Manhattan Still Above Water

The webcam view from this morning. Salon reported that Hansen predicted Manhattan would submerge by 2008, but reader Tony Duncan claims that was a mistake and that Manhattan won’t actually be flooded for another 18 years.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Manhattan Still Above Water

  1. Tony Duncan says:

    Steve,

    You really do know how to bite off your nose to spite your face.
    the ONLY reason you can say I am making a CLAIM is because you are too scared to go to the actual source of the quote and face reality.

    And even after my constant harassing you about your inability to admit making a mistake, you STILL get it wrong. Hansen said Manhattan won’t be flooded for another 18 years if there is a DOUBLING of CO2 by then.

    As I will state for at least the 10th time. the salon phone interview of Riess highlights the BOOK he wrote which has the actual quote. The book was published BEFORE the article. Case closed. You were wrong about the quote. Did not bother to check the source and refuse to admit it.
    I do really appreciate you continuing to bring this issue up.
    Of course I STILL have not gotten the book. I ordered it from my library’s interlibrary loan, and it has not arrived after a few weeks. I WILL check the quote and if I am wrong, will apologize to you profusely for my repeated mistake. A mistake I will have made almost as often as yours at this point. (I wouldn’t hold my breath on my being wrong about this though)

    • I see, so Hansen was just talking trash to get people needlessly worried about global warming.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        How many times do I have to explain this to you?
        Reiss quoted Hansen in the book. Reiss misquoted Hansen to Salon AFTER the book was published. You ridiculed Hansen. You never checked the source. You made a mistake. You refuse to acknowledge it. Now you haves to wait 18 years and a doubling of CO2 to see if he is wrong. You are free to gleefully do so when the time comes, or even now if you are so disposed.

    • Dave G says:

      When the tsunami hits, Hansens prediction will be true

    • Paul H says:

      Of course Hansen sued the magazine for libel and making him look an idiot.

      No?

      I wonder why?

      Perhaps he was happy for such wild alarmism to spread.

      • Jimbo says:

        I have never read anywhere where Hansen has challenged the interviewer on what was said. I could be wrong though.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Paul,

        that is one interpretation.
        One I prefer is that Hansen knows that Denialist bloggers don’t care about checking the validity of anything as long as they can use to to attack global warming. The book has been available for 10 years, it was prominently displayed on the salon webpage with the interview, and he has been laughing as his assessment was proven true when nobody ever bothered to check to see if the quote in Salon was accurate.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Jimbo,

        I have not read anywhere that anyone has ever asked him about the specific misquote. it was just reposted all over right wing websites. Did any of them contact him to see if it was accurate?
        After all it is completely inconsistent with all his published papers and what he has said publicly. Something I pointed out over and over again to Steve. Who just mocked me along with a number of other people on this site

      • Paul H says:

        A more likely explanation is that Hansen was more than happy to let the alarmist story stand. After all he is a publicity seeker. and must have been aware what was published.

        As for “denialist bloggers” – the story appeared in 2001. I don’t recall many ” denialist bloggers” around the internet then.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Paul,

        you can assert your more likely explanation, but it seems like a bizarre rational to try to make Steve, Anthony, and all the others who salivated with glee attacking the quote appear not to be opportunists uninterested in the truth.

        If you do a google search you will not see any publicity about this article until 2009-10 when the right wing blogosphere began disseminating this “quote”. Hansen never said anything remotely like this subsequent to the interview, and he had many opportunities. So he certainly failed if he was trying to publicize this. He contradicted this “misquote” numerous times since 1988.
        Quite crafty of him to know he could wait eight years after arranging for the “misquote”, which was 13 years after the original quote and then know that people eager to discredit him would report on this without bothering to either ask him or check the book , which is HIGHLIGHTED on the website of the interview.
        I repeat that there is a BOOK that was published that had the accurate quote. The article was a PHONE interview, the book was from a reporters notes taken during the interview.
        What you are suggesting is plain ludicrous.
        And even if he did plan this, Steve was WRONG. Anthony was WRONG, Pat Michaels was WRONG. Everyone who just blindly believed this interview in a magazine and didn’t check, or have one of their many minions check the book that is HIGHLIGHTED on the website (have I mentioned that before) are all wrong.

        And our good friend Steve went on and on about this. He had reason to when first seeing the article, but blaming Hansen for Steve not checking a source that was in his face when he looked at the article is ridiculous.
        this is quite typical of polarized politics. Since the other side is the enemy, you can never acknowledge ANYHTING That they do as being less than bad, and you can never admit to a mistake, because that shows weakness and the enemy will use it against you. better to just ignore reality and stay the course and know your true believers will not question you.
        Of course, I am actually skeptical so I question everything that I see, not just ideologies that I don’t agree with.

    • Paul H says:

      Tony

      I presume you have complained to Salon about their mistake? I am sure you would like to share their reply to you.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Steve,

      you forgot about the doubling of CO2 from 1988 levels.

  2. Justa Joe says:

    18 years doesn’t look so good either.

    I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that Manhattan won’t be flooded in 18 years either. Of course, when the 18 years pass we’ll be treated with another push out date for the flood accompanied by their assertions that they were previously taken out of context or something, or maybe they’ll point to some incident of a sewer backing up and say, “see. we were right.”

    • Tony Duncan says:

      You will also need to have CO2 doubled form 1988 levels at that time as well.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Justa,

        correction. I have stated CO2 doubling from 1988. Steve has pointed out to me that it is normally considered doubling from pre industrial times. I have never known Steve to be wrong about this sort of thing, so please accept this correction.

  3. PJB says:

    What he said was: “It will be under Watter.” as he was referring to the police precinct and its director of operations, Sal T. Watter. He was very concerned about crime rates and such for when the temperatures would rise in the city during summer, as usual. GISS is located in Manhatten, after all. It is his civic duty to be concerned…. 😉

    • Paul H says:

      Was his deputy Captain C Level?

      • Mike Davis says:

        They were planning to Hire Charles Oscar Bronson II who goes by the nick name CO II as well as his son CO III which would give them a doubling of CO II.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Now if Charles Osborne was to have twin boys there would definitely be a certain doubling of CO II! Twins are common in his family!

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Mike and PJB,

      Actually what he said was 2030 if there is a doubling of CO2 by then. Whereas Steve and others have been incorrectly stating that he said 20 years without mentioning the doubling parameter.
      The names of the particular people he was referring to are actually irrelevant to the question at hand. When I read the book though I will make sure to tell you if he mentions any of them.

  4. Al Gored says:

    If any of this nonsense were remotely plausible, real estate prices in Manhattan would not be so high. Unlike the AGW lemmings and other dumb proles who fall for these scary stories, the Big Money that is behind the telling of them is not stupid enough to actually believe them.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Al,

      Especially not stupid enough to believe something that has been demonstrated to be a misquote, and therefore an inadvertent fabrication.

      • If you think Hansen was misquoted and feel strongly that this particular wild exaggeration is somehow more important than the rest of his wild exaggerations, you should contact Salon.

  5. Dave N says:

    What a storm in a teacup.. Hansen has made plenty of other bonehead predictions without dwelling on whether he actually made this one.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      DAVE,

      THANK YOU. At least you realize that this is should have been easily resolved. Steve could have said. “Well, apparently Hansen is only birdshit crazy and not batshit crazy. OK, he maybe didn’t say that, and I jumped all over him for it, but this OTHER stuff is almost as bad.”
      And I would have actually complimented him on being man enough to admit a mistake.

      But NOOOOOO. Steve has to find rationalization after rationalization, and his enablers on here won’t tap him on the shoulder, and whisper to him that he really has nothing to stand on, and should just quietly disengage.
      I have challenged him on this point, so he has to defend it, no matter how irrefutable his mistake is. Better to be banged up by a bully (me in this case. Can’t resist an easy victory) than have anyone think you are a loser.

      • You have convinced yourself that the Salon article is incorrect. Take it up with them. Hansen has been telling fairy tales for decades and it is bizarre how obsessed you are with this one.

  6. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Tony is an expert on James Hansen—at least he thinks he is. We all know about the experts, “….ignorance of the experts.”

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Amino,

      I have to say, I feel like an expert on THIS subject. As they say, practice makes perfect.
      Of course it is easy being an expert about a subject when it is only one quote and there are only two sources for it, and one of those sources has been irrefutably shown to be wrong.

      Still quite amazed that no one has the guts to stand up to Steve on this one. I thought you guys were supposed to be able to think for yourself and didn’t bow unthinkingly to authority. (wait did Andy say something about this? Not sure it might have been something else.

  7. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Tony Duncan,

    How much has sea level risen around Manhattan? Is the rate on track to make Hansen’s prediction come true?

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Amino,

      I am not sure. According to Steve there can be no rapid sea level rise. it is absolutely impossible. According to other scientists there is very likely to be a nonlinear increase.
      Personally, by 2030, even with a doubling of CO2, I wouldn’t put money on Hansen’s actual quote. Of course the quote was off the cuff, and not a scientific assessment. Kind of what I was saying even when i believed the misquote was real.

  8. hyperzombie says:

    Hanson nailed it, Manhattan has been financially under water since 08.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      hadn’t though of that,

      But to be honest I think he was not speaking figuratively (get it “Finance” “figure”).

      But you seem to have misunderstood he actually said 2028, not 2008. the 2008 was a misquote that Steve never bothered to check. have I not made that clear yet?

      • If you believe that to be true, tell Salon to change it. Your accusation that I have misquoted someone is quite bizarre to say the least.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        I am actually starting to feel bad about this. Both in your delusional refusal to admit you made a mistake (The mistake being ridiculing Hansen for a quote he never made), and for the fact that no one else on this blog is willing to help you with this problem.
        Belief has nothing to do with this. And I have never accused you of misquoting someone. REISS misquoted Hansen, not you. You believed that misquote. Even I did not question it, (to my everlasting shame) in spite of it being completely inconsistent with everything he had written or publicly said. You have posted numerous things he has said and written. I have read them, and none came close to Manhattan being underwater by 2008.
        The issue is that when you were presented with irrefutable proof that the quote was wrong, you refuse to admit that your constant ridicule of Hansen for that quote was wrong.
        The article was from a phone conversation that occurred AFTER the book that contains the quote was written. The book is alleged to say that Hansen said that this would occur in 2028, NOT 2008.
        You attacked him REPEATEDLY for saying something he did not say, and yet you refuse to acknowledge that.
        This would all be so easy if you would just admit you made a mistake, and continue attacking him for the things he actually does say and publish.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        Both Reiss and Hansen have publicly stated the Salon quote was wrong. Pretty easy of them to do so, since the accurate quote is in the book. As I said earlier I think it would be much more effective for YOU to tell Salon to print a retraction.

        my bizarro crusade is based on your inability to admit an irrefutable mistake. I have contended for months that you cannot admit a mistake, and this one is so clear, and conclusive that even your most blind adherents must see it.
        Your bizarro attempt to portray this as some sort of unsubstantiated allegation is more than amusing. You have not been able to contradict any of the facts here, that I have repeatedly explained. I keep bringing this because you keep responding to it, and you keep mentioning it.

        As a side note, I called the library and they have had the book waiting for me for days, and were about to send it back. Apparently someone, I assume it was you, hacked into the library computer, rerouted their email so it would not reach me. Your last desperate act to prevent the truth form coming out on this website has been foiled. I shall reveal the ACTUAL quote soon!
        Your only hope now is to keep me from posting, unless of course the book shows that salon article to be accurate. Boy, will I be admitting a BIG mistake if that happens.

        • Yes, I made the Manhattan underwater prediction, wrote the Salon article and later hacked their website. No doubt Manhattan will be underwater in 19 years.

      • suyts says:

        Tony, why do you think the quote in the book be any more valid than the Salon article?

      • glacierman says:

        Tonyd says: “I shall reveal the ACTUAL quote soon!”

        Which one? The Salon Article has an actual quote. If the author knows it to be incorrect, why hasn’t he insisted that the original be retracted? Is it really a mistake to quote a published article that has not been retracted or corrected?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Suyts and Glacierman,

        I really wish you would read my comments. I have explained this at least 20 times in the last few days. And yes I have the ACTUAL quote, not the misquote that is in the Salon article.

        As I have repeatedly said. The Salon interview was an informal interview given over the phone. the book is ….. well it is a book, written by Reiss from his notes. the book was printed BEFORE the interview. the book has an actual quote, the article is just Reiss’ retelling of the incident. The article has the book HIGHLIGHTED right at the top of the web page. the article discusses the book. The book he wrote is mentioned in the second paragraph. The fourth paragraph is the name of the book, author, publisher, book length, what kind of book, and a link to buy the book. Suffice it to say the article is about the book. How you could somehow torture reason to believe that the article could in any way be more accurate than the book, is incomprehensible to me.
        Here is the quote from the book. “…if he was right, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really doubled, anything down there would look different because of it by 2030.” there it is EXACTLY as Reiss said when he corrected his misquote in Salon. Salon did NOT make a mistake. they did not misquote Reiss, Reiss misquoted Hansen. He has set the record straight
        It is exactly as Hansen said when asked about it.
        http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf.
        The Salon quote is completely inconsistent with anything Hansen has ever said or written. And the book quote IS consistent with what he has said and written.

        As I have said repeatedly, I give Steve somewhat of a pass UNTIL Reiss explained his misquote. At that point, when Steve was made aware of this, he should have made some statement correcting the dozens of times he has ridiculed something that never was said. Of course, the book has ALWAYS been available with the correct quote, so he and WUWT, Pat Michaels and a host of others could have very easily checked a preposterous statement. Reiss also makes clear this was not an academic discussion, it was just a casual conversation, where Hansen was expressing his feelings. A private conversation between two people not an interview that was to be taken as scientific prediction.
        It is just irrational fantasy to believe anything other than what is in the book and what Hansen and Reiss say, since that corroborates the book and is consistent with what Hansen has said in many other statements.
        Steve has ridiculed Hansen obsessively about something Hansen never said. When someone is wrong about something that they repeat over and over again in a public forum, and there is absolutely no question about it, then they have an obligation to set the record straight.

        • So what you are saying is that Hansen’s time frame was slightly less ridiculous than Salon reported, but his CO2 forecast was vastly more ridiculous. Other than his absurd forecast for temperature, sea level, wind, CO2 levels, crime, wildlife and the date, everything else was spot on with the precision of a laser guided missile.

          This same guy who predicted a doubling of CO2 by 2040 – is now claiming scenario B as the correct one. Thanks for a great article topic.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        You are getting close. But you are missing the point.
        You ridiculed Hansen for saying something he never said. You now know that was wrong. You admit you were wrong, and did not check the actual source. You just accepted what the article said, even though it was totally inconsistent with everything else he has written and said. THEN you are free to ridicule him a little bit less for the ACTUAL quote. And finally you can thank me for pestering you until you actually acknowledged your mistake.

        And Hansen did NOT say CO2 would double by 2030, he said IF it did, then this is what would happen. If you have another quote where he said it would by 2040, I would be happy to look at that.

        Hansen has REPEATEDLY said he was WRONG about CO2 forcing resulting in 4.5° for CO2 doubling. It is in the link I posted. Any comparison of CO2 vs Temp has to take that into account. You of course are free to ridicule him for thinking it would be over 4° back then.

        You are only allowed to ridicule people for things they actually say and write. One needs to be SKEPTICAL, and not just accept whatever one reads or hears.

  9. suyts says:

    TONY,

    “As I have repeatedly said. The Salon interview was an informal interview given over the phone….”

    Horse hockey. You don’t get that kind of detail in that interview about a conversation ten years prior without either one of two things. Either he did have notes in front of him, or he was just making stuff up. And, if he was just making stuff up, then the credibility of the book is lacking, too.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      SUYTS,

      Horse hockey back to you. He had just had the book published so he was familiar with the narratives. the fact that he got that particular wrong is in no way unusual. have you ever been interviewed? I have been a few times and usually there is something that is just totally wrong. I also sometimes frame things in shorter ways that aren;t completely accurate. In this case Reiss is not saying he was misquoted. he is saying HE made a mistake. The book, which was in print corroborates this. Hansen’s other public statements and published paper support this.
      I appreciate you trying to defend a fellow ideologue, but it is rather pathetic to hold onto something that is in print that I have read, when I have read the original, all parties who have any connection to this agree on, and there is no hidden video, and there is NOTHING that contradicts their explanation for the discrepancy.
      the WORST possible interpretation is that Reiss planted this on purpose to get right wing bloggers to pick up on 8 years later, so that he and Hansen could embarrass them.
      As I have said repeatedly I do not doubt that Hansen could have thought this was funny and in no rush, to correct things when he knew the actual quote was available in the book, proving that denialist bloggers aren’t interested in being skeptical about anything that supports their ideology. the fact that you and Steve continue to argue about this confirms it to a much greater degree.

      Why did NOBODY check the book, when accusing him of something way beyond anything else he has said or written? I have asked that about 20 times and none seems to have an answer to that. Are you going to tell me that Salon is NEVER wrong. that puts you in an odd position considering what they have published about climate change.

      • If you are correct, his prediction is much worse than I thought. Independent of his ridiculous theories about climate sensitivity, his discussion of CO2 doubling by 2028 defies basic math and common sense.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        this is getting more ludicrous as it goes on.
        I specifically pointed out that Hansen did NOT say CO2 would double by 2030. He was asked what would happen if it DID double by then. He has never said CO2 would double by 2030 as far as I know.
        your ability to distort reality to fit your ideology does still impress me!

        • How about this ?

          Hansen : “Manhattan will look about the same in 40 years, and the climate will be very similar to today”

          You are a laugh riot.

    • suyts says:

      Tony, I’m not defending a fellow ideologue. Steve doesn’t need any help from me.

      Its the years passed, Tony. Its the timing of the clarification. Yes, I’ve been interviewed, and if I don’t have total recollection, I give the gist without the details. It saves from going back and restating, apologizing and clarifying. To be sure, had I made such an egregious error as Hansen say Reiss did, I’d sought to clarify it right away, not 10 years later.

      Nobody checked the book because it doesn’t matter what the book states. Reiss and Hansen let that go until it was apparent it wasn’t going to happen anytime soon. It was deception and it was intentional. And, apparently, this was met with agreement from both parties.

      Why else wait ten years? Where’s Reiss’ clarification? How come Salon doesn’t print one?

      Now you seem to be saying that because it was recently published that he had facts fresh in his mind, only not that one…………. Tony, honestly, does that sound right to you?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS,

        Your scenario is completely delusional.

        Yes it IS the years past. Nobody paid any attention to the Salon article after it came out. It ONLY became a big deal when Steve Anthony, Michaels and others unburied it and ridiculed Hansen for it.
        It was a total PR waste if Reiss was trying to create a stir back in 2001.

        You have completely ignored everything that I have written, and have concocted a conspiracy as minuscule in scale as possible, and as ridiculous as the Protocols of the elders of Zion.

        You now are contending that Reiss purposefully either lied in the Salon interview, or purposefully lied in the book, in order to …… accomplish nothing. No one in 20o1 took this up and ran with it declaring that the US HAS to put a $100 a ton tax on GAS and coal because Hansen says we will be underwater in EIGHT years.

        What i am saying is that because the book was recently published he had the general NARRATIVES straight in his mind. NARRATIVE not facts. I am editing a novel right now, and parts of it were written 3 years ago. If you asked me about one of those 3 parts, I would be able to tell you in general what happens, but it is VERY likely I will have some details wrong. I might even have some large detail wrong. Numerous times I have had to go back to check exactly what happened because if I guess wrong, It will make the book inconsistent with the part I am writing now.

        Why WAIT ten years.? Are you serious? NOBODY gave a rats ass about the article UNTIL the right wing got a hold of it. THEY are the ones that waited. And after hanging themselves with their own ropre, by not checking the BOOK from which the article was BASED as is clearly pointed out in the article by being HIGHLIGHTED with a LINK to buy the book. it is quite likely Hansen never saw the article, and quite possible that Reiss never did either. After the RIGHT made a huge deal about it hansen c heckled and saw he had made a mistake and explained the mistake in a way that fits perfectly with EVERY fact. Your view fits with no facts except in the most twisted way.

        How STUPID could someone be to deliberately create a stir about climate change and then HIGHLIGHT the source that totally undermines it?
        If ANYONE had checked the book, they would have seen the discrepancy and they could have ridiculed REISS for making such a mistake. How could they know no one would check the book?

        You have avoided numerous points I have made that totally invalidate your premise. There is no video of the interview,. the only people that know what was said were Hansen and Reiss. It was an INFORMAL interview. The interview states the date very specifically in the book, whereas in the article Reiss says “in 20 or 30 years”. It was phone interview without notes
        What is the point of the deception? what possible value could Hansen and Reiss get out of having two wildly different statements. One of which is consistent with what he had written and stated publicly and one that was totally inconsistent with everything he had said or published.
        if ONE person had bothered to read the book. But no one did. If the book was NOT highlighted repeatedly with a picture of the book and a link to buy it, then there would be rational to not admit making a mistake.

        there is such a thing as objective reality. if you are one of those post modern relativists who think that reality is created in your mind, then I can’t argue with you. But you should have told me that before getting into this.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        I would be less happy because it would mean I no longer have an excuse to keep writing about it.

        But I have remarked in numerous comments that you have all the right in the world to ridicule him about anything he actually says.
        though in this case I think you should ridicule Reiss for suggesting it, and just castigating Hansen for not pointing out that it was not likely. Of course that was 50 years from when Hansen said it, so back then it might have looked more possible.

  10. suyts says:

    Tony,

    “Does he still believe these things?

    Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.”

    Apparently, that conversation Reiss referenced they didn’t talk specifics then, either. Even though, he said he wouldn’t change the specifics………….
    =================================================
    How ironic it is that you’re accusing me of being a post modern relativist. My disagreement with Hansen’s fluid and dynamic historical record is the very reason why I specifically sought out this blog. Yes, that’s the guy you’re defending. The one that you think can be taken for gospel in a book written by Reiss as opposed to interview done by Reiss. A guy that continually and purposefully alters historical information. I’d be more than happy to show you the proof of such behavior. You think just because it wrote in a book somewhere Hansen suddenly has validity in his statements? Tony, Hansen has no perspective or concept of TRUTH. To him, facts are alterable. That isn’t an opinion, he’s demonstrated this behavior repetitively. You state, “It was an INFORMAL interview.” Why do you believe that? Because that’s what Hansen said Reiss said. The same guy that alters historical information.

    You’re acting as if the “right wing”(is that the new code word for skepticism?) just started talking about the Salon interview last month or so. That’s crap. It been discussed for quite some time.

    You also imply that Hansen and/or Reiss may have been oblivious to the fact that the skeptics were discussing it. I find that implausible. Hansen has a personal blog page. Authored books, and has a continuous presence in the current climate debate. Reiss authored a book about a fictitious pending climate catastrophe. Both have addressed the skepticism. They both talk about skeptics but are unaware of what they’re saying? If this is true, then they both have serious credibility problems…… Well, they both do already, so……..

    And now you have to audacity to state there is no purpose in this predilection for catastrophic predictions. Again, that’s crap. It holds the same purpose of predicting the demise of the arctic. It holds the same purpose of predicting the demise of the Amazons, or spread of malaria, or the extinction of polar bear, or extended droughts in the SE U.S. or any else dire prediction in the litany of catastrophic prognostications. Tell me, Tony, if you believe there would be no purpose in stating Manhattan will be underwater (regardless of years or CO2 level) then what is the purpose for all the other dire predictions? What is gained? What is the purpose of the plethora, continuous and monotonous drone of dire and often contradictory prognostications? If you can’t answer that question, then, it isn’t me with the reality perception difficulty.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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