Scott Pruitt

Trump EPA Nominee Scott Pruitt Grilled on Climate Change at Senate Hearing

'I do not believe that climate change is a hoax.'

|

PruittCSPAN
C-SPAN

During the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing today on Oklahoma State Attorney-General Scott Pruitt's nomination to become administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency various Democratic senators focused on his understanding of the science behind climate change. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was the most impassioned in his questioning. For the most part, Pruitt reiterated each time he was questioned that "science tells us that the climate is changing and that human activity in some manner impacts that change." He added, "The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact and what to do about it are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be." Asked if he agreed President-elect Donald Trump's 2014 tweet that climate change is "a hoax," Pruitt replied, "I do not believe that climate change is a hoax."

As The Hill reported:

Sanders kept pushing, saying that there is no scientific debate, and eventually asking Pruitt what his personal opinion on the matter is.

"My personal opinion is immaterial to the job I'm carrying out," said Pruitt, the current attorney general of Oklahoma.

With regard to Pruitt's nomination, Niskanen Center libertarian policy shop president Jerry Taylor observes:

With Republicans in charge of the White House and Congress, conservatives no longer need to fear that acknowledging climate change will usher in a parade of policy horribles. They now control the parameters of the debate, which provides them a tremendous opportunity to address one of the greatest threats mankind faces over the next century in an economically responsible manner. Mr. Pruitt's confirmation should ride on whether he's interested in that project or not.

Pruitt is right that there is some debate among researchers with regard to the degree and impact that man-made climate change is having now and in the future. Just last year, one group of researchers reported that the global warming hiatus is real while another one found earlier this month that the hiatus never happened. Sounds suspiciously like a debate, doesn't it? Sen. Sanders tried to get Pruitt to endorse the notion that climate scientists all back the goal of deeply cutting the emissions of greenhouse gases. In fact, most climate scientists probably do favor such policies, and they are entitled to their opinions on the economic and energy technology tradeoffs implied, but their views are certainly not dispositive. In other words, there is a debate about how best to address the problem of man-made climate change.

NEXT: Justice Frankfurter speaks

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. With Republicans in charge of the White House and Congress, conservatives no longer need to fear that acknowledging climate change will usher in a parade of policy horribles.

    Keep telling yourself that.

    1. Hey, Fist is recycling comments! I’ve heard that one before. I think he has a bank of about 50 comments and just does a cut-and-paste job after picking one that is somewhat appropriate.

      1. He’s protecting the climate. Do you have any idea how much original thought adds to the global warming crisis?

        It’s the main reason climate scientists ( must.not.use.scare.quotes. ) tend to ignore any data that might point to a different outcome.

        1. Just imagine the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions if I quit eating pizza loaded with fresh garlic.

        1. ((()))

          1. Lol. It was supposed to be italics.

            1. You know what that looks like…

    2. CALIFORNIA IS LAUNCHING ITS OWN WEATHER SATELLITES!!!

      1. And how much carbon is released into the atmosphere by each launch? That’s Not Okay, California.

        1. Depends on which launch vehicle they choose and the type of propellant used.

            1. Is that what is produced by a Cynical Asshole?

  2. Sounds like this guy’s a believer but the true believers don’t think he’s quite orthodox enough.

    1. Thou shalt not deny science!

    2. Sounds like the guy is saying what he needs to say to get confirmed.

  3. Sen. Sanders tried to get Pruitt to endorse the notion that climate scientists all back the goal of deeply cutting the emissions of greenhouse gases.

    You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 climate science policy opinions when children are hungry in coal country.

    1. Sanders speaks to the heart of the issue, which he and those like him avoid: how are those gases to be cut? What side effects might there be? Why would a sane person trust govt to be in charge of it?

      1. Sander’s answer is wealth redistrubution

        1. Regardless of the question.

          1. Except the question of what he wants to do with his estate.

  4. Niskanen Center libertarian

    if you squint and smash yourself in the face with a frying pan 6 times

    1. e.g. “”economically responsible””

      a phrase from which pours an ocean of excuses for economic intervention by govt.

      1. to wit =

        if carbon tax revenue were rebated in equal lump sums to all adults, poor and middle class households would actually see net increases in household income. That’s because the rich use a lot more energy than anyone else. The top quintile of wage earners, however, would see only a 1.9 percent decrease in net household income?and that is before they invest in energy efficiency, go solar at home, and find uncountable other ways to beat the new tax regime. Once we factor in the reductions in conventional air pollution that would follow from a carbon tax, overall economic well-being would improve across the board

        Well that just sounds wonderful.

        Never mind that even if the US and Europe both simultenously implemented this wonderful energy/cash transfer-redistribution mechanism, it would have zero actual impact on reducing future carbon emissions, the vast-vast-vast majority of which are coming from China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Asia,…. etc.

        But why should anyone worry their pretty heads over whether “US environmental policy” actually has any prospect of material-effects on the Global (so-called) problem? What matters is that we establish the infrastructure for future expansion of the “Rob Peter to Pay Paul”-environmental shell game.

        1. The rich energy use make up a small percentage overall. They can absorb increased costs so why would they change their lifestyle?

          1. The rich energy use make up a small percentage overall. They can absorb increased costs so why would they change their lifestyle?

            Cue rich guy lazily reaching from his triclinium couch into bin for another orphan to toss onto the fire, but finds none. He stands up in dawning terror realizing that orphans were NOT a renewable resource after all.

        2. “What matters is that we establish the infrastructure for future expansion of the “Rob Peter to Pay Paul”-environmental shell game.”

          Nailed it.

          1. Because if you can use “marginal changes in temperature of the planet” to justify the imposition of massive economic intervention/wealth-redistribution schemes…. why, just imagine what they’d do if they ever came across a real problem.

        3. Part of the problem is that China has committed to cutting its own carbon emissions. Now, you and I know that is likely BS, but it provides a huge stick with which to beat the US.

          1. China has committed to cutting its own carbon emissions

            That would first require China committing to some transparent process for finding out what they actually are

          2. When they reduce their output to pre 1992 levels, then we can have a discussion. Until then, the stick is mine.

        4. That is an absolute crock of shit. Anyone that thinks that carbon tax money wouldn’t disappear down the rathole of government bureaucracy needs their head examined. It would just be another government boondoggle bleeding the economy and nothing produced.

        5. Sounds great generally.

          If you impose on a commons, you compensate others for doing so. Those who impose the most pay on net, and those who impose the least are compensated for the greater imposition by others.

          Lockean Proviso
          Geolibertarianism

          Get with the program

    2. I didn’t know Matthew Niskanen was political. May be he should focus a little more on hockey.

      1. “Matthew” Niskanen? Who are you, Pierre McGuire?

        If I never hear Pierre say “Kristopher Letang” again, it’ll be too soon.

        1. I like to use people’s full names. Like Robbyspierre Soave.

        2. “Chipwooder with a great comment there, Doc. I knew him back when he played peewee hockey for the Kenosha Spitfires of the Ontario League.”

      2. “Frisky Nisky with the Nis-Cannon”

    3. The presence of Mr Liberaltarian himself, Will Wilkinson, on their staff certainly raises suspicions about their bonafides.

    4. They should just call themselves “Libertarians for More Government”. Their spokesman can be Michael Hihn.

        1. Hey, don’t sell me short. I’m a “psycho liar” now.

      1. More aggression from so-called “libertarian” bullies.

          1. I personally love the asides of the physical actions. It really paints a picture.

            Holds sides as I laugh and sneer at your aggression and stupidity.

            Calling this bulbous-faced asshole names out of self-defense

            1. All of you are in my permanent files, bullies. *eats more cat poop and looks for binkie

            2. (Nodding head in agreement) Hihn’s a sorry sack of shit and a Goddamned moron.

              1. Stop saying the name! This thread will get Hihnfected a few hours from now by the thread-corpse fucker.

    5. Good enough for reason. Just like a ubi.

  5. Just last year, one group of researchers reported that the global warming hiatus is real while another one found earlier this month that the hiatus never happened. Sounds suspiciously like a debate, doesn’t it?

    Sounds like apostasy.

    1. It’s the left-hand path of meterology.

    2. It sounds like someone is in need of re-education.

  6. The lamentations of their self-appointed elites is delicious. I am going to enjoy every bit of this four year raining of delicious tears.

    1. You know who else wanted to crush their enemies, see them driven before him, and hear the lamentations of their women…

      1. NIXON?!?!?

      2. Certainly not the guy with the fucking falcon and the wind through his hair….

      3. James Woods?

        1. Just walk away, CA

        2. ME!!!!!

      4. Governer Schwarzenagger^WConan?

      5. Thundarr the Barbarian?

      6. Jabba the Hutt

        /clearly

      7. Stonewall Jackson?

    2. A lot can and will happen in four years, but based on what I’ve seen since November, I’d lay money on 8 years. All it’s been so far has been doubling down on stupid rather than actually reflecting on their failed policies.

      1. They don’t have to reflect. They just have to figure out what they have to say to dupe more people into voting for them.

  7. Bottom line: Atmosphewic chemistwy is vewy vewy compwicated.

  8. Have you stopped beating your climate?

    Domestic abuse victims triggered. Way to go, Bailey.

    1. See, I went straight to “euphemism” on that one.

      1. okay, that is funny.

      2. Denying climate change before a big game improves athletic performance?

        1. You deny climate change before any big date, don’t you? Tell me you commit climate change heresy before any big date. Oh my God, he doesn’t shill for big oil before a big date…

  9. It looks like Climate Change will increase arable land, increase MY property value, and drown all the coastal elites.

    What’s not to love?

    1. “and drown all the coastal elites”

      If only-they will all move inland or head for the hills and mess things up for us plebians. I guess some who think they must accept their punishment from the Gore God will stay on the coasts.

    2. You forgot increasing climate scientists salaries, growing government, and that it will self-solve when all the fossil fuels are used up. You really do have to admire the whole thing.

    3. Unlikely, since the Earth is entering what a number of actual scientists think is a cooling phase now that the Sun is going quiescent. Some of the more extreme predictions is we will enter an actual ice age and not just an interglacial cooling since the Sun’s electromagnetic field is weakening. If we’re lucky, it’ll only be another interglacial cooling like The Little Ice Age or The Dark Ages Cooling. If we’re unlucky, it will be like The Younger Dryas all over again.

      Thing is that the motherfuckers in charge now will probably still be in charge and screaming that we need to do something to fix the something they’re screaming about now. The worst possible thing to do is what some jagoffs at NASA are proposing which is to dump a shitload of aerosol “something” into the atmosphere to “counteract Global Warming”. If I didn’t know better, I’d almost bet these shitheads know we’re heading into a cooling phase and want to make it worse to kill of a gigantic chunk of the human race, thereby making it easier to steal resources all over the globe.

      1. you forgot about the magnetic axis shift,..lol

  10. Jesus, Bernie, shut the fuck up.

    1. Christ, what a socialist.

    2. It’s even worse as a millenial. I see their worship of this asshat literally every single day on Facebook. It’s infuriating. Absolutely nothing he has said at these hearings has been remotely intelligent, but prog media will be all over it showing how he “grilled” these nominees, and millenial progs will accept everything he says as fact

      Semi-OT: I’m oil-industry adjacent, and sometimes people will ask me what the energy of the future is. It infuriates them when I say fossil fuels

      1. -1 Mr. Fusion

      2. It infuriates them when I say fossil fuels

        You should mix it up and occasionally throw “nuclear” in there too.

        1. “Nucular.”

    3. This is, literally, the only thing I have learned from the hearings.

  11. They now control the parameters of the debate, which provides them a tremendous opportunity to address one of the greatest threats mankind faces over the next century in an economically responsible manner.

    This is how you lose a debate you have no business losing – by granting the premises of the other side.

    Unless, when he said “one of the greatest threats mankind faces”, he was referring to the Green project of seizing control of big chunks of the world economy under the guise of saving the plant from CO2.

    1. Haha, saving the plant, how beautifully Freudian.

      1. Sometimes a mushroom is just a mushroom

    2. I’m sure he’s doing his part.

  12. I’m more concerned that he dosent want to sell any federal land or transfer ownership to the states. That he’ll most likely try to get trump to stay with the Paris agreement is bad enough.

  13. Just last year, one group of researchers reported that the global warming hiatus is real while another one found earlier this month that the hiatus never happened.

    Well, it was being measured while it was happening, so it was true then. But now time has passed and we all know that the older data gets, the more adjusting downward it needs. So, there was a hiatus, but not anymore.

    1. It’s like atomic decay, the further you get away from it, the cooler it gets.

  14. I don’t believe climate change is a “hoax” either. It’s been happening for millions of years. And we have fuck all to do with it – and can do fuck all about it.

    I would, however, like another delicious helping of Tony tears for Trump!!! TTT!!!

  15. to address one of the greatest threats mankind faces over the next century
    Will Wilkinson’s Niskanen outfit are a bunch of pussy fagatarians.

    1. Does that make you a gallutarian?

    2. SIV drives a rust-holed Subaru Brat with a bumper sticker that says “REAL MEN FUCK CHICKENS” on the back. He hasn’t had a valid driver’s license since 1978.

      1. SIV is Michael Badnarik?

      2. Hearty larf!

  16. to address one of the greatest threats mankind faces over the next century

    Crichton really nailed it with State of Fear. BE AFRAID, PLEBS, THE END IS NIGH LEST YOU DO AS I SAY.

  17. Not saying it hasn’t been discussed, but I haven’t heard any deep dive into the Democrats’ monumental loss of 2016 and any connection to the ridiculous focus on “climate policy”. That has to have hurt them. Yet they persist.

    1. I say they keep on trucking.

      1. They think trucks are bad for the environment.

    2. “climate policy” was what was supposed to bring millennials to the polls in droves to vote DEM (that and transgender bathrooms). Looks like there might be issues that are more important to this demographic.

  18. How does a carbon tax reduction air pollution again? Especially if you get a rebate.

    1. In this context, are we calling CO2 a “pollutant”?

      1. forget it jake, its Climate Town

  19. Just last year, one group of researchers reported that the global warming hiatus is real while another one found earlier this month that the hiatus never happened. Sounds suspiciously like a debate, doesn’t it?

    It might, if that’s what actually happened.

    But it isn’t.

    Numerous groups of researchers noticed that there was no warming. The faithful termed this a ‘hiatus’ when they couldn’t get people to stop noticing the obvious lack of warming.

    After a suitable interval, the faithful decided that they could ignore the ‘hiatus’ again and began speaking as if it was unreal, whereupon numerous groups brought out the open, easily accessible data and made it impossible to deny. AGAIN.

    The faithful then decided to simply put forwards false data and claim that it was real.

    That’s what happened.

    1. Thank you Az.

  20. Climate Change is an unfalsifiable religion to those Prog morons. Start with the knowledge we don’t have about TCS and ECR, work backwards from there, and you will find you are lost in the fucking woods with no real answers. Well, unless you have the gall to change bouy temps from sensors made to measure ocean temps to match ship intake temps (over nearly a hundred years without any concept of a standard intake temp measurement), changing the trend while you are at it, if you have those sort of scruples…then I suppose you can claim anything.

    1. Some people hate the idea of not knowing and can’t accept it. It’s much easier to just believe.

  21. Just last year, one group of researchers reported that the global warming hiatus is real while another one found earlier this month that the hiatus never happened. Sounds suspiciously like a debate, doesn’t it?

    Sounds like a motherfucking discovery if you ask me. On hiatus and wrecking the globe at the same time! Is there anything science can’t do?

  22. Wait, doesn’t grilling release greenhouse gasses?

    These people are such hypocrites

    1. Blowharding is known to be a major source of greenhouse gas emissions as well.

  23. Has anyone asked their prog friends if they would be up for banning all CO2 so 0 ppm in the atmosphere?

    1. +7 billion helium filled exit bags

  24. In other words, there is a debate about how best to address the problem of man-made climate change.

    I think the only debate in prog climate circles is whether to house deniers in re-education camps or just execute them outright.

    1. Tony approves of the second option.

  25. Consumers demand smart phone maker Apple spy on users more, correct behavior.

    Ceja demands that Apple halt the sale of all iPhones in California until a lock-out mechanism is implemented. He also demands that Apple release a software update that adds a lock-out mechanism to all iPhones already in the hands of consumers. He is not seeking further damages beyond legal fees and costs.

    The complaint, filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday, asserts that Apple’s willful decision not to implement a lock-out mechanism on iPhones, chiefly to prevent texting and driving, constitutes “unfair business acts and practices” under California’s Unfair Competition Law. A jury trial has been demanded.

    Ceja asserts that Apple’s “enormous market share” means that it is the “largest contributor” to texting and driving, while noting it is “downright shocking” that smartphone companies like Apple “do nothing to help shield the public at large from the dangers associated with the use of their phones.”

    “If texting and driving is a vessel of trouble, Apple is the captain of the ship,” the complaint alleges.

    1. The patent describes one method where a motion analyzer would detect whether a handheld device is in motion beyond a certain speed. A scenery analyzer would be able to determine whether the holder of the handheld device is located within a safe operating area of a vehicle. Otherwise, the device could be disabled.

      In other embodiments, a vehicle or car key could transmit a signal that disables functionality of the handheld device while it is being operated. To a lesser degree, a vehicle could also transmit a signal that merely sends the device a notification stating that functionality should be disabled.

      1. Oh this is going to work out real well!

      2. I installed a bottle opener on my phone so I can open my beer while I text and drive.

      3. My wife and kids will just love being locked out of their phones while riding in the car with me.

      4. wouldn’t it be simpler and more effective to not let women have smartphones?

      5. So passengers wouldn’t be able to use their smartphones.

        1. A scenery analyzer would be able to determine whether the holder of the handheld device is located within a safe operating area of a vehicle.

          I have no fucking idea how this would work, and I did 18 years as a software engineer.

          1. They are primitives, technology is indistinguishable from magic.

  26. “With Republicans in charge of the White House and Congress, conservatives no longer need to fear that acknowledging climate change will usher in a parade of policy horribles. “

    It is exceedingly obvious to me that most people’s objections to the data and “science” on climate change is mostly about what they fear the alarmists will do if and when the right acknowledges the data and the scientific consensus.

    I know a lot of people who’ve spent hours of their lives arguing online about whether climate change is real truly believe that the only reason they object to the scientific consensus on climate change is because in their hearts they truly care about the integrity of science as a virtue in itself–but they don’t spend that much time arguing with other people online about string theory. The reason they don’t care much about string theory is because string theory proponents aren’t trying to use the government to force them to sacrifice their standard of living.

    There are two things to take from this: 1) Acknowledging the scientific consensus is not capitulating to the authoritarian and socialist solutions of the alarmists 2) So long as the alarmists continue to advocate authoritarian and socialist solutions, a critical mass will never accept that climate change is even a legitimate problem.

    1. You cant have a scientific consensus if you don’t have a scientific theory.

    2. What scientific consensus?

      Unless someone has compiled a new report of climate scientist and papers, the last one didn’t show any kind of consensus: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot…..k-for.html

      That’s not to say that I don’t think climate change is a thing. But I have absolutely no idea (and really, no one else does either) how much of an impact humans have had or can have on it.

      So it’s not just that these people are calling for authoritarian and socialist solutions, it’s that they are calling for them without offering any concrete proof that we are the actual cause of the warming. And to top it all off, they can’t even articulate why that warming is a bad thing.

    3. It is exceedingly obvious to me that most people’s objections to the data and “science” on climate change is mostly about what they fear the alarmists will do if and when the right acknowledges the data and the scientific consensus.

      “Acknowledges the data”?

      I acknowledge the climate model have all failed. They predict a hot spot in the troposphere referred to as a “fingerprint” of AGW. The hotspot doesn’t exist. The real temperature trend is not within the error bars of almost all the models (maybe 1 or 2 and it’s at the lower bound of the error bars). Sea level rise has not accelerated, it has changed little in over 100 years. This is how you test a theory. If the data doesn’t match the theory then the theory is wrong. It’s pretty simple unless your livelihood depends on it.

      Bringing up ‘consensus’ just tells everybody how ignorant of science you are. Thomas Gold determined that tinnitus had to be the result of an active element in the ear. It took 30 years for the ‘consensus’ to figure out he was right. It was like 20 years before the ‘consensus’ acknowledged that the doctors that discovered most ulcers could be cured with antibiotics were right. Even Einstein ran into the ‘consensus’. The aether at one time had a ‘consensus’ vigorously defended by the ‘consensus’. It’s the history of science and the reason Max Plank said “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

  27. “It”s probably going to continue, though, because when the president-elect is doling out favor and criticism based on individual circumstances for specific businesses, all businesses have a pretty strong incentive to tell him exactly what he wants to hear.”

    Let’s not miss the forest for the trees.

    The purpose of Trump’s bully pulpit strategy on this isn’t to create jobs, specifically. It’s to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If Trump wants to win reelection, he’ll need to win all of those states all over again. It’s about winning votes.

    I’m not sure we should complain about Trump actually doing nothing and claiming credit. The alternative probably isn’t to claim nothing and not claim credit. The most likely alternative is that he’d actually start doing something–and we don’t want that, do we?

    I’d rather Obama had simply given lip service to saving the UAW. Instead, he nationalized GM, ripped Chrysler’s bond holders off, and renegotiated two trade agreements (with South Korea and Colombia) specifically so that the UAW approved of them. Trump’s mouth service is significantly superior from a libertarian perspective. Let’s hope Trump keeps running his mouth and doing nothing.

    1. This might be in the wrong thread.

      Still, it was awesome, wasn’t it?

      1. 5 out of 10

        1. You love it.

          It makes you horny.

    2. Like I told my wife. His stupid tweets don’t cost me anything.

  28. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.homejobs7.com

    1. Yeah, but what’s your carbon footprint using the computer that much? Didn’t think of that, did you smartbot?

  29. So, was there any discussion of the EPA dumping toxic waste into the water supply in a fashion that was eerily predicting days before it actually happened (suggesting that it was deliberate)? Or its failures with the Flint water crisis, or the similar crisis in Washington DC?

    1. They wouldn’t have these problems if we gave them all the money and power they ask for.

    2. I gather Sessions brought up both the Colorado mine spill and the Flint water crisis as EPA screw-ups.

  30. Trump [Insert Agency Acronym Here] Nominee [Insert Nominee Name Here] Grilled on Climate Change at Senate Hearing

    Figured I’d make a template for the staff since I’ve seen at least one other article following exactly this pattern today.

  31. Climate change is no hoax; the global climate is always changing. The climate alarmism has become a hoax, though it didn’t start that way.

  32. Just last year, one group of researchers reported that the global warming hiatus is real while another one found earlier this month that the hiatus never happened.

    Is Ron ever going to explain the discrepancy between data he’s been posting for a decade and the new “hiatus never happened” data?

  33. It is a Debate,..one that needs clarification as to motives,.why the false science? why make political decisions on a Theory? the 97% consensus is Fake.. No one in their right minds denies Climate Change, we have evidence of that going back eons,..why did climate change before Humans walked the earth? No one seems to want to answer that.

  34. I Leave my office job and now I am getting paid 96 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

    ================> http://homejobs7.com

  35. before I saw the check saying $8075 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law woz like they say actualie receiving money in their spare time at there labtop. . there sisters roommate has been doing this less than 14 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there villa and bourt a gorgeous Subaru Impreza .
    =============== http://www.homejobs7.com

  36. I can’t say that I’m all that fond of Pruitt, considering he’s from my state, but at least as far this goes, Pruitt seems to be pushing the climate debate in the right direction.

  37. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.