctic sea ice has grown by 25,000 km^2/month? LINK

Do you know that the Wilkins ice shelf didn’t actually break off yet? Do you know it is a veritable ice cube in relation to the rest of the continent located in the peninsula which is known to be the primary warming area of the antarctic?

Well forgive the paraphrasing, I admit it was a bit harsh but it was late and the guy doesn’t have a clue. Apparently, it was too good a shot against his article.

The comment was clipped, snipped and shipped RC style.


Now the second site didn’t exactly clip me. I found out about this after I wrote the above. . Deep Climate was posting on some obviously bad curve fitting which (barring a natural freezing disaster) is definitely going to look stupid to the ‘fitters’ in about 5 years. It’s pretty humorous.


Here’s the graph Dr. Deep is having a problem with.

The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

The red line follows the curve but mathematically, it’s purely noise at the end. It’s a spline curve fit which does absolutely everything possible to fit the trend regardless of the appropriateness relative to noise. The crux of Dr. Deep’s post is that the endpoint isn’t real and he’s right. The data is real but the curve gives a false smoothness to it. Just imagine a spike upward even to 0.2 degrees after the end and you see what I mean. Stuff like this is actually funny to me so as you’ll see below that’s what I wrote.

But here’s what the good doctor did to prove his point:

He extended a spline fit. (I’m nearly 100% sure if this is a cubic spline but it may be a 4-8th order least squares polynomial). But either way, as soon as the curve exceeds the last data point it becomes pure noise with absolutely no mathematical meaning in this universe. I bet you $10 that he did it by hiding an artificial point below the EXCEL graph which he manipulated until we couldn’t tell the difference – but I’m just an engineer so what do I know. — Well , except that the spline needs that point to define it’s matrix.

You’ll notice that I just agreed with him though (because he was right) while pointing out that this graph had no meaning.

Here’s what I said:

It is pretty funny what he did. I could have a lot of fun with posts like that, Tamino would blow a gasket.

Extending a polynomial fit always results in bs, immediately after the last data point so this last graph is not surprising at all and doesn’t discount the otherwise humorous math in my opinion.

[DC: “He”? Do you mean MacRae? Or Gunter or Spencer? The polynomial fit was “bs” before I extended it, although extending shows how ridiculous it is. It seems you’re pretending it was all a joke on their part. If only that were true … sadly and pathetically, they are all quite serious.]

There is something reasonable to be said for non-linear fits though. I don’t find the argument that only a linear trend can be used particularly compelling. There is shape there, although I’ve heard the AGW argument to the contrary.

[Jeff, have you actually read any of the IPCC reports? Or looked at the Hadley CRU website? It appears you don’t realize that binomial smoothing is standard for the longer surface data sets. Linear trends are applied to the satellite data only because of the shortness of the record. You should also check out Tamino’s posts on “lowess” smoothing
e.g. this one. Perhaps a properly tuned lowess fit would be an improvement on the linear trend – I might try that some time.

But not all “non-linear” fits are created equal. Of course, a higher order polynomial is bogus and misleading in this case; the undue influence of the end point makes that clear. And the intellectual dishonesty is compounded by Spencer’s apparently deliberate omission of the linear trend. But if you want to defend that sort of thing, go right ahead.]

Yup, he was right again. I didn’t explain myself enough and was judged by other’s labels. How funny is the ‘undue influence of the endpoint’ comment by Dr. Deep knowing that he hid the real one below the graph?

Anyway naive as I am, I was happy for a logical attack as anything else on an AGW blog. They haven’t been very open to discussion, it’s like Counters on the other thread, if you’re not talking about what they want, it can’t exist. So I tried again.

Jeff Id // April 10, 2009 at 2:57 pm

  • “Jeff, have you actually read any of the IPCC reports? Or looked at the Hadley CRU website? It appears you don’t realize that binomial smoothing is standard for the longer surface data sets.”

    Of course I have seen the binomial smoothing including some of the highly manipulable versions which straighten endpoints based on user input parameters. I’m not an idiot . . . honest. ;)

    These useful tools are also abused by people who want to make the data look different than it is.

    As far as the joke in this case we are in agreement. I was just appreciating the humor, it’s a little heart warming to see an AGW supporter get equally upset about exaggerated presentation. You should see how hot I get about the endless bad math in temperature reconstructions. How about the hideous CPS method Mann08 used. It probably took a year off my life.

    Extending any high order polynomial fit is mathematically meaningless though and not useful for extrapolation. So the last graph proves nothing but you are still correct.

    The video you did pretty well makes your case.

    [DC: I do hope you are not accusing the IPCC or Hadley CRU of “abuse” of “useful tools”.

    If extending a polynomial fit is meaningless, then so is the trend (first derivative) at the end point. It’s obvious that contrarians would not use a polynomial fit if it didn’t show a downward trend at the end. Extending the graph simply makes the dishonesty clearer for those less mathematically inclined than you or me.]

Dr. Deep jumps to the conclusion that I am saying fraud to IPCC and Hadley. Actually Hadley is one of the two groups that I know manipulated the endpoints of their graphs through different filtering. I’ve only seen the hadley site one time (still a rookie) where they openly discuss the change in filtering so this was an acknowledgment that Dr. Deep knows the truth well enough to recognize an offhand reference.

Well, I’ve already read his blog policy at this point so I carefully worded my reply, after several days it disappeared. So I wrote:

Some reason for the snip?

[DC: I moved your last comment to unthreaded per my comment policy].

After several minutes of searching I found it with the other comment on his blog’s first open thread.

Deep Climate // April 15, 2009 at 1:36 am

  • Posted for Jeff ID
    (Mostly off-topic, redundant, borderline libel)

    “It’s obvious that contrarians would not use a polynomial fit if it didn’t show a downward trend at the end.”

    It’s equally obvious that other blogs/scientists would insist that you can only use a linear fit when it shows an upward trend obfuscating a downward curve which is slight but real.

    I didn’t intend to offend you about the abuse of tools comment, it was directed to some equally obvious acts as in your post from both official and unofficial organizations promoting AGW.

    The IPCC is just a political organization and its views are not scientific. That’s my firm opinion but I would prefer to leave those comments and others about political bias in AGW for the Air Vent and stay on topic here.

    You seem more open to a reasonable discussion than RC or Tamino, I think you’ll find me to be reasonable in return.

    ‘Contrarians’ is a tired word. How about a more scientific, those who disagree’ or something, ‘contrarians’ has the taint of politics.

    BTW: I’m sensitive to the words because I’ve been inappropriately labeled denier and plenty of other things on your favorite blogs. I have absolutely never denied AGW and until I find some kind of proof I never will.

    That’s why I still read those blogs. Despite the little problems which are equal in magnitude and intent to the error pointed out in this post, I like to learn where I can.

    [I was going to rebut this point by point, but frankly life is too short. Suffice to say I disagree every one of your assertions. Your casual smear of the IPCC, along with some of the world’s most prominent scientists is absurd and distasteful.

    My post on polynomial fitting was not about “little errors”. It’s about a highly misleading distortion of the science. But this is par for the course for the contrarians.

    If you keep your comments more focused (and less outrageous), they’re more likely to end up where you post them rather than here.]

  • Jeff Id // April 15, 2009 at 3:10 am

Another reply to the doc, awaiting moderation as I write.

Jeff Id // April 15, 2009 at 3:10 am

No need, you convinced me not to post.

I explained that if you don’t bring up the IPCC I won’t either. I also explained that I agreed with the post you had made along with your clear misunderstanding of high order polynomial fits. Try doing it more, you’ll see I was right about extrapolation.

I was honest and open about my thoughts and this is your response. — I actually respected your comments in the past, this response though is pathetic.

You even resorted to false name calling. I actually believe in AGW I just haven’t found the evidence supporting the magnitude or required actions.

If you apologize I’ll reconsider, until then I know which context I should take your posts.

Well that’s about it. Apparently, I’m too stupid for tamino, I need to take matlab for Real Climate, I committed libel at Deep Climate and was simply snipped by the huffy post.

I must be really, really dangerous.

It seems that suppression of question is the nature of the consensus………

34 Responses to “Maintaining the Consensus”

  1. Rathtyen said


    I can see why you didn’t join the Diplomatic Service (that’s probably a compliment!)

    It would be nice to see their responses as being “here’s why you are wrong….” rather than just going for the jugular. Sadly, for these guys its about winning the argument, not about getting the facts right. It’s an ego think methinks.

  2. This link to a paper from the National Technical University of Athens was posted over at Watts, I think it may get lost there, but it’s highly critical of GCMs. Lots of maths & graphs in it, stuff that makes me go “Whibble” (A-Level maths, failed!) but I think it’ll float your boat.
    “….the annual and the climatic (30-year) scales, GCM interpolated series are irrelevant to reality. GCMs do not reproduce natural over-year fluctuations and, generally, underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series. Even worse, when the GCM time series imply a Hurst coefficient greater than 0.5, this results from a monotonic trend, whereas in historical data the high values of the Hurst coefficient are a result of large-scale over-year fluctua-tions (i.e. successions of upward and downward “trends”). The huge negative values of coef-ficients of efficiency show that model predictions are much poorer than an elementary prediction based on the time average. This makes future climate projections at the examined locations not credible.”

  3. Ah, right, scrub that, I see it’s had great airtime over at RC last year (Insert embarrassed smiley!)

  4. TCO said

    Quit whining and finish your damn analyses. Who wants to talk with a bunch of liberals anyhow.

  5. Jeff Id said

    TCO, I don’t want to talk politics but I will continue to point out the suppression of dissent or suppression of even the hint of dissent wherever it exists. You’ll note, the behavior is similar to certain governments which match the team’s political philosophies.

    Deep Climate is on the team, I don’t know who he is but I’m sure his name falls on team papers. He’s not the mathematician though. I’ve had a unique welcome by the team in general. The libel comment makes me think he’s Steig who was going around all offended like he was ready to sue from someone else’s minor comment. Steig has a blog though.

  6. Layman Lurker said

    What makes you think he is on the team?

  7. TCO said

    Jeff: Just get a finished piece of work where you understand something from front to back. More of that actually nailing stuff down, and less bluster and blog BS will do a lot more to kill the denialists than what we’ve seen from McI (4 YEARS of full time work-output: no more papers since early 2005, no “white papers”, a blather of blather of blather of blog posts.)

    If you nail the science, all else will fall in line. If you have the science half done, but want to debate the implications, it’s a waste of everyone’s time, including yours as well as the general population of persuadable people.

  8. TCO said

    And I’ve actually found DC pretty fair by the way. Just NAIL the science. He will listen to that. I have seen him correct himself even. And much more graciously than that brittle, little Steve McI.

  9. Jeff Id said

    “What makes you think he is on the team?”

    Calling it a casual smear of the IPCC, his reaction to some of the earlier posts and his blog list. It reminds me of the team. The libel thing really seals it, I’ve beat up what is in my opinion Mann’s intentionally bad math several times. Other than that, it’s hard to see libel in these comments.

    I don’t really know if he is but that’s my guess.

    #8, I wish you’d be more patient. I’ll work on the science as I can, this is a part time job which takes enormous amounts of time and I was/am sick again. The constant cries of publish and don’t make conclusions from your otherwise valid results are tiresome.

    I’m happy with my conclusions on my posts. They are in most cases understated from the actual evidence. Dr. Deep has not handled my comments reasonably. I mean come on TCO, libel,????! Even you can’t claim that’s reasonable.

  10. Layman Lurker said

    For the record Jeff, I posted the following last night at Deep Climate (awaiting moderation):

    “DC, this is your house. I don’t have any problem with you responding to Jeff any way you see fit except for one thing: either something is libelous or it is not.”

    I agree with TCO that letting this stuff get to you takes away from the higher purpose. Having said that, I know that this is the same passion that drives you in the first place. It does help to keep things in perspective however.

  11. Jeff Id said

    #10, I think that it’s important for people to realize that the appearance of consensus is maintained through a structure of squelching dissent. I feel no personal pain whatsoever, yet it’s an important aspect of global warming.

    This squelching seems to happen through the entire science, from the IPCC disallowing McIntyre’s concerns to faulty peer review blocking skeptic papers. People like the Huffy post make the comment that quality papers for the skeptical view don’t exist and conservatives can’t see the data followed by failing to post evidence to the contrary.

    I wonder what would happen if someone cut his article from the paper, would he scream on about free speech?

  12. TCO said

    blablabla. Lather, rinse, repeat. I’m ten times the conservative that McI is. First thing I did when I started reading him was asking questions and looking for inconsistencies. The guy is brittle, defensive and obfuscating when you zero in on things. He wants to run a blog and jerk off for 4 years, fine. But the rest of the world is finding him a joke now. And I’m glad to blast out a simple message to any WSJ reporters or the like watching the fray. Denialists have had 4 years of blather and have jack shit to show in papers. They want to shoot from the side, but they won’t even go on the record with clear criticisms. The world should ignore them.

  13. Vernon said


    Why don’t you just forget ClimateAudit and SM. Every place I see you post you have to drag SM into it. So you had problems with him, the rest of us do not care.

  14. JAE said

    What Vernon said!

  15. TCO said

    13/14: Sorry.

  16. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff ID, you should take your lead from Steve M and not think that the world will be saved from imminent AGW mitigation failures based on the analyses done here or at other blogs with a more skeptical POV. I think the more active people, like yourself, and who post here and at CA are personally rewarded by what they discover and reveal as puzzle solvers and the less active participants benefit from what is revealed, not because of it will change climate science much, but rather because it will reveal some truths that give personal satisfaction.

    The political die is already set with regards to mitigations that will be selected for dealing with the real or imagined consequences of AGW. Reversing that momentum will take a change in the intellectual way we view government interventions and require a more general and longer term solution.

    Climate science will have to someday deal with its problems from the inside and are not likely at the present time to swing open its publishing doors to non climate scientist and those outside the consensus view. That does not mean that papers with counter evidence and results are not published, as we know they are – even though they maY not receive the attention that some of us judge they deserve. If you and those who put in extensive efforts analyzing the Steig et al. reconstructions judge that you should make an effort to publish, I say: good for you. The effort itself will require you to organize your thoughts in ways different than those for posting results on the blogs.

    On the other hand, failure to get your work published will say nothing about the quality of it or the truths it might hold. Look at what Mann et al. have done after the acceptance of the initial paper that said what most in the climate science community wanted to hear and have spent a good deal of effort ignoring its shortcomings. I think reconstructions get a publishing pass because of the effort involved in constructing them and the general idea behind them of cleverly (if not always with generally accepted statistical methods) squeezing information out of proxies. Once on that path with all of the progenitors of the initial offering, Mann is, well, the man when it comes to getting something published and others, who might be considered interlopers, should not judge themselves by those standards.

  17. Jeff Id said

    #16, You’re the second person today to describe my efforts as personal satisfaction the other was related to an investor in my company. Both of you were right. This is an entertainment first, like a crossword for engineers. As far as saving the world, that’s a job for a younger man ;). I’ve really enjoyed some of the unique mathematics and find myself wondering if the authors really believe in it or not. I mean that. Do they really think they’re doing good work?

    In all my previous experience with complex math, there wasn’t a lot of middle ground. Production vision systems are difficult complex algorithms with tens of thousands of lines. Sometimes they find problems they are looking for and miss others. Some of the math is very loose but if it doesn’t get the result, everyone knows. It’s fun but your success or failure is in the end, checked by functionality. These recon. guys don’t check! The way they act, I’m not sure that they understand that they’re not checking. Do they know that correlation of a noisy dataset is not a check for a small signal?

    Mann is another story which is more clear.

    Someone smart commented to me once saying these guys don’t know what they’re doing. I’m not so sure but it is still possible. When I get permanently chopped at RC for asking how they justify selecting proxies by correlation while throwing out the rest, it does raise my suspicion.

    Getting chopped by Tammie then, same deal. Why not answer my realistic questions, perhaps we’ll agree. Perhaps my questions were too difficult.

    Chopped by Huffington, no problem it’s just a reporter.

    Deep is currently talking his way out of whatever he did.

    I’m rambling now, it’s a good thing I know the moderator or this crap would go in the bin.

    I’m not sure publishing makes sense. If it really added something to the science then ok but I’m still trying to figure out if they already know the truth.

    Thanks for the comments, I understand what you and my other readers are asking for. Perhaps that youthful idealist hasn’t quite been beaten out of me, but that’s the same insanity that drives me to own a company.

  18. TCO said

    The effort to get your work published WOULD drive you to create a better product, in logic, in carefulness, in showing the context better wrt previous studies and literature. It will drive you to do better work. Believe me, you are not the equivalent of a Jack Lalane here. You need to be wipped into shape.

    It would also create a work product that is far easier for people (even those that are criticized) to read and react to. Reading meandering blogs is not efficient. Heck, they’re not even archived. Where’s Chefen’s blog?

  19. Carl said

    After the DHO report came out, the Huff Post must have realized that you are a right-wing extremist, soon to be terrorist. And how could they give a voice to that?

  20. Jeff Id said

    #19, have you read it?

    Click to access dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf

    I’m honestly sick of politics or I’d leave this at the top of my blog for a month. Like the old Bill Ayers is no threat in a bad econmy.

  21. Carl said

    Yeah I have. The Obama administration is playing with fire. If they continue to pull Alinsky-ite moves like this, and if they continue to pursue the silencing of Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts, they are going to see an extent of conservative activism that they never thought could occur. There’s no point in trying to contain Obama’s movement at this time; let it roll out and let Americans react.

  22. page48 said

    RE: #21

    Here! Here!

  23. Deep Climate said

    “Deep Climate is on the team, I don’t know who he is but I’m sure his name falls on team papers. He’s not the mathematician though. I’ve had a unique welcome by the team in general. The libel comment makes me think he’s Steig who was going around all offended like he was ready to sue from someone else’s minor comment. Steig has a blog though.”

    No, I’m not a practising scientist and have no connection to the “team” whatsoever (and no doctorate except for the honorific you have bestowed). But I did have a good laugh about that one. I didn’t even know Steig had accused Morano of libel (had to look it up).

    By the way, what I considered “potential libel” was the implication that Hadley CRU or IPCC “abused” smoothing to “make the data look different than it is.” But your statements are unclear, so it’s hard to know exactly what you meant.

    If that particular statement was not made with those organizations in mind, then I would consider the statements “vague unfounded accusations of scientific fraud” or some such, rather than “potential libel”. Either way I discourage such statements as my updated Comment Policy makes clear.

    You’re also wrong about the cubic spline and “hidden points”, of course. You should read a little more carefully.

  24. TCO said

    Jeff and DC:

    You are both good guys. I like you better than your typical team member or denialist. So, please…let me smooth any ruffled feathers.

    Or if you are in a mood to scrap, just come after me.

  25. Jeff Id said

    I pointed out that although I hadn’t mentioned any names, HadCrut was one group that had manipulated the endpoints as I showed in my next post. The implication was clearly based on fact. Perhaps Deep didn’t read the next post so I won’t say bad things. There are plenty of other examples as well, but they don’t come with humorous quotes like HadCRUT and are equally uninteresting.

  26. Jeff Id said

    #23, I just reread the part of the post on the 6th order polynomial. I had forgotten, sorry.

    It’s actually a good example of the point you make in your post. You wouldn’t extend it if it didn’t keep going down. I realize it’s a mistake because you haven’t done 6th order fit’s often but projecting a 6th order polynomial to make a point would be equally disingenuous to your post’s original accusation if you understood what often happens.

    If you run enough high order fits on different data you’ll find sometimes the trend will turn sharply or even reverse immediately after the last point. Extension beyond this point is therefore meaningless.

  27. #26

    Obviously, I disagree with your points. When I have time, I might elaborate in a post.

    But in the mean time, I would like to have your thoughts on whether or not it is valid to refer to a hgher-order polynomial fit to temperature data as a “trend” (notice singular) as Gunter and MacRae did.

    And what are your thoughts on Spencer’s comments:
    “The smooth curve in the graph is a fourth-order polynomial fit to the data, which smooths out the large amount of monthly variability in the data and helps reveal the underlying ‘trends’.”

    Do you or do you not agree with Spencer that his polynomial fit “helps reveal the underlying ‘trends'”?

    Don’t worry … I’m not the type to escalate. I think we’ve both had our say, and I was more bemused than angered by the “Secret Libel” post.

  28. Jeff Id said

    There’s nothing wrong with fitting polynomials to data, you were correct regarding the over interpretation of the endpoints and choosing one which showed a sharp dip. As I’ve said on your blog, it was humorous.

    Extrapolation using high order polynomials is well known to often produce ridiculous results, the functions are unconstrained.

  29. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I suppose if the graph maker has an a priori rationale for a 6th order polynomial fit one could get more excited about the sudden trends up or down, but one fitted by trial and error to existing data would seem a perilous pursuit in projecting into the future.

    I have done 3rd order fits of data just to get some laughs from the statisticians in the crowd.

  30. TCO said

    If the situations were reversed and the fit had been done by a warmer and was unreasonable when extended, Jeff, you and the rest of the choir would be calling it out as wrong.

  31. Deep Climate said

    So … in *this* case I would say it’s misleading to refer to a higher-order polynomial fit (with no a priori rationale) as a “trend”, or to claim that it “helps reveal the underlying ‘trends'”.

    Do you agree or not? I still can’t tell.

  32. Jeff Id said

    #30, Dr, Deep,

    At least I can answer here without being accused of Libel or statements of unfounded fraud eh..? Actually, I’m not bothered by it but you should be.

    It is of course reasonable to show a trend using polynomial fits so the claim that it “helps reveal” trends is reasonable.

    The polynomials clearly do a bad job with the endpoints in this case. It’s like a low pass filtering where the pass frequency at the endpoints is higher than the middle. I am again and again, in complete agreement with you on that.

    The question then becomes, is it the best way to represent the low freq trend. It is not! It is in fact, a terrible way to represent the trends of this data. I really meant it that the whole kerfuffel is humorous. It’s the same thing as when politicians speaking about how carbon taxes will create jobs. Will new jobs be created? Sure will, it’s guaranteed! But what about the jobs that will be lost?

    In this case, was he right, did it reveal the trend? Yup it sure did. Guaranteed. But what about the pass frequency at the endpoints?

    Math humor…..

  33. Jeff Id said

    #30, Just found your comment in the bucket again.

    Actually you’re almost right TCO except for the choir part. I would see it as blatant rubbish but there is a lot of it on both sides. I ignore most e.g the hadcrut stuff which I read a long time ago. But you have to realize by now that I don’t fit into too many choirs.

  34. TCO said

    Go Shawn Johnson.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: