The nature of blogging (“having a beer”) vs the nature of science


Robert Grumbine (a scientist-blogger well worth reading) explains how the scientific process works and how scientists communicate, and how it differs from blog debates (which he describes as “having a beer”). The following is lifted from his comment at Chris Colose’s blog a while ago. He sets up his argument in response to another commenter (self-identifying as “a genuine skeptic”):


As a skeptic, I share your frustration equally, and as a genuine skeptic, and someone who does care about the environment, I am ready any day of the week to have my opinion sway back to believing in / trusting the consensus / IPCC position. Further, I know exactly what would sway me: dialogue, and constructive debate with the skeptics, in particular those skeptics of the ilk of Lindzen, Christy, and, although he refuses the label “skeptic”, Pielke Sr. (…)

(…) I’ve disagreed with Pielke Sr., for instance, but in the scientific norm. Tenderhearted readers, unaccustomed to the scientific norm, might have thought I was awfully hard on Roger. (One did say so.) But his own comment was that he appreciated my constructive discussion. This is a cultural issue that I think the general population does not understand. Normal exchanges, for science, about what’s going on, what’s good, or not, are fairly rough and tumble. It may not be the best thing that science is conducted this way, but it is what it is.

The scientific norm issue is a different matter. The scientific norm is the professional literature, not blog commentary. If you look in to Lindzen and the response in the scientific literature, you’ll find that he’s been met properly (by the standards of science, that is). Namely, he suggested his ‘adaptive iris’ idea. This was based on there being a certain relationship (it had to have a particular sign, and large magnitude) between surface temperatures in the tropics and cloudiness (and, for that matter, particular types of cloud). One paper in the scientific literature doesn’t buy you much. It is the start of the conversation to publish in the literature, not blessing as holy writ. He published, and then got the best possible response — other people used other (better) data sets and observing methods to see if they could get the same answer as he had gotten in his first cut. Unfortunately for his hypothesis, the better data sets erased his effect. Indeed, not only was the magnitude much smaller than he thought, the sign was the opposite of what he thought.

As far as scientific norms go, he got extremely good treatment. a) he did publish his idea (no ‘conspiracy to suppress’) and b) other people took a serious look at it. It is significant work to take a look at somebody else’s new idea. As a scientist, if you can get others to look at your idea, you have done extremely well. As happens in science, perfectly normally, the initial proposition got rejected by more detailed analysis. Since what was at hand was deriving a relationship between observational quantities, and Lindzen is a theoretician, it’s no great surprise or shame that he didn’t get all the niceties on his data sets right. As usual, devils lay in the details, and the responses were from groups familiar with all the devils laying in those details.

Where things went problematic was that contrary to proper scientific practice, Lindzen didn’t drop his disproven idea. A bit of ‘is so’ publishing (sorry, it was painful to read his response article and this is all I can say of it) in response to the objections was it. And then much complaining outside the scientific literature about conspiracy, scam, censorship, … To be honest, even his original Iris publication was an example of lenient reviewing. There were problems in his data management in the original paper that even I saw (correctly) would be a problem for his idea — and I’m not a tropical person (polar regions mostly), nor, then, sea surface temperature, nor then or now satellite sensing of clouds. The later publications — in the scientific literature — about his errors confirmed my suspicions, and, unsurprisingly, added a number of problems to what I suspected. But that’s not what you see out on the blog universe.

You can make some headway over at A fair amount of the non-scientific world shows up there, but a fair amount of the scientific world is present.

always see an ad hominem attack for what it is (I refer to the attacks by commenters at RealClimate, which were not removed by the editors). In most cases, straw men arguments can also be seen for what they are. And then an argument, “we don’t have to answer that ’cause it wasn’t peer-reviewed” always also increases the lay public’s skepticism. No one takes that response seriously, and again, skepticism can only increase.

I agree that outside the scientific community nobody takes seriously that something didn’t appear in the scientific literature.

That is a problem with outside the scientific community.

Doing science is difficult. Over the past 400 years, the modern scientific method has accumulated a lot of knowledge and understanding. Doing science means changing that body of knowledge and understanding. Sometimes that means saying that even though we used to think that something was the case, it really isn’t. Making that argument successfully is hard work. ‘Even’ the easier argument of making an addition is hard work. It’s hard work because other people have to be able to rely very strongly on everything you say in your paper. (…)

There are two parts to the scientific publication process important for your comment here. One is, to publish in the professional literature about your idea, you have to examine and explain your idea thoroughly. ‘thoroughly’ turns out to be a lot of work. Second is, you have to research all the relevant aspects of your problem and honestly discuss them. The up side of this is, once you’ve finished a proper scientific paper, it can stand for some time. You might turn out to be wrong about something — because there were different data than you used, or a better technique than you used, or … several things. Being shown wrong by later and much more labor-intensive examinations is fine. But being shown wrong because you failed to do your homework is disaster.

In contrast is blog posts and comments. The standard there is what I’ll call ‘chatting over a beer’. If you and I sit down and start talking, both of us with something we like to drink, having a relaxed conversation, that’s wildly different than scientific literature. Both of us will say what we think, but there’s no concern about tomorrow you trying to write a paper on which our professional reputations will hang based on what I say. We’re just chatting. I’ll give you my best answer at the time, but if I’ve forgotten something, or the answer is 25.0 instead of 2.50, eh. Just chatting over a beer. Just a blog comment. If someone started writing a scientific paper based on comments in blogs … all kinds of wild things could show up. The earth is flat, hollow, expanding, 6000 years old, and so on. Somebody, somewhere, in the blogosphere has said all such things.

To do science, we need something much more reliable than ‘anything anybody ever says anywhere’. We even need something better than “well, he’s normally pretty good so even tough he’s never worked on this kind of problem before and doesn’t know how the satellites detect what he’s working with, he _must_ be right anyhow.” That something more is the professional scientific literature.

Within the world of science (all 20 or so of us), it is an extremely telling, and negative, thing that much of what the general public thinks is the case about science is actually based on things which are said _only_ outside the scientific literature. If the speaker had confidence in his statement, he’d try to publish it in the literature. And, if they were right about the ‘conspiracy’, they should at least have a rejection letter and comments from the editor and reviewers to show. Instead, they talk about the conspiracy, but have no rejection letters (_I’ve_ got rejection letters — they’re normal to trying to do science.)

But the public perception is quite different. Still, I have to think if someone won’t go in front of his professional peers and stand for what he thinks is scientifically correct, he doesn’t really believe it himself. If his only or major audience is people who don’t know the science thoroughly, I have to figure he thinks that’s the only audience who’ll let him get away with whatever it is he’s saying now. Fine for you and me over a beer. No fine for doing science.


Just to add a qualifier: Not everything that appeared in the scientific literature is necessarily “good science”. Likewise, not everything that appeared on a blog is necessarily unscientific or wrong. Just as in a bar, the greatest ideas and insights can be heard. But amidst a helluva lot of chatter about the weather. Which is actually pretty nice right now. Enjoy your beer!

Tags: , , , , ,

26 Responses to “The nature of blogging (“having a beer”) vs the nature of science”

  1. Arjan Says:

    You hit the nail on its head. However, there are a few problems which have arisen recently:

    1) There are a lot of science journalists (for example see and bloggers which are dreaming about “peer to peer” science and blog auditing (it leads to exiting stories, and everybody likes beer!), which can be a contribution but NEVER a substitution for a thorough peer reviewed science, exactly for the reasons you described in your post.

    2) A more worrying sign is that journals with a certain agenda have popped up. In these journals, you can “publish” pretty much anything, as long as it is consistent with the view of the editors of that journal. This has been called the “corruption” of the peer review process (when their research is rejected (usuallly for a reason…) by some of the “skeptics”, and to go around this they have invented blog auditing or they have organized a journal which allows them to publish their rubbish.

    3) Nobody cares about peer reviewed science anymore, and nobody trusts climate scientists anymore, and I doubt that will change the next few decades (until predictions become very obvious, but the AGW signal is rather slow for human lifetimes), so it might take forever. Maybe it is best to not care at all but just do your (our) work better. Learn from the honest criticism and real skepticism and just ignore the rest.
    Trying to go against it (such as Judith Curry is currently doing) to regain trust will only confirm that there are reasons for distrust (there really aren’t any, at least concerning the science) and make things worse. However, if anybody wants a beer (with an honest discussion) that’s great of course, but keep in mind that it is often pretty much useless to try and convert peoples views and presumptions.

    I do not believe we will reduce CO2 emissions considerably until oil prices become high enough for other energy sources to be profitable. It’s all about the money… I just hope the climate sensitivity will be on the low end!

    NB: although it might seem from my second point, certainly not all skeptical research is rubbish!!!

  2. dhogaza Says:

    Great post, Bart, Grumbine is right on. The rare combination of scientist and communicator of his profession.

    Normal exchanges, for science, about what’s going on, what’s good, or not, are fairly rough and tumble. It may not be the best thing that science is conducted this way, but it is what it is.

    I’m just a humble software engineer who when young moved in fairly elite academic circles within computer science (as a young field, the walls separating the two today didn’t really exist back then), and “rough and tumble” certainly describes my experiences. Oh, tempered by national cultural influences … the Brits using politeness to distract you from the thin, razor sharp shiv slipping almost painlessly between your ribs seeking your heart, the dutch, americans and germans far more direct and obvious, etc … but … science and engineering both are a battle of ideas.

    There are a lot of science journalists (for example see and bloggers which are dreaming about “peer to peer” science and blog auditing (it leads to exiting stories, and everybody likes beer!), which can be a contribution but NEVER a substitution for a thorough peer reviewed science, exactly for the reasons you described in your post.

    Being an american of dutch-german descent, blog science seems to consist of a bunch of blowhards convinced that they can overturn science without investing in education, study, research, etc in the field. I hate to bring the dreaded VS’s name into the conversation, but it’s a classic case. Well, I guess it’s also a classic case in odd corners of the more obscure academic press (thus “B&R” and “G&T” etc), but in the blogosphere there’s *no* discipline, *no* gateway, *no* bar to entry whatsoever.

    And a bunch of hopeless D-K infected folks with access to the internet really, really, really believe they’re overturning science. Much as those folks who try the patience of physicists by endlessly “proving” they’ve created a perpetual motion machine that *does not* violate SLoT.

  3. dhogaza Says:

    although it might seem from my second point, certainly not all skeptical research is rubbish!!!

    No, but if it can only pass muster in the circumstances outlined in your second point, then it almost certainly is rubbish …

  4. Eli Rabett Says:

    The problem with the opinion-journals, is not that the editors are pushing their line, that after all occurs even in such recondite fields as high energy theory, condensed matter physics, etc.,, but the megaphone constructed by the well funded propaganda organizations such as CEI, AEI, the Fraser Institute, etc. and their pipeline to the media.

  5. mspelto Says:

    The science community still cares deeply about peer review. In fact we need to spend more time reviewing papers. Reviewing papers is generally an excellent learning process for the reviewer and hopefully the authors. It does take far more work to evaluate a paper that has a number of flaws, than one that is in good shape. You have to carefully identify and reference significant flaws or oversights. The result is better papers. The last paper I had published took two years to get through the process and three journals. The final paper was much better than the original, the concept had not changed, just with additional means by which it was tested and better explained.

  6. Bart Says:

    I deleted some comments that went off track into religuous and horse talk. Keep it on topic please.

  7. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Yeah Bart, the other comments from Eli and dhogaza are very illuminating. Especially about the how the Internet is polluting science.

    It is just a series of tubes, you see.

  8. Magnus W Says:

    I tend to agree, a big problem is how media is handling the question… Swedish Television however have done a good job lately:

  9. Tom Fuller Says:

    Great post, Bart.

  10. Heiko Gerhauser Says:

    It is always difficult to get what the main point of someone’s writing is, I am sure it’s difficult enough with much of what I write on my blog.

    The way I get it, your posting is set in the following type of frame:

    1. The public misunderstands the risks of climate change, with nearly half vastly underestimating it.

    2. The problem is that they are misinformed by bloggers.

    3. Bloggers are much less thorough than scientists. So, who would you rather trust?

    I don’t buy 1.) or 2.). I think the public has the risks of climate change, the need for action, the type of action required etc. about right and is generally in line with expert opinion. Which itself is a pretty wide spectrum of opinions, much not so hard, because the risks of climate change and various actions to deal with it, do not have a neat relationship with basic climate science.

    Not looking at blogging and peer review in scientific journals in your frame, I see other relevant issues, like the benefits of open source, open access, and contributions from unpaid volunteers. Or the fact that resources devoted to gathering data matter more than whether the data are published in scientific journals. A journal may very well accept a cluster study of mortality with 1000 people chosen randomly by 2 researchers. That may be the best there is in some cases, but doesn’t take away from the fact that employing thousands of statisticians and data gatherers who catalogue every single death in a country, will not only cost more, but also be more accurate.

  11. Arjan Says:

    Well, I do not think the public is “well informed”. There is an increasing amount of people who think AGW is a scam, and that extra CO2 and greenhouse gasses are only a good thing. They don’t get that from peer reviewed science (yes, I do sometimes wish that peer reviewed articles were more freely available though). I read statements on your blog saying that CO2 might even cool the earth… talking about misinforming people on a blog. I hope it is clear to the readers that that is not based on science (but much more like having a lot of beer). Most scientists are getting really tired of such nonsense (actually also a lot of them really don’t care much ), and then guys like you expect that they have to treat you seriously. Right. They won’t. Then, they are called arrogant elitists or much much worse. Bullsh*t. If you want to be taken seriously, do some serious effort and produce some serious work. That’s more than fair.

    In a large part, I think the people are misinformed because of internet blogging and the well-oiled anti-AGW media campaign of a few conservative think tanks.

    It can take several years of full time work to publish an article, compared to less than one hour to write your personal speculations on a blog. They (usually) cannot be compared.

    There are however a few individuals who spend a lot of time really trying to replicate and check scientific results, which can be a nice contribution next to peer reviewed studies. Such work is to be encouraged.

  12. Bart Says:


    The public has a very different opinion on climate change than climate scientists: Poll after poll shows that public is very divided about human causation of climate change (currently close to 50-50 even), whereas climate scientists overwhelmingly attribute a substantial part of the warming to human activities (e.g. Doran and Zimmermann, Oreskes, and an exhaustive description of how widespread the scientific consensus is here).

    Your point 2 is not really what I would claim, though the influence of bloggers has clearly increased. I’ve seen articles in the Telegraaf that were clearly based on Watts and d’Aleo’s cliams for example.

  13. Hans Erren Says:

    If data is confidential, then don’t publish research that is based on it, because it makes the publication per definition non-reproducable.

    It would really help if scientist weren’t acting like prima donnas when asked to show evidence for their claims.

    After all that’s what science is all about isn’t it. Otherwise we would only be looking at a unsurmountable pile of unproven Fermat theorems:
    “I’ve proven it, but the space is too limited to show it here”

    I suggest in that case: don’t publish at all.

  14. Arjan Says:

    Right, Hans, because the surface data is so confidential, over a dozen of bloggers are currently working on the data and have been showing that Jones has not exaggerated or cooked the data in any way. You must be talking about all detailed steps, computer code, emails and manuscriptions made by every scientist working on climate physics, or did else I don’t understand your allegations of the data being “confidential”. BTW: I don’t think such a degree of openess has been a reasonable policy in any field of physics. Well, since those have also been stolen now, you must be very happy. I understand why you don’t want climate scientists to publish anymore, because they tend to show things which you don’t seem to like or agree with.

    Anyway, more openess is not a bad thing, nor is writing better code. I suspect that climate scientists working on the surface data are and will be doing both more so in the future.

  15. Heiko Gerhauser Says:

    Hi Bart,

    we have talked about the attribution question before and it is generally accepted that most warming to date has been masked. If all was masked and there was 0 warming now, rather than 2/3 to 3/4 being masked, would that imply that the risks of climate change were therefore nil?

    I think it is wrong to attribute too much to the attribution issue. It has a very lose connection to an assessment of the risks of climate change. And in so far as the attribution is between CO2 emissions and current net damage or recent disaster loss trends, much of the public also gets it wrong.

    As you know the same surveys that find a 50/50 split in the attribution question for the public, find 90%+ majorities saying that continued CO2 emissions will eventually have significant effects.

  16. Heiko Gerhauser Says:

    Hi Arjan,

    the idea that greenhouse gases, and more specifically CO2 itself, might not produce net damages for modest warming is most definitely supported by the peer reviewed literature.

    On CO2 cooling the Earth, I am saying it is possible in principle, if there were a large effect of CO2 on biological, chemical, physical processes that cause ocean or cloud albedo to change sufficiently. But being possible in principle without breaking any physical laws is very different from being likely.

    On the misinformation: the average person on the street has no idea that there is aerosol cooling or how much there might be, and so forth. What they have to assess is how serious a risk are emissions of CO2 right now and what type of action is justified to deal with this. And here the spectrum of public opinion is very closely in line with the peer reviewed literature, say compare the optimal CO2 price from studies with that supported by fractions of the public (Richard Tol has done some interesting work here). The attribution yes/no type survey question for the public is wholly uninformative on what the public actually think about the risks of climate change in my opinion. And I think it is quite wrong to say that to get public support for measures to shift we need to better inform the public on the facts. The support for measures is already where it should be based on the facts.

  17. Arjan Says:

    Ah, but why didn’t you tell your blog audience that it isn’t likely? That sounds like “hide the incline”. It would have been fair to state, that it is in principle physically possible for CO2 to cool the earth (which I don’t think is possible btw), but extremely unlikely and based on nothing but speculation, so it actually doesn’t make sense as a serious scientific statement. Because from reading it, less informed people get the idea that CO2 can lead to cooling. You don’t want people to believe in something which is (1) physically wrong, and (2) extremely unlikely? Or is that the goal of your blog?

    Ah, “the average person on the street has no idea that there is aerosol cooling or how much there might be”. Well, that is maybe no misinformation but just a lack of information. BTW aerosol cooling will “hide” AGW until we will abandon fossil fuels for our energy consumption, which we will eventually HAVE TO DO. With decreasing aerosol concentrations and high CO2 concentrations, we are really in for rapid rising global temperatures (and even larger ones locally in large urban areas). Alarmism? Well, at least based on science, read for example a good review of the aerosol effects on climate: Wild, 2009: Global dimming and brightening, a review. (and references therein) Online available at:

    Maybe you should blog about that, so that the public knows about it. BTW please don’t spin it (it’s tempting), because though we have had some brightening between 1985 – 2000 (wow, environmental regulations can have an effect, it must be a miracle, so maybe smog, air pollution and acid rain were not just evil socialist and environmentalist stories to scare the public and gain global dominancy after all!) GLOBALLY there is still quite some dimming by aerosols (and there are indications that it will increasingly do so again in the near future).

    Ah, so because of possible economic reasons for not doing anything about it, or very little, it is not good to inform the public of the actual physical science, because they already have the right support for measures in your opinion?

    What’s it going to cost the Netherlands if -for example- the sea level rises 1 m in 2100, and up to 6 m in the centuries afterwards? Anyway, as my knowledge of economics is rather limited (and also not the field of climate scientists), I can not make a detailed balance of the costs to reduce CO2 substantially in the near future, or adapt to the (possible) consequences of AGW, so I will leave that for economists and policy makers, and hold them (politically) responsible if they are wrong. However, climate scientists can -and should- inform the public about the risks of AGW, or we will have serious problems in the future (“Why didn’t you tell us!” Well, we did, but you didn’t listen.)

    BTW, we didn’t have much of the warming from CO2 until now, because of the large thermal inertia (heat capacity) of the earth’s oceans, slowly but now much more rapidly decreasing trends in solar forcing and large anthropogenic aerosol effects (“global dimming”). That’s why we are seeing a much more rapid rise on land (no, not predominately because of UHI, although that does likely have a substantial effect locally on unadjusted data). The last 30 years however we are roughly on track of the rise that is to be expected globally (around or just below 0.2 C/decade on average) in the next century, but it will take a while for the large ice caps and oceans to fully respond to it.

  18. Heiko Gerhauser Says:

    I am not always very good at getting the nuance of my thoughts across. What I was trying to say there is that there is quite a bit of wiggle room in what we know about the climate system and things like how cloud albedo might change, let alone what biological systems might do.

    If we had a hundred years of world albedo data that was highly accurate and indicated zero variability, or variability that was so highly correlated with some causal factor that we could fully explain it, there’d be a lot less lee way for thermostat hypotheses to be physically plausible (given a not too extreme external forcing).

    I am all for informing the public about the physical science and about the risks of climate change. I do think equating understanding of risks with a yes/no answer on whether temperature increase to date is primarily anthropogenic or not,

    is misleading. Most of the risk has to do with what may still happen in the future. The CO2 price is a nice way to quantify the risk in some fashion. That’s harder to do with say ecosystem response. How do you quantify those sorts of risk in order to objectively compare public and expert opinion? My impression is that also for these less easily quantifiable risk aspects of climate change, the public and experts share a similar spectrum of opinions.

  19. Arjan Says:

    I see I might have been a bit too harsh on you then, as our point of views seem to be somewhat closer than I initially thought. The response of ecosystems to AGW is indeed very uncertain, and so are the economic consequences. (All local climate effects actually also are, I haven’t seen a truly reliable regional climate model, we still have a LONG way to go, and we have (maybe) rather limited time.) However, I do think there are quite a few indications that for a lot of us it will be “inconvenient” at least.
    However, there are probably equally or possibly more urgent environmental problems than AGW considering our rapid expansion.

    Anyway, that is a difference between blogging and talking over a beer, usually the latter is actually much more pleasant and relaxing ;).

    Have a good weekend!


  20. Hans Erren Says:

    @Arjan April 23, 2010 at 02:35

    A FOIA request was needed to get a simple list of used stations. Sorry, but that is not my definition of scientific behaviour.
    Shooting the messengers doesn’t make that fact go away.

    Unlike eg particle physics, climate science publications have a huge impact on policy decisions these days, complete transparancy and openness is therefore mandatory.

  21. Marco Says:

    @Hans Erren:
    Publications with undisclosed proprietary information are still reproducible. It just takes a little bit of extra work. I’ve done it plenty of times myself. For HADCRU people simply could have repeated the analysis for the vast majority of the world’s surface with the freely available data, leaving a ‘whopping’ 5% of data out. Now, of course, that HAS been done, by GISTEMP and NCDC, but apparently this is not enough for some people…

  22. Carrick Says:

    Where things went problematic was that contrary to proper scientific practice, Lindzen didn’t drop his disproven idea

    In my experience in science that’s pretty common too. An in the worst case scenarios, they are the ones who continue to get funding by clinging to these disproven theories.

    One joke about how science progresses is through the retirement of the older researchers who are clinging to outmoded ideas. Progress is made by winning the hearts and minds of the young researchers, I guess.

  23. Hans Erren Says:

    Sure you can make your own reconstruction from a database, but that’s not the point is it?

    The point is: Jones is making a “scientific” claim, but he is hiding how he did it, that is simply not science, go ask your 101 physics teacher.

  24. Arjan Says:

    @Hans: And your point is clearly trying to discredit Jones et al. by accusing him of “hiding” the method of “a scientific claim”.

    Before the first FOI requests the CRU released the data which they were allowed to release. About 5 % of the data was restricted because of data policies of Met offices.

    And please be a bit more specific, what method is Jones “hiding” for the scientific claim he is making? If this “scientific claim” is published, it should be in there, and that was once (before the “skeptics” became lazy) enough.

    Anyway, with climate science being in the center of attention, that has maybe become not enough, but I’m seeing serious improvements being made towards making available the methods, software and data. Hopefully, that will eliminate these absurd “wars” on who is “right” and who is “wrong” in the future. Hopefully it will also eliminate absurd claims about the surface datasets, but I haven’t seen any improvements yet.

    (The problem in this discussion that actually both sides have their arguments, but neither side wants to admit anything, because they know that the accusations will only get worse and worse and more ridiculous).

  25. phntwoo Says:


    The public has a very different opinion on climate change than climate scientists: Poll after poll shows that public is very divided about human causation of climate change (currently close to 50-50 even), whereas climate scientists overwhelmingly attribute a substantial part of the warming to human activities (e.g. Doran and Zimmermann, Oreskes, and an exhaustive description of how widespread the scientific consensus is here).

    All things equal climate scientists WOULD say that wouldn’t they?
    Makes them important, brings bread on the table for them.
    To the tune of 20 Billion USD in the US alone.

    A first and necessary condition for causation GHG->temp is correlation.
    Never seen a good exposition for that by the warmists..

    VS attempted to that , but the attempt was “smothered” and
    he was bashed away because he does not belong to the clerus.

  26. Bart Says:


    Quit the conspiracy talk. If scientists were in it for the money, they’d be doing different work.

    The correlation that needs to be there is between the lagged net forcing and climate (taking internal modes of variability into account). VS did not attempt to do that.

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: