Obama on “Terrifying” Climate Threat

September 8, 2016


In an exclusive interview on his legacy, President Obama speaks to The Times’s Mark Landler and Coral Davenport on climate change while visiting Marine Corps Base Hawaii.


Campaigning against Mitt Romney in 2012, he barely mentioned climate change.

But soon after Election Day, Mr. Obama interrupted a broad discussion with historians about the country’s challenges with a surprising assertion. Douglas Brinkley, a historian who attended the session, recalled, “Out of nowhere, he said, ‘If we don’t do anything on the climate issue, all bets are off.’”

Mr. Obama, who understood that a legislative push would be fruitless, told his advisers to figure out how to enact deep emissions cuts without Congress. They found a way through the Clean Air Act of 1970, which gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to issue regulations on dangerous pollutants.

In 2014, Mr. Obama unveiled the first draft of what would become the Clean Power Plan: a set of Clean Air Act rules that could lead to the closing of hundreds of coal-fired power plants.

The move enraged critics, including Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, whose state relies heavily on coal.

“More and more, there are events that are happening that are astoundingly unusual, that knock your socks off, like the flooding in Louisiana,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. “Those are the kinds of events where it’s becoming possible to draw attribution.”

Benjamin J. Rhodes, one of the president’s closest aides, recalled Mr. Obama talking about “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,” Jared Diamond’s 2005 best seller, which explored the environmental changes that wiped out ancient societies like Easter Island and discussed how modern equivalents like climate change and overpopulation could yield the same destruction.


32 Responses to “Obama on “Terrifying” Climate Threat”

  1. Don Osborn Says:

    Re: ” recalled Mr. Obama talking about “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,”” Gee, a president that actually reads books rather than only knows what he sees on the internet or in tabloids???

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Trump doesn’t even look at the internet or the tabloids—-he doesn’t need to, because he is the smartest person ever to run for president and already has the answers stored up in his HUUUUUGE brain. Ask him.

      It IS heartening to see that Obama read at least ONE book that is relevant to what we talk about here on Crock. I have touted many dozens of books here, including those by Diamond, Gilding, Dumanoski, Weisman, (and even Jesse freakin’ Ventura), with little feedback from Crockers that any have ever read them. Does ANYONE read books anymore?

      • Tom Bates Says:

        Why are you reading a book? Why not go to the actual data and reports and read them? Books represent the bias of the author. The studies represent the data, if the study conclusion is not supported by the data than it is BS and that is fairly easy to find out when reading about the study methods and how they came up with the data. Take ocean rise. One of the claims is the ocean is rising very fast and several studies claim to support that. If you look at the studies themselves they turn out to be BS. One study for example cut up the world into grids, took ocean rise measurements in those grids, not all the measurements by the way, only some, averaged them out and than averaged out the grids to arrive at the claim ocean rise rate. The problem is the authors ignored ground movement. about 20 percent of the stations have ground movement data, the authors simply ignored it. It turns out there is a lot of ground movement around the world, many of the measuring spots are subject to ground subsidence like the Hawaiian Islands Miami or Norfolk Virginia. Actual ocean rise is 3 to 4 inches in 100 years which is not very much and a lot less than the claims.

        The same thing has been done with temperature measurements. Giss, the most commonly used measurement is 66 percent plugs, 99 percent are higher than measured when an actual measurement is replaced but most are simply plugs as they have no measurement. RSS, UAH, STAR in contrast are worldwide and show either no rise or a drop since 1998.

        There is a lot of talk about arctic ice. This year the arctic ice is actually greater than in 2012. They never mention that the satellite used since 1979 to measure the ice broke in April and has never been replaced. In Antarctica a lot of talk of ice melting when the actual continental ice is increasing and the part melting shows evidence of under ice volcanic activity. So it goes, why not look at the actual science on both sides and than make a decision.

        • Apologies to all except Tommy Poo for the repetition here — but every time Tommy Poo pops up, I’m going to hit him with this’

          And I’m going update my retraction-request counter each time.

          Tommy Poo,

          This is at least my sixteenth request for you to retract (and apologize for) your lies about the NASA/GISS global-temperature work, lies that I called you out on *months* ago.

          Do you remember this particular claim that you made?

          …and only shows warming after that when they plug 66 percent of the data with estimates which are higher than the actual temperatures they replace.

          I proved you wrong by showing that the NASA warming trend can easily be replicated with raw data (no adjustments/estimates/etc.) Link here: https://climatecrocks.com/2016/05/26/exxonknew-and-chose-to-lie/#comment-84594

          When you continued to post here without retracting that completely false claim, I followed up here: https://climatecrocks.com/2016/05/28/bill-maher-on-trump-energy-policy/#comment-84709

          You also ignored that second request to retract your claim.

          And a third.

          And a fourth.

          And a fifth.

          And a sixth.

          And a seventh.

          And an eighth.

          And a ninth.

          And a tenth.

          And an eleventh

          And a twelfth

          And a thirteenth

          And a fourteenth.

          And a fifteenth.

          So I’m following up with yet another request (this one is at least the sixteenth). Will you admit that you were wrong about NASA and how it processes temperature data?

          Every time you show up here, I will ping you about this.

          Every. Single. Time.

          And I won’t stop until you acknowledge that you were wrong.

          (Actually, I don’t really expect Bates to man up and admit that he was wrong; I’m simply using him as an example of how deniers are utterly and completely incapable of admitting error, even after they tell the most egregious whoppers).

          • andrewfez Says:

            Wonder who the one person to down vote this post was?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            IMO, it’s Tommy Poo. It’s exactly the kind of passive-aggressive move we should expect from him. Since he is unwilling (and probably unable) to answer the sixteenth (at least) query about his BS, he fights back with a feeble thumbs down.

        • Lionel Smith Says:

          “Why are you reading a book? Why not go to the actual data and reports and read them?”

          Because dear Bates, books on technical and scientific topics provide leads into the very science papers that you fail comprehension on.

        • andrewfez Says:

          The problem is the authors ignored ground movement.

          The only folks I see ignoring ground movement are the folks ignoring the rebound effect after an ice sheet has pushed such downward and has since retreated.

      • I read books DOG, currently Paleoclimate by Michael L. Bender, a book that’s so loaded with data that Bates should love it.

        Of the books I’ve read this year, my favorite is one that aligns with your tastes. Check out “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” by Yuval Noah Harrari.

      • Lionel Smith Says:

        I read loads of books DoG. Some books I study rather than read, the texts on climate change e.g. Palaeoclimatology and Bill Ruddiman – picking up on references too, those not behind a paywall or hidden in academic libraries.

        Books on history, most ages but also the rise and fall of empires, being a Brit, nay an Englishman and having served I am very interested in maritime history and the hidden histories of things like The Raj.

        Try this one:


        or this:


        In that vein look up Carroll Quigley.

        Also books by Australian John Pilger.

  2. People claim he hasn’t done enough, and I admit I’ve said it before as well. But he was hamstrung at every step by the obstructionism. Maybe he pushed legislation he thought might have a chance of getting through, so he focused on healthcare first? I’m not sure. But he has certainly done more than any previous president has done on the issue of Climate Change. I really, really REALLY hope Clinton, if she wins office, will follow through and not turn her back on the issue (or ignore it). Whether or not most Americans see it as such, it is the most defining issue our society has and will face.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Obama has had to fight the obstructionism from the Repugnant Party because they no longer know what it means to “share” power, take turns in the driver’s seat, and work towards the greater good. The Repugnants are “owned” by the corporations and the plutocracy. Obama also had to face racism because of his color, and Hillary will face the same obstructionism if the Dems don’t take back the Senate )and hopefully the House) as well as the sexism that is not too far behind racism on the lists of defects in this country. If the USA was a car, it would have been recalled long ago.

      Here’s a list comparing the positions on climate and energy of Clinton and the Dems with those of The Overgrown Child with the Orange Hair and the Repugnants.


      PS Speaking of the “orange-haired one”, an article in the WashPost today about his bribing the Florida AG (Pam Bondi) to not file charges against Trump University has a picture of them walking together across the tarmac in the rain. He, like a gentleman, is carrying the umbrella. Unfortunately, he has it dead centered over HIM, while she is walking alongside him in the rain. I guess his orange mess can’t take the rain? Or is it that his made-in-China Trump tie will melt if it gets wet? LMAO!

    • Tom Bates Says:

      He gave 500 million of our taxpayer money to his friends and political contributors who took the money and ran, I think that is enough.

      • What the heck are you even babbling about? You make no sense.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          So what else is new? Has Tommy Poo ever made sense?

          • LOL, I just Googled “gave 500 million of our taxpayer money to his friends and political contributors who took the money and ran.” Your buddy Tom got his figures from wattsupwiththat.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            LOL indeed. No surprise there. Tommy Poo is a Watts lemming and valued “contributor” at WUWT, a site I managed to get myself banned from within 48 hours of my first post there.

          • Sez “dumboldguy”: “… WUWT, a site I managed to get myself banned from within 48 hours of my first post there.”

            “D.o.g.” is seemingly modest about telling all exactly WHY he was banned from WUWT. To read his collection of comments there, simply do a site-specific search for just his user name (i.e. go to a Google search window, put the word site followed immediately by a colon mark, immediately followed by the WUWT internet address and follow that with a space and the word dumbolddog). But to cut to the chase, you all can read Anthony Watts explanation directly here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/11/southern-methodist-university-prefers-denigration-in-their-science-press-releases/#comment-2069594 . In a nutshell, our man “d.o.g.” can’t deliver here just like he couldn’t deliver at WUWT. That’s ok here; it gets you banned at WUWT.

            But ask yourselves if the reason why I wasn’t banned straight away here is because I did NOT immediately start hurling unfounded accusations / direct insults. Nope, what I did and still do is put the ball on a tee for you to hit out of the park, when I ask where your evidence is proving skeptics lie in exchange for receiving industry money. And, to borrow Peter Sinclair’s request straight to me ‘I’ve kept it clean, bro’ the whole time, too.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Russell the climate denier whore is here, again stinking up the place with his lying BS. Since it’s directed at me, I will respond.

            About my banning from WUWT—-actually I was quite proud of it, and posted many MONTHS ago on a Crock thread lengthy excerpts from the thread I commented on there, including what that moronic weasel Anthony Watts had to say about his reasons for banning me. It basically boiled down to the fact that he and his minions cannot tolerate the thought that anyone would consider them “deniers”.

            The reaction to my comments was like sprinkling holy water on a vampire and shoving them out into the noon sunlight. I DO hope that those of you who are NOT familiar with the looney bin called WUWT will follow Russell’s suggestion and go there—-it’s quite an experience. Do use the right words when googling my comments there, however—-Russell said “dumbolddog” (perhaps in an attempt to mislead you and discourage you from really tracking them down?)—–use “dumboldguy” instead.

            As for why Russell hasn’t been banned on Crock, Peter has said many times in many ways that Russell is perhaps the best “bad example” of a denier whore that is visits Crock, and is therefore a “useful idiot”.

            As for Russell being “an unpaid contributing editor for The Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News and editor of GelbspanFiles.com, a website devoted to researching the origins of false accusations leveled at global warming “skeptics”, as Charles Z quotes from Heartland, that is simply untrue.

            From Russell’s GobsofS**Tfiles.com website (and I have posted this material before, along with details about Heartland’s budget and funding sources—they get their $$$ from right wing and fossil fuels sources and spread it around in big bundles to the Basts, Willie Soon, and Fred Singer. Russell’s compensation doesn’t appear as a line item, but there are many places it can be hidden in their budget).

            “A Note About Funding

            “….it is imperative that I fully disclose the funding of my own work.

            “Prior to January 2013, my research into the corruption accusation against skeptic climate scientists was funded entirely out of my own savings. I was paid $1,000 by the Science & Public Policy Institute to distill my work into a paper they wanted to post at their web site, and I was paid $1,350 to be the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow’s state-side media contact person for their Rio+20 participation effort. Neither payment came with instructions of what position I was to take on global warming”.

            (For anyone who is unaware, the SPPI and CFACT are denier organizations who are funded by the likes of the Kochs—-Monckton (SPPI) and Morano (CFACT) are prominent names in both organizations. SPPI is under the wing of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC)., which is run by the Idso’s, who are also on the Heartland and Exxon deniers payroll. Russell would have us believe that such organizations would just give him money because they like him, and not because they expected him to advance their agendas? LOL)

            “By January 2013, my savings were drawn down to a critical level. The Heartland Institute, a prominent supporter of skeptical climate scientists (and consequently a major target of global warming advocates as well) generously offered me a $12,000 strings-free grant to enable me to continue devoting time to this subject. I have carte blanche to write whatever I wish to write, whenever I wish to write it, without any direction from Heartland, its donors, or anyone else.

            (I have also posted on Crock—-quite a while back—-Russell’s proud announcement that he had been given a $6000 raise by Heartland ans some time after that yet another one that put his “string-free GRANT” up in the mid-$20K range. That info has conveniently disappeared from the web).

            It is the height of naivete to state “Russell, I’m confident that you’re as uncompensated as we are for being a concerned advocate”. Russell is a paid denier whore, plain and simple. He will now scream PROVE IT (but I hope not 27 times as he did on another blog’s thread).

            I will say in return “Prove it’s NOT so, Russell”. Show us your tax info, particularly your W-2’s. Unless you’re allowed to live rent-free and given free food, gas, and medical care, etc, SOMEONE is paying you, and in this society, people get paid in the expectation that their “work” will please those who pay them. Of course, Donald Trump won’t release his tax info either, and that’s yet another thing The Russell and The Donald have in common).

          • Russell, I’m confident that you’re as uncompensated as we are for being a concerned advocate. Politicians and journalists, for example Peter Sinclair, discuss and explain science and policy based upon scientists and scientific organization that they trust, and in varying degrees understand, for example the American Association for the Advancement of Science (It’s a long list.) Which scientist or scientific organization do you most trust?

            Russell Cook is an unpaid contributing editor for The Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News and editor of GelbspanFiles.com, a website devoted to researching the origins of false accusations leveled at global warming “skeptics. – Heartland

          • redskylite Says:

            “About my banning from WUWT—-actually I was quite proud of it”

            and so you should be, I remember reading your contributions on WUWT at the time and have just reread them (including your writings with Steve Goddard/Tony Heller too). Superb work & wit, that would make good reading in a book. Must of cost a considerable amount of thought, time and control. Awe and applause from me.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Thank you for your very generous comments. I have often said that commenting on right wing and climate change denial blogs or jousting with denier whores like Russell Kook here on Crock is great anti-Alzheimers therapy, and I still believe that—-better than doing crossword puzzles. Reading their crap just seems to release a torrent of thoughts, and it flows rapidly once I get rolling.

          • andrewfez Says:

            In a nutshell, our man “d.o.g.” can’t deliver here just like he couldn’t deliver at WUWT.

            I’ve actually trolled that sight before, several years ago, and threw out the most unsubstantiated contrarian garbage just to see if they’d agree with me. My comments were approved and adored by all.

          • @andrewfez sez: “… My comments were approved and adored by all.” As the ol’ internet adage goes, “show pics, or it never happened.” Spend some time and find the direct links to your comments, friend, otherwise even your pals here at Crocks will only have your word to go by.

            @”d.o.g.” sez: “… Russell said “dumbolddog” (perhaps in an attempt to mislead you and discourage you from really tracking them down?)—–use “dumboldguy” instead.” My bad, thinking about the man’s own accepted username nickname. Yes, by all means, use “dumboldguy” in a site-specific search of WUWT (thanks for the appearance of embracing instant conspiracy theory reasoning, though). “D.o.g.”‘s words speak for themselves, including his attempt to claim “… First, I challenge the rather bald assertions that I came here with a “very hostile attitude” and “started the whole thing with your animosity”. …” Your words, friend, shot down by your own very first comment there. Luv the reference to sprinkling “holy water on a vampire” here. If only you had holy water to begin with (e.g. proof skeptics are in a pay-for-hire arrangement to knowingly spread lies. But over at WUWT last year, it was about Desmogblog, “I posted a comment twice, leaving off a link on the second posting that I suspected caused it to go into moderation the first time—-a link to a site that is perhaps like holy water is to vampires for WUWT.” Dude, Desmog is a laughingstock to WUWT commenters and to me, and if you had a better grip on how big of a problem Desmog is to you guys regarding the abject failure to prove skeptics are crooks, you’d view them as a place to distance yourselves from post haste.

            Meanwhile, “… Russell’s … $6000 raise by Heartland an[d] some time after that yet another one that put his “string-free GRANT” up in the mid-$20K range. That info has conveniently disappeared from the web)”. Dude. Increases in grant sizes are not raises. My grant of $24k for the 2015 year has never moved from my blog. You said plain as day in a June 3, 2015 comment at Peter’s May 29, 2015 blog post that I was up to $36 grand, a level which I challenged you several times to prove. In your December 16, 2015 comment to Peter’s December 14, 2015 post, you said “… I don’t care to go back and waste the time trying to find what made me suggest that he was up near $30K, but I DO remember talk of a $6K “raise” and other $$$ “bumps”—-if it was on Russell’s blog, it has surely been erased so that no one can “prove it” (27 times). …”

            The reason why I challenge “d.o.g.” to prove his assertions on such things is I know he can’t. But rather than face this, he keeps digging new holes for himself every time, e.g. the claim that I said “prove it” 27 times on somebody’s blog comment section. Wager “d.o.g.” that he can’t deliver the comment link, and you have easy pocket money.

            Luv his additional challenge to “Show us your tax info, particularly your W-2’s”. Think about that for a moment. Unemployed people don’t have W-2s. And I did show an official IRS tax document at my blog definitively proving I don’t work for Heartland. Check it out for yourselves, don’t expect “d.o.g.” to admit this.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I have often wondered why Russell comes back for “one last shot” on so many Crock threads when they are dying and no one is looking at them anymore. I still think that Russell (aka the Heartland denier whore for fossil fuels) gets paid by the comment, and gets even more if someone responds, so I will help him out $$$-wise by doing so. Of course, Russell’s inability to stop “gnawing on old bones” could just be a manifestarion of his personality disorders—-they simply drive him to continue spouting his deluded BS even when no one is listening. In this case, Russell’s tone is more belligerent than usual and even a bit vicious. He actually sounds like he has been drinking, and he is NOT a pretty drunk. Are we dwunk, Wussell?

            Of all people, Russell attacks Andrew Fez, whose “word” IMO is one of the most reliable among the posters on Crock. I would trust Andrew to perform simultaneous heart transplant and brain surgery on me before I would trust Russell to carry out my garbage. If Andrew says he did it, he did it. Period. (Have another dwink, Wussell).

            Russell then tries to evade responsibility for his weak attempt at misleading everyone. How many times have you written “dumboldguy” in your Crock maunderings, Russell? Many dozens? Maybe over a hundred? And you want us to believe this was an “honest mistake”? LOL If anyone DOES care about the WUWT history, DO go there and read it all for yourself—–Russell’s cherry-picked and rather confused excerpts here prove nothing beyond the fact that Russell appears to have been drinking when he wrote them.

            It’s interesting to see that Russell says “like sprinkling holy water on a vampire” appeared on WUWT. I may be the inventor of that phrase—-I used it often several years ago when posting on Personal Liberty Digest and other right wing-nut blogs. It drove the wing-nuts crazy, and since there is probably a lot of overlap between WUWT and PLD (they attract the same kind of lemmings), perhaps one of them brought it over to WUWT. I guess I should be honored. (In full usage, the “sprinkling” was often followed by “causing their flesh to smoke and melt as they collapsed into a puddle on the floor” and other colorful “mid pictures”).

            We have touched a sore spot with Russell by mentioning desmogblog—-the only reason he has reacted so violently is that desmog SCARES HIM S**TLESS because it speaks too much TRUTH about deniers. “Desmog is a laughingstock to WUWT commenters”, Russell says? Even more proof that desmog is a force for good and a place that can be relied on for good info—-if the WUWT lemmings disparage it, it has to be doing something right.

            (Mote that Russell insists on using “Dude”—-I hope I am around some day when Russell gets punched out for showing such disrespect)

            Russell’s drink-clouded thinking has caused him to say some rather silly (and revealing) things about his finances and relationship with Heartland.

            “Increases in grant sizes are not raises”
            “Unemployed people don’t have W-2s”
            “I don’t work for Heartland”
            (and he confirms that he IS still receiving $$$$ from a denier group)

            And “I did show an official IRS tax document at my blog”. Yes, he did, and the delusional reasoning in his accompanying commentary is worth looking at:

            It displays the same kind of “reasoning” and abuse of the tax laws that the Kochs use to funnel their dark and dirty money into the climate change denial world (and ultimately through Heartland into Russell’s pocket).

            PS A better use of one’s time than going to WUWT would to be to review an old Crock thread that exposes much about Russell (and tears him some new anal iorifices):

      • andrewfez Says:

        We just gave out $100B to rebuild Afghanistan – the selfsame amount of money it would cost to put up enough Li+ storage on the NE US grid to run it 99% of the time on a 3x load wind energy overbuild.

  3. Commenter “d.o.g.”, the gift that keeps on giving. Funny how Peter Sinclair says he allows me to continue commenting here because of me being an example of how “deniers” are, but he has yet to define precisely what that is or what exact words I have ever used anywhere to demonstrate that I deny climate change.

    Meanwhile, one could make the argument that “d.o.g.” here seems to be an example of what some AGWers represent: believers in unsupportable conspiracy theory. “D.o.g.” sez,

    – I’m on salary at Heartland, operating under instructions to spread misinformation
    – I’m paid piecework to place comments here
    – I wear ballcaps
    – I live in California, but have a summer house somewhere in Arizona
    – (in yesterday’s comment) I was intoxicated
    – I attempted to misdirect people while advocating them to read his comments at WUWT
    – the IRS document I showed at my blog is some kind of super clever tax dodge to hide dark money

    Notice what all those are? Beliefs. Does “d.o.g.” offer Crocks readers one shred of proof backing any of that up? No. And has he ever taken the time to dispute what he calls “lies” in my blog posts or articles? No, he does his level best to tell you all not to read any of it. Who then is the person here appearing to wilt under the sprinkling of ‘holy water’?

    Glad to have Charles Zeller on my side when it comes to someone here who doesn’t dispute that I am not employed by Heartland in any fashion. Unrest is born between him and “d.o.g.” on that point, however — “the height of naivete” to side with me, as “d.o.g.” unequivocally says. But now we have a problem with Zeller’s attempt to ask me “Which scientist or scientific organization do you most trust?” Who do you guys trust more on whether I’m paid or unpaid, Zeller or “d.o.g.”? See the problem there? It’s not a matter of trust, it is a matter of whether a convincing argument is presented by anyone proving the situation to be one way or the other.

    As I’ve said before here and elsewhere, I don’t have scientific expertise to say which side is right. But I favor the skeptics basically for one simple reason: folks like Dr Michael Mann, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Jane Lubchenco, Eli Kintisch and others of that level don’t hesitate to point to an ‘industry conspiracy to spread misinformation’ as a reason for the public to ignore skeptic climate scientists. How weak does a scientific position have to be when a hugely prominent way to defend itself is to call its critics crooks? Think about that, friends. If skeptic scientists were so easily flattened by proof that what they say comes out of Exxon’s conference rooms, guys like Mann would relish debates so that he could flatten skeptics every time for the whole world to see. If my material was so easily debunked, “d.o.g.” would show his proof every time I showed up here ……. he would NOT be yelling for me to go away, he would be saying “come back tomorrow so I can show how your lie “x” is destroyed by exhibit “a”, “b”, “c” and statements “1”, “2” and “3”.

    Look in the mirror, guys. Why are you unable to come up with indisputable evidence meeting your own satisfaction proving skeptics are in a pay-for-performance arrangement where they receive industry-sourced money in exchange for knowingly putting out lies. Why doesn’t ExxonSecrets or Desmog not deliver on this for you?

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: