From the Presbyterian Church to environmental activism


Potomac Presbyterian Church, Potomac, Maryland, photo by Sarah Beth Hensley

Breeding ground for environmentalists? Potomac Presbyterian Church, Potomac, Maryland, photo by Sarah Beth Hensley, courtesy Potomac Patch

Shouldn’t this make the self-appointed, self-appointed Christians, anti-environmentalists, and global warming . . . um . . . disbelievers howl?

According to an environmental historian I know, the ranks of the Presbyterians have produced many of this country’s well-known environmentalists: John Muir, Rachel Carson, Edward Abbey, the list goes on.

Just think:  Environmentalism as the result of a Christian upbringing?  How could such a thing be?

The fawning John Galt Fan Club will similarly be disamused.  They claim environmentalists come from Stalin and the communists, not from Presbyterians.

What will the neighbors say?

Could it be true?

8 Responses to From the Presbyterian Church to environmental activism

  1. stewart says:

    Pat – to follow up on Ed’s comments:
    Watts has offered a conjecture about the effects of station quality on the US weather record, you’re taking it as fact. If you’re not a denialist/rejectionist (do you prefer the second term) you want to know where the evidence leads, not just repeat speculation. And, there’s evidence.

    There’s 2 papers that I’m aware of – Menno, Williams & Palecki, JGR-A, 2010, ‘On the reliability of the US surface temperature record’ (available on the web) concludes: “In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.”
    But, if you want another source, you might check out
    Fall, S., A. Watts, J. Nielsen-Gammon, E. Jones, D. Niyogi, J. Christy, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2011: Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res (in press). They also find almost no effect of station quality on the overall trend. You might note that A. Watts, co-author of this paper, is Anthony Watts, who made the original claim. As he’s demonstrated his thought was wrong, has he shared this information on his blog? It appears not.

    This is why I stick with science – it responds to data, and updates itself with new information. For a somewhat snarky perspective, the interested reader can go to:
    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/05/well-what-with-fell-et-al.html

    Like

  2. Nick K says:

    Pat, I got a question for you.

    What if the skeptics and the deniers are wrong?

    Like

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    Pat said:

    1) My experience has been that Anthony Watts hasn’t said that 20th century warming is due to misplaced weather stations. He’s said that misplaced weather stations corrupt the accuracy of the temperature readings. He’s right.

    He may be right that some of the temperature readings are “corrupted,” but that’s a small part of his critique. It’s the technical part, and it’s a part he gets blue in the face about, but it’s a minor part, and he’s never been able to demonstrate that a handful, or a hundred or two hundred, corrupted series of readings makes a difference in the measurement of average climate warming.

    See Watts’ attack on the Fort Scott, Kansas, station here. It’s clear from his use of the data and his complaint about the GISS updating that he thinks the station skewed warm.

    Now, maybe he thinks Fort Scott, Kansas, is an urban heat island. He cut me off in a thread where I started to ask him about that. But Fort Scott peaked in population about 1950, at just over 10,000 people, and seems to have stabilized after a fall to 8,000. It’s not much of an urban area. Check it on Google Earth, you’ll find it’s very much a treed, green town on the prairie, with significant forest areas along a couple of local creeks or rivers.

    In short, it’s probably significantly cooled by the trees planted around homes and businesses, trees that historically did not exist. Watt’s complaint about the brick wall near the temperature gauge suggests a too-warm reading prior to about midnight on a warm summer day is possible — but that would also cool the temperatures in the winter. I’d call it a wash.

    Watt’s hints that it skews all temperatures recorded in the U.S. (one of “many” stations Watts just knows are sited incorrectly to the point that they skew readings — not that they are sited perfectly correctly, but that there is no link Watts has established between the siting and his allegations of warming temperatures inaccurately measure (Watts claims them to be inaccurate)).

    I laughed when he posted this diatribe at a record high temperature at Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI).

    Pat, that’s a airport at a rural site. Yeah, there’s a lot of concrete at most airports — but many airports, including BWI, include significant forest areas (BWI has a forester on staff). If you look at the weather station (see Watts’ photographs), you’ll see it’s well over a hundred feet from any significant concrete — and you can tell from his photo that it’s at the end of the runway, in one of the more remote parts of the airport. You can tell it’s the end of the runway by the markings on the runway, both the striping and the rubber marks from landing aircraft — you can measure the distance between the station and the runway concrete by using the wing of the Southwest Airlines 737 in the picture — it’s a later model (you can tell by the canards on the wings), so its wingspan is about 117 feet. I calculate about 200 feet from either runway, probably 250 feet from the runway at the right of the photo.

    So, we’ve got a weather station at an airport, well-removed from concrete (Watts complains about a thin strip of asphalt that leads to the station — too much, I think); it’s at a rurally-located airport, close by a forested area, which would provide cooling, perhaps 100 yards. (It’s off of Runway 10; check it on Google Earth, you’ll see it’s probably less than 100 yards. It’s at the far west side of the airport, surrounded on two sides by forested area.) It’s about a half-mile from the terminal. Watts thinks this is part of Baltimore’s heat island, though the winds blow the opposite way, and Baltimore is miles removed through a thickly forested area, suburban areas and across Baltimore Harbor . . .

    Frankly, many of our “urban” airports are more bare ground and forest than concrete — O’Hare, for example, has a problem with the deer herd that lives there. DFW is so large that visitors rarely see the massive gas drilling rigs, and a it’s more forested than the surrounding area. Same with Denver, and Austin, and Nashville, and Raleigh, and Wichita, and Kansas City, to name a few I know a bit more intimately.

    But Watts won’t let me post. My question are too mean for him. So I can’t tell you whether he’s adequately counted for the massive forests in places he claims urban heat islands.

    If he stands by his recent paper, and its conclusions that there isn’t much of a skew, that’s fine by me.

    I don’t think he’s made a good case that any readings are corrupted at most of these sites, or at many of these sites. The paper he just published doesn’t allege any significant skewing from these stations.

    But were there skewing, then you’d think that readings from the oceans would show something else, or readings from well-located stations would show something contrary. That’s not at all what we see.

    Watt’s may be right that some stations are not located perfectly. That’s not an argument against global warming without a lot of other links made, that Watts doesn’t make.

    If you overlay your hypothesis on top of Watts’s, which way would the temperatures be skewed?

    Lots of people have claimed much of the 20th century warming can be found in the Urban Heat Island problem. Anthony has credited that idea and it’s a point of vigorous debate. I tend to think that the analysis by Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels is mostly right, and at least half the measured warming can be due to that effect.

    Do you know what proportion of weather stations are locate in urban heat islands? The effect is pretty well studied, as I recall. You get a few degrees jump about a mile into a massively concreted urban area, a spike in a downtown area, and a significant effect about ten miles down wind.

    I’ll wager that less than 5% of all weather stations in the U.S. are located in a UHI or in its heat shadow.

    No ocean could be significantly affected by UHI to produce inaccurate temperature readings.

    I’d be surprised if UHI affects temperature averages significantly.

    2) The argument about cooling now revolves around the quiet sun. The analogy is made between the Maunder and Dalton Minimums in sun spot activity and the LIA. It may be a good analogy. We certainly have had steady temperatures since at least 1998.

    Steady and high, no cooling. Last year was warmer than others. If sunspot inactivity is suppose to produce cooling, then human-caused global warming appears to have wiped out that effect.

    Fits to the 20th-21st century temperature trend that incorporate a periodicity project a downturn in temperature about now. You can see an example in the fits I posted at the Air Vent, with an underlying temperature maximum occurring a couple of years ago. All such are mere empirical fits, but they do justify speculative discussions.

    3) In science, criticism of a theory doesn’t require providing an alternative. The problem of global warming very much needn’t follow two-valued logic.

    So, you think it’s fair to conjecture that the increased warming noticed worldwide has no particular cause? I’d almost accept that, except for the fact that we’re overdue for a severe cold spell of several years. So not only is warming measured, the cyclical cooling that should have started three or four decades ago has gone missing.

    Aren’t you at least curious about whether there is a discernable cause?

    In the specific case of Earth climate, recent atmospheric warming may have no external causal basis at all.

    “Recent extraordinary warming.”

    And, if you’re wrong, there will be no harm done by our inaction, right? Pollution is fine so long was we don’t know what it’s doing?

    4) The release of the UEA emails was *not* “spun as scientists making up warming.” It was described for what it was: deletion of tree ring data that contradicted the desired story line of unusual 20th century warming.

    Give me a break. You ask that projected, modeled data known to be inaccurate be substituted for actual measurements of temperature? Pat, you’re the one arguing against modeling. Here you argue for a model known to be wrong to be substituted for real data. That’s incredible.

    Worse, the known error showed cooling, where the scientists expected warming — and where warming actually occurred.

    So you’re condemning these scientists for recognizing the limits of their modeling, and making corrections that made their forecasts accurate in the very near term!

    That’s silly. That’s also not what was argued by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli — he called it fraud. So did Sen. Inhofe, and Sen. Coburn — two of the wilder, more strident anti-science guys around.

    You’re siding with the creationists, with the wackoes, with people who condemn all science — and you’re joining them in condemning scientists for getting the stuff right!

    I’ll agree with you some of the physical links are weak. That’s not fraud. And where you are right that models are not perfectly accurate, you complain instead when they are accurate.

    Can we at least get some consistency?

    If they had left in the declining tree ring widths, during a time of warming temperatures, the validity of tree rings as temperature proxies would have been immediately falsified. The claim of supposedly lower temperatures of the past 1500 years would suddenly have no strength.

    You’ve made a case that our climate, since 1980, has been wilder than at any time in the past 12,000 years, but I don’t think that invalidates all models. The guys who did the modeling noticed the problem and made corrections.

    Are you now going to tell me that you think all radioisotope dating is inaccurate, because you’ve discovered scientists know there’s an error in dating water creatures with C14 methods, and so they don’t? If the model works, it must work in all circumstances, you’re saying — and if you know of someplace the model breaks down, no fair making an adjustment for accuracy. Isn’t that your claim here?

    They deleted that data in order to avoid refutation of the method itself and to maintain the image required by their story of a unique 20th century climate.

    The method was not at issue. They were asked to produce a projection, not based on any particular method, but based on what was the best evidence the scientists had. On the basis of their models, which track nicely from about 1985 back 10,000 years, they noticed a problem after 1985.

    That error was well known, and written about in the literature (it was not exposed in the e-mails, contrary to the spin).

    But that was all done in publications well prior to the IPCC study. IPCC asked what was likely in the future, so policy makers might know

    With adequate qualifications and caveats (to me and to most scientists), they published the famous hockey stick graph.

    That graph has been fairly accurate, by the way. It tracks well with current temperatures — not perfectly, but good enough that Michael Mann and his colleagues deserve some credit for being prophetic.

    Don’t tell me about an imagined question of methodology, which had already been answered: Tell us why you think the scientists should have published a graph they knew to be in error, especially when they knew how to make it more nearly accurate?

    I don’t understand how anyone can complain about accuracy as a problem.

    5) There is plenty to criticize in climate science beyond the issue of causality. This includes determined obscurantism as regards methods, hiding of adverse results, corrupting the review and editorial processes, outright cheating and fabrications, all by AGW proponents. The science has been badly corrupted. That deserves criticism.

    I read through the e-mails, and I agree that they discussed outright cheating — but by AGW critics, not by those who note the increase in temperatures. How many investigations have cleared the scientists now? Let’s see, two at Penn State, one in the British Parliament . . . I lose track. We should note that no investigation by any authority has supported a conclusion that the scientists did anything wrong, unethical, nor especially that they did anything illegal. The theft of the e-mails, and the spin of what the e-mails said, constitute a big enough blot on the moral character of the entire critics movement that we should require extraordinary evidence of honesty from them in the future (so long as Christopher Monckton is on your side, your cause is lost on ethical bases, I fear).

    6) In Virginia, the Attorney General is investigating Michael Mann on suspicion of misusing public funds in the course of publishing papers about which there is objective evidence of conscious fraud. If tobacco interests should be legally pilloried for falsifying data, are climate scientists to be given a free pass?

    Witch hunt, coupled with unfounded, ungrounded guilt by association, Pat. Don’t ever complain about my labeling denialism as denialism again. You have no room.

    Anyone should be pilloried for falsifying data. Michael Mann has been cleared of the charges. The federal officials whose job it is to monitor those grants involved in the Virginia, Cuccinelli Witch Hunt say there is nothing amiss.

    Worse, it appears that Cuccinelli is overlooking actual fraud committed by AGW critics at another Virginia institution — the Wegman Falsification and Plagiarization scandal flies under the radar of anti-science nuts like the Virginia AG.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall your calling for the pillorying of Christopher Monckton, nor Edward Wegman.

    You called them critics in your own post, Ed. Why not stick with that?

    I think it’s probably an insult to hack critics, and a grave disservice to all criticism.

    Critics don’t need to steal the private correspondence of the people who do the work they criticize. Critics don’t call up the ghost of Joe McCarthy to smear the reputations of researchers.

    But you might have a case. Disreali said something like, “It is much easier to be critical than to be correct.” So that would almost cover many of those who deny human-caused warming, but Watts, Monckton and others appear to strive to be incorrect. “Critic” doesn’t really do those guys justice.

    Like

  4. Jim says:

    Hello Pat!

    I would heartily commend to your considering the book, “Redeeming Creation” by Drs. Fred Van Dyke, David Maha, et al. It lays out a theologically sound and surprisingly Evangelical perspective on precisely this issue. Dr. Cal DeWitt is another source I’d heartily recommend.

    Of course, even the rather conservative Dr. Francis Schaeffer (a Presbyterian, no less) laid out a solidly Biblical argument for ecology in his landmark, 1970’s-era book “Pollution and the Death of Man”. And this, from a guy who flirted with the extreme right and Christian Reconstructionism!

    Too, the foremost New Testament scholar in the world today…Bishop N.T. Wright…is setting forth some truly passionate and Biblically faithful positions that should completely transform what it means to think Christianly about the world entire. In short, we are here to perfect the Kingdom inaugurated in a Nazarene synagogue and empowered from above at Pentecost. We are redeemed, not for the purpose of escaping this fallen planet and leaving behind all the poor wretches with whom a capricious God is displeased. We are “saved” in order to set things to rights, as Wright might say, and to bring the Kingdom to fullness or maturity. Of course, we believe that won’t happen perfectly until Christ returns, bringing Heaven to earth. But the work is ours, nonetheless. It’s really a Christian parallel to the Abrahamic Covenant. We are blessed in order to be a blessing. Not to wallow piggishly in our blessing, enjoy it and wait for some fictional rapture to take us all away.

    This is hardly new thinking. It is merely thought that has gotten lost over millenia. As Christians transitioned from persecuted minority to persecuting majority, we unsurprisingly lost sight of the “be a blessing” aspect of all that. We had too much blessing to protect. Hey! Just think of it! We were the original tea partiers proclaiming, “I’ve got mine, Jack. Now root, hog or die”.

    The good news is that Jesus works with new wineskins. He doesn’t pour the good stuff into old. Every now and again, the Spirit resurrects the truth and enlivens the Church…calling her to faithfulness and obedience. That’s starting to happen again. It’s an evolutionary thing this time, it seems…not revolutionary. I may not live to see the Church recover her historic call to social justice (including enviromental stewardship) completely. But it will happen. God’s Word (and word, small “w”) will not return void.

    As to your question about the teachings of the church Fathers or the Reformers about creation care, it’s a little like asking where they stood on the issue of space travel. The planet was not in peril in 100 AD or 1500. Even so, they had the witness of Scripture, which is full of commandments to care for and tend the earth. God gave mortals “dominion” over the environment, Genesis teaches. What does “dominion” mean, Pat? Not what you think. Hebrew scholars say the word in the original language is from the same root as the Hebrew word for “husband”. God made us husbands to creation. Protectors, providers, nurturers and defenders. The Law of Moses and the utterances of the Old Testament prophets tell us to guard against adding field to field and barn to barn. We are told to let the soil rest every seventh year. The rape of the magnificent cedars of Lebanon is deemed scandalous, sinful and a display of arrogance. In the book of Job, God celebrates the wonder of leviathan and the Psalmist declares that God placed leviathan in the deep…”to frolic there”. Now, since submarines did not exist and since ships usually hugged the coastlines, for whom do you suppose this playful display was intended? Leviathan, or the great whales, exist solely for God’s delight and pleasure. Too, the Psalmist boldly asserts that “the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it”. Therefore, it is His. Not mine to do with as I wish. (Think of your own father’s backyard, lawn, flower garden or whatever. You would be furious if someone trashed it, yes?) And, of course, the value of animals is plainly seen in both the stories of Noah and Jonah. When Jonah pouts because God did not destroy Ninevah, God says to Jonah…”but there are many people there, and many animals”. God’s love is broader than we think!
    Additionally, Jesus teaches that His Father sees, knows and cares when any creature is injured.

    Certainly Benedict of Nursia and Francis of Assisi are models for us today.

    And even though the Reformers did not have the issue of ecology front and center — for perfectly logical reasons; it was not the pressing issue then that it is today…still, the record is that they cared.

    http://www.webofcreation.org/LENS/luther.html

    Luther scholar Douglas Hall has written extensively about this, making some compelling arguments for Luther as an ecologist.

    William Wilberforce and a group of Anglican clergy helped establish the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

    With the rise of Calvin and, later, John Nelson Darby, there did — at first blush — seem to be no indication of regard for creation. Calvin, of course, wrote about the value of nature for the purpose of witness. But again, he did not live at a time when rivers were toxic, air was carcinogenic and oceans were encroaching. And if species were endangered, he and all of his contemporaries surely were unaware of it.

    Darby, of course, gave us Dispensationalism…which has been a major factor in perpetuating greed, selfishness and “live for the moment” Christian morality. As one pastor told me, “I don’t care a whit about pollution or spotted owls. It’s all going to burn up when Jesus comes back”. So yeah. There is that, I suppose.

    Aside from the fact that the theology is wrong on its face, sickeningly unbiblical and owes more to Ayn Rand (or she, to Darby) than to Scripture.

    But even then…even taking that wrong-headed and unscriptural view that Jesus is going to destroy the earth someday and it’s all going to burn up. Even if you feel you have to believe that — then surely you must believe that your teeth will burn up one day, too.

    But I bet you brush them.

    Sorry, Pat. Because some Christians have misinterpreted Scripture and because many Christians have historically ignored this aspect of what it means to be faithful Biblically, does not excuse us from responsibility today.

    Like

  5. Pat Frank says:

    Ed, in your most recent post, you managed to get every important point wrong.

    1) My experience has been that Anthony Watts hasn’t said that 20th century warming is due to misplaced weather stations. He’s said that misplaced weather stations corrupt the accuracy of the temperature readings. He’s right.

    Lots of people have claimed much of the 20th century warming can be found in the Urban Heat Island problem. Anthony has credited that idea and it’s a point of vigorous debate. I tend to think that the analysis by Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels is mostly right, and at least half the measured warming can be due to that effect.

    2) The argument about cooling now revolves around the quiet sun. The analogy is made between the Maunder and Dalton Minimums in sun spot activity and the LIA. It may be a good analogy. We certainly have had steady temperatures since at least 1998.

    Fits to the 20th-21st century temperature trend that incorporate a periodicity project a downturn in temperature about now. You can see an example in the fits I posted at the Air Vent, with an underlying temperature maximum occurring a couple of years ago. All such are mere empirical fits, but they do justify speculative discussions.

    3) In science, criticism of a theory doesn’t require providing an alternative. The problem of global warming very much needn’t follow two-valued logic.

    In the specific case of Earth climate, recent atmospheric warming may have no external causal basis at all.

    4) The release of the UEA emails was *not* “spun as scientists making up warming.” It was described for what it was: deletion of tree ring data that contradicted the desired story line of unusual 20th century warming.

    If they had left in the declining tree ring widths, during a time of warming temperatures, the validity of tree rings as temperature proxies would have been immediately falsified. The claim of supposedly lower temperatures of the past 1500 years would suddenly have no strength.

    They deleted that data in order to avoid refutation of the method itself and to maintain the image required by their story of a unique 20th century climate.

    5) There is plenty to criticize in climate science beyond the issue of causality. This includes determined obscurantism as regards methods, hiding of adverse results, corrupting the review and editorial processes, outright cheating and fabrications, all by AGW proponents. The science has been badly corrupted. That deserves criticism.

    6) In Virginia, the Attorney General is investigating Michael Mann on suspicion of misusing public funds in the course of publishing papers about which there is objective evidence of conscious fraud. If tobacco interests should be legally pilloried for falsifying data, are climate scientists to be given a free pass?

    You called them critics in your own post, Ed. Why not stick with that?

    Like

  6. Ed Darrell says:

    You know the issue is not about global warming. It’s about human causality. Your irony is lost in errancy.

    I think you give too much credit to the Group You Say I Cannot Name. Anthony Watts has argued for years that warming is a function of misplaced weather measuring stations, and not a function of warming. Many commenters at his site, with his blessing, argue that we are in a cooling period now, and that the Earth has actually cooled since 1998.

    Nor do most critics pose an alternative explanation of any rationality for the warming.

    The theft of the e-mails from HADCRUT was spun as scientists making up warming.

    I don’t think a majority of critics limit themselves to human causality, but instead assault the entire science across the spectrum. Consequently, Republicans in Congress propose to kill all funding for any research on the issue, and in Virginia, the Attorney General proposes to put climate scientists on trial on criminal fraud charges for publishing papers that say warming occurred.

    I still wonder what you think we should call them, and why you’d defend them at all.

    Like

  7. Pat Frank says:

    Thank-you for avoiding the Holocaust entanglement, Ed. It’s appreciated.

    But “… global warming . . . um . . . disbelievers …“?

    You know the issue is not about global warming. It’s about human causality. Your irony is lost in errancy.

    But to the main point, can you show where an explicit or readily deducible environmental concern can be found in Christ’s teachings, or in Paul’s letters (apart from his famous ‘Epistle to ViridisPacis,’ I mean)?

    Or in Luther’s teachings, or Calvin’s or Zwingli’s, or in any Catholic Council prior to 1950 (we’ll have to discount any recent opportunistic environmental pieties), or Swedenborg, or, as you exemplify Presbyterians, John Knox? Or how about that known good-hearted light-stepping Christian founder, Henry VIII? Environmental sensitivity preached by all?

    Like

  8. Jim says:

    There are, of course, many different brands of Presbyterian. Your chances of finding a non-toxic, Christ-centered (speaking of the *real* Christ, not the Ayn Rand knock-off version) Presbyterian Church are probably best if you look to the Presbyterian Church, USA. The PCUSA is generally very pro-science, pro-truth and pro-poor people.

    By far, the most politically active brand of Presbyterian can be found at a PCA Church. My heavens, what a difference a couple of letters make! The Presbyterian Church in America is home to a great many observers of the heresies known as Dominion Theology, Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism. It has produced the likes of Rousas Rushdoony, Gary North, David Chilton, D. James Kennedy and Francis Schaeffer. To be fair, however, Schaeffer’s son asserts that his late father was never completely comfortable with the church’s embrace of far right politics or dominionism. Gary North, of course, is best known for advocating that the state put homosexuals and abortive women to death. But fear not, taxpayers. North realizes how incredibly expensive capital punishment has become. So in the name of what he considers Bible-based frugality, North has advocated stoning in the public square as the proposed instrument of execution. Rocks are cheap. Much the better, he says, so whole families can participate and the young ‘uns can learn what catching a case of the gay will get you.

    Let’s be fair, though. Not ALL PCA ministers are pro-genocide. One of Evangelicalism’s few loving voices, Dr. Stephen Brown, comes from this tribe. He’s a good egg. I could be wrong, but I suspect Dr. Lloyd Ogilve — another “not a bad sort” — came from the PCA. But on the whole, this bunch has enjoyed a long fling with Christian Reconstructionism…a movement that advocates such murderous and hateful ideas as to leave most Christians completely unwilling to believe the movement is real. It is.

    So yeah, give me the Presbyterian Church, USA any day of the week. These are folks who usually understand what Jesus’ Kingdom message and mission were all about…love, mercy, compassion and reconciliation. And yes, care and defense of the natural resources entrusted by a loving God to humanity.

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: