Skeptics: Stop Calling Deniers “Skeptics”

December 10, 2014

As climate denial goes the way of snake oil and table tipping, real Skeptics would like the media to please stop sullying their good name.

Skeptical Inquirer:

Prominent scientists, science communicators, and skeptic activists, including Bill Nye “the Science Guy,” physicist Lawrence Krauss, Cosmos co-creator Ann Druyan, and many others are calling on the news media to stop using the word “skeptic” when referring to those who refuse to accept the reality of climate change, and instead refer to them by what they really are: science deniers.

The statement, signed by 48 Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), comes as a response to a New York Times article from Nov 10, 2014, “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone Pipeline,” which referred to Sen. James Inhofe, who believes climate change to be an elaborate hoax, as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.”

“As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong,” says the joint statement. “The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is ‘denial.’

“Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.”

Signatories to the statement, drafted by physicist and science communicator Mark Boslough, also included Nobel laureate Sir Harold Kroto, philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, science education advocate Eugenie Scott, and David Morrison, Director of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe at the SETI Institute, as well as CSI executive director Barry Karr, Skeptical Inquirer editor Kendrick Frazier, and Center for Inquiry president and CEO Ronald A. Lindsay.

CSI promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is an affiliate of the Center for Inquiry. The complete statement is available at bit.ly/DeniersNotSkeptics.

Committee for Skeptical Inquiry:

Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term “skeptic.” The Nov 10, 2014, New York Times article “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone Pipeline” referred to Sen. James Inhofe as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.” Two days later Scott Horsley of NPR’s Morning Edition called him “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress.” These are not equivalent statements.

As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.

Here, leading climate “skeptic” and outgoing member of the Science Committee, Paul Broun on Science, and “lies from hell”.

Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed. He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title “skeptic.”

As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is “denial.” Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.

We are skeptics who have devoted much of our careers to practicing and promoting scientific skepticism. We ask that journalists use more care when reporting on those who reject climate science, and hold to the principles of truth in labeling. Please stop using the word “skeptic” to describe deniers.

Mark Boslough, Physicist

David Morrison, Director of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, at the SETI Institute

Bill Nye, CEO the Planetary Society

Ann Druyan, Writer/producer;  CEO, Cosmos Studios

Ken Frazier, Editor, Skeptical Inquirer

Barry Karr, Exec Director, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Amardeo Sarma, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Executive Council, Chairman GWUP (Germany)

Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Ronald A. Lindsay, President & CEO Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and Center for Inquiry

Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University

Christopher C. French, Dept of Psychology, Goldsmiths University of London

Daniel C. Dennett, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University

Massimo Pigliucci,  Professor of Philosophy at CUNY-City College

Douglas Hofstadter, Director, The Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University

Stephen Barrett, Co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch

Scott O. Lilienfeld, Professor, Department of Psychology, Emory University

Terence Hines, Dept of Psychology, Pace University

James Randi, President James Randi Educational Foundation

Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer and Director of the Center for SETI Research

Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Henri Broch, Physicist, Emeritus, University Nice Sophia Antipolis, France

Eugenie C. Scott, Chair, Advisory Council, National Center for Science Education

Edzard Ernst, Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, University of Exeter, UK

Indre Viskontas, Cognitive Neuroscientist, Host Inquiring Minds Podcast

David J.  Helfand, Professor of Astronomy, Columbia University

Mario Mendez-Acosta, Journalist, Science Writer, Mexico City

Cornelis de Jager, Astrophysicist,  Past President, International Council for Science

Sanal Edamaruku, President, Rationalist International

Loren Pankratz, Psychologist, Portland VA Medical Center, Retired

Sandra Blakeslee, Science Writer

Benjamin Radford, Deputy Editor of the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine

David Thomas, Physicist and Mathematician

Stuart D. Jordan, NASA Astrophysicist, Emeritus

David H. Gorski, Cancer Surgeon, Wayne State University School of Medicine

Anthony R. Pratkanis, Professor of Psychology, UC @Santa Cruz

Jan Willem Nienhuys, Mathematician, Waalre, The Netherlands

Susan Blackmore, Psychologist,  Visiting Professor at the University of Plymouth

Ken Feder, Anthropology,  Central Connecticut State University

Jill Tarter, Bernard M. Oliver Chair, SETI Institute

Richard Saunders, JREF Million Dollar Challenge Committee,  Producer – The Skeptic Zone Podcast

Jay Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy, Williams College

Lawrence M. Krauss, Director, The ASU Origins Project, Arizona State University

Barbara Forrest, Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University

Kimball Atwood, Physician, Newton, MA

James Alcock, Psychologist, Glendon College, York University, Toronto, Canada

Massimo Polidoro, Science writer, author, Executive Director CICAP, Italy

E.C. Krupp, Director, Griffith Observatory

Dick Smith, Film Producer, Publisher, Australia

147 Responses to “Skeptics: Stop Calling Deniers “Skeptics””

  1. jpcowdrey Says:

    Omno’s ‘point’ is that the last ten years of GST data look kinda flat.

    He has admitted that it is irrelevant to anything meaningful one can say about the overall trend.

    The data over the last ten years looks kinda flat. So what?

  2. pendantry Says:

    Reblogged this on Wibble and commented:
    This deserves to be better publicised. Denial of scientific fact is not scepticism!


  3. […] For clarification, I’ll steal the words of one of the commenters, lesliegraham1: […]

  4. Phil Fishman Says:

    I am neither a denier nor a skeptic with respect to the theory of AGW. To me the designation of denier implies a denial of something that is fact. What is fact is that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is not science, very simply because it lacks probably the most important precept of the scientific method, i.e., falsification. Any true scientist understands this, and any scientist who does not accept this precept is a real denier.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      If you say you are not a denier, and then faithfully spout one of the stupidest and most inane climate denial talking points word for word, you are not only a denier, you are a troll.

      • Phil Fishman Says:

        Sir, You are an obviously intelligent fellow, judging from your use of the English language, but I would proffer that your intelligence is exceeded by your ignorance of science. A word of advice to anyone speaking of inanity and not wanting to be shown as a fool would be to have some knowledge of a subject before judging a remark as being without substance. And, in the unlikely event that the individual has some familiarity with the scientific method, it might be a good idea for him to look in a mirror before calling someone a troll.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          How about we look at YOU some more, and then reaffirm that you are indeed a troll. A chemist with no expertise in climate science who nonetheless bills himself as a “speaker on climate change” and has even written a denialist BOOK.

          http://aglobalwarmingdissenter.com/a-really-inconvenient-truth/

          A look at that site will give readers a taste of more of the glib BS that Phil makes his living spreading. A look to the “Recommended Links” gives this list. Need I say more?

          wattsupwiththat.com
          http://www.warwickhughes.com
          http://www.climatedepot.com
          climateaudit.org
          http://www.nipccreport.org
          http://www.sepp.org
          http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm

          “A word of advice to anyone speaking of inanity and not wanting to be shown as a fool would be to have some knowledge of a subject before judging a remark as being without substance”.

          Lord love a duck, but that sounds like it was lifted out of a collection of works by very minor mid-19th, century poets or a statement by The Duchess to Alice. I would “proffer” that Phil go away , and spend his time trolling the sites in his list of “Recommended Links”.

          • greenman3610 Says:

            using the word “proffer” reminds me of the 18 year olds I met in freshman Philosophy class, that pretended to smoke a pipe.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yep, that’s Phil. He’s a “pretender” also (and he never once inhaled).

        • dumboldguy Says:

          (Had too many links and got an “awaiting moderation”. Here’s the message with the recommended links list abridged)

          How about we look at YOU some more, and then reaffirm that you are indeed a troll. A chemist with no expertise in climate science who nonetheless bills himself as a “speaker on climate change” and has even written a denialist BOOK.

          http://aglobalwarmingdissenter.com/a-really-inconvenient-truth/

          A look at that site will give readers a taste of more of the glib BS that Phil makes his living spreading. A look to the “Recommended Links” gives this list. Need I say more?

          wattsupwiththat
          warwickhughes
          climatedepot
          climateaudit
          nipccreport
          sepp
          mclean.ch/climate/global_warming

          As for: “A word of advice to anyone speaking of inanity and not wanting to be shown as a fool would be to have some knowledge of a subject before judging a remark as being without substance”.

          Lord love a duck, but that sounds like it was lifted out of a collection of works by very minor mid-19th, century poets or a statement by The Duchess to Alice. I would “proffer” that Phil go away, and spend his time trolling the sites in his list of “Recommended Links”.


          • Thanks for doing the sourcewatch digging. It’s nice for the audience to know the credibility of some of the people posting here. Not only are they climate deniers but general science deniers. Considering they like to argue that doing anything with climate change indicates that we all have to be living in cages again, one can wonder if the brains of some of these deniers have evolved much from the days when we were indeed all living in caves. At least they have an odd way of accepting science as long as it produces iGadgets which would be impossible without understanding way more complex physics than climate science requires.

    • MorinMoss Says:

      You should read the following by Victor Venema

      Falsifiable and falsification in science
      “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

      http://variable-variability.blogspot.ca/2014/03/falsifiable-and-falsification-in-science.html


      • Thank you. Mr. Moss. I have been called lots of names, but now I am an ostrich. I congratulate you on an original designation. Sir, I assure you that I fully understand the difference between falsifiable and falsification. Your article ironically proves my point that the AGW theory is not falsifiable and therefore is pseudoscience.
        “The hypothesis that the man-made increases in the concentration on green house gasses leads to an increase in the global mean temperature can be falsified and is thus a scientific hypothesis. …
        “A clear example is that if the average world
        temperature drops one degree, back to
        values before 1900 and stays there for a
        long time without there being other reasons
        for the temperature decrease (e.g. volcanoes, sun, aerosols) the theory would be falsified. ..”
        So, sir, now it is perfectly clear that the AGW
        hypothesis is falsifiable. If the average global temperature drops one degree below what it was in 1900 and stays there for a LONG time (perhaps a year or two or three or more) without there being OTHER reasons for the decrease, the theory would be falsified. How then, may I ask, is it possible to refute the theory if the time table cannot be defined and other excuses cannot be ruled out.? I guess that is what is meant when they say the evidence is irrevocable.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          How many “handles” is “Fishy” going to post under? Is he going to keep “switching frequencies” on us in an attempt to jam our “homing radar”? Sorry, Fishy, but we’ve got you on visual and have gone to the guns—-those snapping noises you hear going by your head ain’t fast moving honey bees.

          Keep posting your glib and self-satisfied BS. It provides us with yet more irrevocable evidence of what a denier tool you are. And shouldn’t you be spending your time studying climate science rather than commenting here on Crock? Your career in chemistry has not prepared you to be a writer or speaker on climate change, and unless you want people to call you names beyond “ostrich” (like charlatan, poseur, intellectual whore, or Monckton imitator), you need to hit the books (and I mean the REAL books, not your list of “recommended links”).

          PS Are you in the employ of Heartland as so many deniers seem to be? Or is boosting nipccreport and sepp as close as you get?

  5. fishmanpm Says:

    Reblogged this on A Really Inconvenient Truth and commented:
    Dear Mr. Dumboldguy,
    Sir, if I had wanted to lose you, I certainly could have, but I am having too much fun here to want to leave. I refrain from using pseudonyms, because they suggest the individual has something to hide. I registered under my alternate e-mail address simply to try to get in because Mr. Sinclair had blocked me until I sent him a message on Facebook, appealing to his sense of fairness. Your suggestion of reading alternate sources is an excellent one, and it might be helpful to you if you followed your own advice. I happen to read extensively, not only material I agree with, but dissenting viewpoints as well. That, by the way, is how I found my way on to this blog. I have read a number of ‘theorist” (as I refer to you folks) books, including An Inconvenient Truth and Storms of my Grandchildren. Mann’s new book is on my list, but I haven’t gotten around to it yet. I also frequently check out realclimate.org, desmogblog.com, skepticalscience.com, and the more moderate Climate, Etc. Reading and listening to alternate viewpoints are what differentiates educated individuals from ignorant bigots. And, while we are on literary works, lest I forget, I want to thank you for the plug on my website and book, and for the compliment on my writing style, which you compared to that of Lewis Carroll and some “lesser known” unnamed poets. I didn’t think I was that good. Lastly, with regard to my livelihood, I wonder if I would be more pure in your estimation if I relied on taxpayer funds.
    Sincerely,
    Phil Fishman (the moderate libertarian)

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Talking to yourself over on that blog you have that has apparently never had a visitor, Duchess?—-oops, I meant Fishy.

      Why didn’t you also post the comments I made in response right up front with your self-indulgent little screed? Are you hoping that some visitor that stumbles across the site in 10 or 15 years won’t be interested enough to look at the “968 more words”?

      And will you ever answer this?

      “Do you now or have you ever had any relationship with Heartland, any of its publications, or any of its “sister” organizations?

  6. Phil Fishman Says:

    Dear Mr. Dumboldguy,
    Sir, if I had wanted to lose you, I certainly could have, but I am having too much fun here to want to leave. I refrain from using pseudonyms, because they suggest the individual has something to hide. I registered under my alternate e-mail address simply to try to get in because Mr. Sinclair had blocked me until I sent him a message on Facebook, appealing to his sense of fairness. Your suggestion of reading alternate sources is an excellent one, and it might be helpful to you if you followed your own advice. I happen to read extensively, not only material I agree with, but dissenting viewpoints as well. That, by the way, is how I found my way on to this blog. I have read a number of ‘theorist” (as I refer to you folks) books, including An Inconvenient Truth and Storms of my Grandchildren. Mann’s new book is on my list, but I haven’t gotten around to it yet. I also frequently check out realclimate.org, desmogblog.com, skepticalscience.com, and the more moderate Climate, Etc. Reading and listening to alternate viewpoints are what differentiates educated individuals from ignorant bigots. And, while we are on literary works, lest I forget, I want to thank you for the plug on my website and book, and for the compliment on my writing style, which you compared to that of Lewis Carroll and some “lesser known” unnamed poets. I didn’t think I was that good. Lastly, with regard to my livelihood, I wonder if I would be more pure in your estimation if I relied on taxpayer funds.
    Sincerely,
    Phil Fishman (the moderate libertarian)

    • MorinMoss Says:

      Wow, in terms of obtuseness, opacity, verbiage & conceit, you’ve far outdone Omnologos, and in so few posts.
      Never thought I would see that anywhere.

      Bravo. *slow clap*

      Maurizio, the gauntlet has been thrown. Come try to take back your crown; just give me time to make the popcorn.

      • omnologos Says:

        The fun is all mine. You guys are useless at science or action, but appear not unexpectedly very good at ganging up on dissenters, including the obligatory Internet stalking and dumbo’s pop telepsychology

        For the record I don’t agree with Phil’s approach and can’t recall ever having an exchange with him -but I might be wrong.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          MM is right, Omno. Fishy is a serious contender for the “Demented Rooster Strutting In the Barnyard Crowing About His Imagined Victories” clown suit that you have worn so well. His narcissism is more advanced than yours, and his glibness evokes a “WHAT” at a much higher level than does your often indecipherable nattering.

          We “….are useless at science or action”? LMAO at the irony of you saying that. And we are also “…..very good at ganging up on dissenters”? Whine, whine, whine. A single moderately intelligent 10 year is all the “gang” it takes to shut you down.

          The “…obligatory Internet stalking” is called RESEARCH, Omno, and it’s what all truth seekers do when confronted with folks like you and Fishy. Your need for attention has made you both eminently “stalkable, so stop whjning. We didn’t make you post all that OMNOLOGOS BS, just as we didn’t force Fishy to embarrass himself—-he came to Crock of his own free will.

          And my “pop telepsychology” is rooted in the real psychology I studied and employed during my professional career. It is “tele” only because an ocean separates us, but that does not mean it is less of an attempt to reach out and help you in your time of need.

          For the record, your closing comment rates a mild “what?” and a “Hmmmmm”.. It seems rather defensive and conflicted My “pop telespsych” advice is to look within and ask yourself why you felt the need to make these inane remarks—-“For the record I don’t agree with Phil’s approach and can’t recall ever having an exchange with him -but I might be wrong”.

          We’re on your side, Omno! You are Crock’s very own resident village idiot, and we have gotten used to playing “catch and release” with you. Please defend yourself from Fishy’s assault on your crown..

        • Phil Fishman Says:

          Hi Omnologos, No we haven’t met, but I think we are in agreement that The AGW theory is faux science. The arguments against the theory are far from lacking, but one need go no further than to ask what would have to occur for the theory to be proven wrong. That there is no answer, provokes all these ad hominem attacks and mindless prattle. You probably don’t like my approach, but I have found that taking the high road annoys them more than anything else. Soon, they will run out of names for me and have to start repeating themselves. And now I am conceited as well. I wonder what prompted that? That I happen to be well read, which came out only because I had been challenged on my reading material, or is it that I don’t join them in the gutter with all the name calling, or maybe it is that they have inferred that I think I am smarter than they are. Goodness gracious, that last one would be setting an awfully low bar.

          • omnologos Says:

            I think the disagreement on science is well established so I seldom if ever talk science here. Policy and logic are more interesting, if only to find the elusive points of agreement. Plus Peter is one of the few aware of the importance of dissent to avoid a drop in traffic amongst the generalized nodding. Finally let me add a WHAAAAT myself before the bully replies 8)

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Omnologos meets Fishy! Will Crock survive the melding of these two great intellects or will their be a nova-like explosion of delusion and narcissism that engulfs us all? Yes, Fishy IS a contender for the Demented Rooster title, as well as The Order of the Perfumed Sleeve Hanky.

            Fishy plays the victim as well as Omno. as evidenced by “…provokes all these ad hominem attacks and mindless prattle” and “….soon, they will run out of names for me”.

            He bids for the OPSH with “….but I have found that taking the high road annoys them more than anything else” (Sniff, sniff)

            Fishy says in feigned innocence, “And now I am conceited as well. I wonder what prompted that?” LMAO Perhaps it’s his demonstrated and obvious conceit that brought that on? Like this?

            “I happen to be well read” (Yes TWO books, and thinking about a third). AND

            “….or is it that I don’t join them in the gutter with all the name calling, or maybe it is that they have inferred that I think I am smarter than they are. Goodness gracious, that last one would be setting an awfully low bar”. (Actually, that “last one” is perhaps the best proof of Fishy’s narcissism and self-delusion. Earth to Fishy! You are talking to yourself, as is typical of narcissists with low self-esteem—it has nothing to do with “smartness”).

            Omno plays the perfect dumb sidekick and sets himself up for ridicule with

            “I think the disagreement on science is well established so I SELDOM IF EVER TALK SCIENCE HERE”. Has he finally accepted what we have been telling him for years?

            (and of course, Omno must whine a bit with “….let me add a WHAAAAT myself before the bully replies”)

            So, we’ve got a winner here, folks. A series that should run for years and win many Emmies. What shall we call it? Broke Brains? NPD Survivor? Criminally Wasted Minds? (Make popcorn, all)

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Dear Fishy,

      You can cut the feigned politeness with all the “Dear”, “Mr.”, and “Sincerely” crap. Cut back on the flowery, smug, dismissive, and narcissistic BS as well. All that only makes you sound more slimy. We value directness on Crock.

      By all means, keep coming around, since you’re having so much fun—-PLEASE don’t “lose” us, at least not until the next ‘fish” like you comes along for us to play “catch and release” with. You say Mr. Sinclair had blocked you but let you back on the site out of a sense of fairness? LMAO—you ARE clueless! Perhaps you’ll get the joke some day. (Hint—MISTER Sjnclair stocks the pond for us).

      You wouldn’t recognize an “alternate source” if you saw one. You must not have explored too “extensively”, or it wouldn’t have taken you nearly 5 years to find Crock. And why are ALL of the sources on your Recommended Links list right-wing denialist sites? In the spirit of being “fair and balanced”, shouldn’t you also list Crock, desmogblog, skepticalscience, climateprogress, realclimate? At least ONE of them?

      And you have read TWO books about climate change and are thinking about reading a third? At your age? Only TWO? Perhaps you’ve been spending all your time on your “recommended links” sites? They WILL make you stupid if you keep that up.

      Perhaps you should look in the mirror when you say: “Reading and listening to alternate viewpoints are what differentiates educated individuals from ignorant bigots”. True to a point, but DO think carefully about the definition of “alternate”, because it does NOT mean listening to the distorted, politically biased, and scientifically incorrect “viewpoints” of willfully ignorant bigots like you.

      I pointed out your book and your site not to plug them, but to make it easy for Crockers to explore them and have a good laugh. As far as your writing style, you are most decidedly not “that good”, but I can see where your narcissism would lead you to think I was complimenting you. My saying “(your statement)….sounds like a statement by The Duchess to Alice” should by no means lead you to think your writing style is “comparable” to Lewis Carroll. Here’s what I was referring to—-insert “Fishy” for Duchess and “Crockers” for Alice and you’ll get my point.

      “I quite agree with you,” said the Duchess; “and the moral of that is–‘Be what you would seem to be’–or if you’d like it put more simply–‘Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'”

      “I think I should understand that better,” Alice said very politely, “`if I had it written down: but I can’t quite follow it as you say it.”

      “That’s nothing to what I could say if I chose,” the Duchess replied, in a pleased tone.

      “Pray don’t trouble yourself to say it any longer than that,” said Alice.
      (Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Chapter 9)

      And this is not an answer to my question, just the typical evasiveness of the denier—-answering a question by asking asking a question—-“Lastly, with regard to my livelihood, I wonder if I would be more pure in your estimation if I relied on taxpayer funds”. Ir was a simple question. Do you now or have you ever had any relationship with Heartland, any of its publications, or any of its “sister” organizations?

      D.O.G. (the immoderate conservative progressive)


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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

%d bloggers like this: