Open Letter to the President-Elect Supporting Scott Pruitt for EPA Administrator

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., Founder & National Spokesman

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

Dear President-elect Donald J. Trump:

We write to you as evangelical and mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish scientists, economists, legal scholars, policy experts, and religious leaders in support of your nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to the office of Administrator of the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA has the crucial task of writing and enforcing regulations that apply statutes passed by Congress and signed by the President to protect the life and health of Americans. Its work necessarily integrates science, economics, law, politics, and ethics, all of which are rooted in religious worldviews. A good Administrator must demonstrate expertise in at least some of these, and mature understanding of and receptivity to the insights of all. Scott Pruitt does.

As Oklahoma Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt has demonstrated his legal expertise in successful litigation to require corporations—including the energy corporations so prominent in his state’s economy—to abide by environmental laws and regulations. He has publicly expressed his conviction that the EPA’s role is not to create law through regulations that exceed the scope of enabling legislation but to implement the intent of that legislation and nothing more. That is, he recognizes that environmental policy should be determined by the people’s elected representatives, not by unelected, unaccountable members of the federal bureaucracy. He has also publicly opposed the abuse of the court system by use of “sue-and-settle” to reach sweetheart deals between the EPA and environmental advocacy groups. These are some of the obvious ways in which his legal expertise qualifies him for Administrator.

Mr. Pruitt has also demonstrated understanding of and open-mindedness toward scientific insights crucial to the formulation and implementation of environmental regulation. He is prepared to hear all sides in debates over the risks and benefits of various activities that come under the purview of the EPA.

Finally, as a committed evangelical Christian, Mr. Pruitt has an unbending commitment to human life and health, especially to the protection of the most vulnerable in society. We are pleased to note that a large group of religious leaders, including presidents of some of America’s largest and most prestigious theological seminaries, has also written to you in his support for this reason, and we add our voices to theirs.

Some radical environmentalists and religious activists oppose Mr. Pruitt because he does not embrace their exaggerated fears of human-induced global warming—fears that go well beyond the empirical evidence crucial to genuine science—or their antipathy to the development of the abundant, reliable, affordable energy indispensable to lifting and keeping whole societies out of poverty and the disease and premature death that invariably accompany it. We urge you therefore to stand firmly behind your nominee, and we commit ourselves to supporting him in the confirmation process that lies ahead. We welcome you and your Administration to call on us to assist in any way we can.


[Institutional associations are for identification only and do not imply institutional endorsement. Those listed below signed by 11 a.m. January 5, 2017. To add your signature or see additional signers, click here.]


  1. Raymond P. Adams, M.Div (Pastoral Theology), D.D (Honorary), member, Grace Community Church of Sun Valley, Arcadia, CA
  2. Gary L. Anderson, MA (History), Colonel, USAF (retired), Aviation and Civil Engineering, Fruita, CO
  3. William L. Anderson, Ph.D. (Economics), Professor of Economics, Frostburg State University, Frostburg, MD
  4. William D. Balgord, Ph.D. (Geochemistry), President, Environmental & Resources Technology, Inc., Middleton, WI
  5. Tim Ball, Ph.D. (Climatology), Professor, University of Winnipeg, and Adjunct Professor, University of Manitoba (retired)
  6. Paul Barber, B.S. (Civil Engineering); President of the Board, Barber Brothers Contracting Co. LLC, Baton Rouge, LA
  7. Charles G. Battig, M.S. (Electrical Engineering), M.D., Heartland Institute policy expert on environment; Virginia Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE), Charlottesville, VA
  8. David E. Baugh, B.S. (Chemistry), M.S. (Chemical Engineering), Professional Engineer, Retired, Director, Central Oklahoma Chapter of Reasonable Faith, Oklahoma City, OK
  9. Timothy Beard, Th.M. (Theology), retired missionary/pastor, Calvary Bible Church, Toppenish, WA
  10. E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D. (History), Founder and National Spokesman, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
  11. Victoria Blodgett, New England Regional Director, Aglow International, Southbridge, MA
  12. Carl W. Bogue, Jr., Th.D. (Theology), Pastor Emeritus, Faith Presbyterian Church, Akron, OH
  13. James A. Borland, (Th.D.), Theology, Professor of Theology, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA
  14. David J. Bufalo, B.S. (Civil Engineering), Licensed Professional Engineer, Denver, Colorado
  15. H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. (Environmental Ethics), Research Fellow, The Heartland Institute, Rowlett, TX
  16. Danny J. Burrows, Lt. Col. (Ret.), USAF, Big Oaks Ranch, Kilgore TX
  17. Roger L. Burtner, Ph.D. (Geology), former National Science Foundation Fellow; former Adjunct Professor, Case Western Reserve University; Principal, Remote Sensing Exploration, Fullerton CA
  18. Ronald S. Carson, Ph.D. (Nuclear Engineering), Affiliate Assistant Professor, University of Washington; retired Technical Fellow, The Boeing Company; Adjunct Professor, Seattle Pacific University; Renton, WA
  19. Kenneth Chilton, Ph.D. (Economics), retired Associate Professor of Management and Director of the Institute for Study of Economics and the Environment, Lindenwood University, St. Louis, MO
  20. Charles Clough, M.S. (Atmospheric Physics); retired chief, U.S. Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; retired Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force Reserve Weather Officer; President, Biblical Framework Ministries; adjunct professor, Chafer Theological Seminary, Albuquerque, NM
  21. Mark Coppenger, Ph.D. (Philosophy), Professor of Christian Apologetics, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY
  22. Donald R. Crowe, P.E., B.S. (Mechanical Engineering), Founder & President, The Absaroke Corporation, Plantation, FL
  23. Claude C. Culross, Ph.D. (Organic Chemistry), Staff Chemist (retired), ExxonMobil, Baton Rouge, LA
  24. Donn Dears, B.S. (Engineering), retired GE Company Senior Executive, The Villages, FL
  25. Terry W. Donze, B.S. (Geological Engineering), author, Climate Realism: Alarmism Exposed, Wheat Ridge, CO
  26. John Droz, M.S. (Physics), B.S. (Physics), B.S. (Math), Independent Scientist, Founder, Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED), Morehead City, NC
  27. Trent England, J.D. (Law), David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Oklahoma City, OK
  28. James E. Enstrom, Ph.D. (Physics), M.P.H. (Epidemiology), Research Professor / Researcher (retired), UCLA School of Public Health; President, Scientific Integrity Institute, Los Angeles, CA
  29. Gordon Evans, M.S. (Soil Science), Environmental Manager, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX
  30. Joseph Farah, Founder and CEO,, WND Books, and WND Films, Washington, D.C.
  31. Peter M. Felker, Ph.D. (Chemistry), University of California, Los Angeles, CA
  32. Neil L. Frank, Ph.D. (Meteorology), former Director, National Hurricane Center (1974–1987), Chief Meteorologist, KHOU-TV Houston (1987–2008), retired, Fulshear, TX
  33. John Freeman, B.S. (Engineering) AFTS, retired Anglican priest, Hillcrest, KwaZulu Natal, South Africa
  34. Kevin D. Freeman, CFA, B.S., B.A. (Economics), Founder, NSIC (National Security Investment Consultant) Institute, Bartlesville, OK
  35. Martin P. Fricke, Ph.D. (Nuclear Physics), Senior Fellow, American Physical Society, San Diego, CA
  36. Jim Garlow, Ph.D. (Historical Theology), Pastor, Skyline Church, San Diego; Oversight Pastor, The Jefferson Gathering, US Capitol Building, Washington, DC
  37. Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D. (Agriculture), Retired Director of Research, INTTAS (Iniciativa para la Investigación y Transferencia de Tecnologia Agraria Sostenible), Filadelfia, Paraguay
  38. Alan W. Gomes, Ph.D. (Theology), Professor of Theology, Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA
  39. Vicki P. Goodman, B.S. (Engineering), Retired Applications Engineer, Prescott, AZ
  40. Bruce L. Gordon, Ph.D. (History and Philosophy of Science), Associate Professor,  History and Philosophy of Science, Houston Baptist University, Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute, Richmond, TX
  41. Steve Goreham, MS/EE, MBA, Executive Director, Climate Science Coalition of America, New Lenox, IL
  42. Paul S. Gould, Ph.D. (Religious Studies), missionary, writer, Christian Layman’s Missionary Evangelism Association, Prosser, WA
  43. Jay Grimstead, D.Min. (Theology), Founder/Director, Coalition on Revival; Founder, International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, Coordinator, International Church Council Project, Murphys, CA
  44. Karen Gushta, Ph.D. (Philosophy of Education), D. James Kennedy Ministries, Fort Lauderdale, FL
  45. Gary Habermas, Ph.D. (Philosophy, History, and Religion), Distinguished Research Professor and Chair, Department of Philosophy, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA
  46. William Happer, PhD, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University
  47. Eugene S. Harsh, M.S. (Meteorology), Lt. Col. USAF (Retired), Colorado Springs, CO
  48. Michael Hart, M.A. (Medieval and English History), Ph.D. (abd; Medieval and European History), Professor Emeritus, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
  49. Ron Heffield, M.M. (Bible), Pastor, New Life Community Church, Orlando, FL
  50. Thomas D. Hennigan, M.S. (Environmental and Forest Biology), Associate Professor of Organism Biology, Truett McConnell University, Cleveland, GA
  51. Rev Irfon Hughes, M.Div., Co-Pastor, Shiloh Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Raleigh NC
  52. Thomas Ice, Ph.D. (Theology), Executive Director, Pre-Trib Research Center, Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
  53. Klaus Issler, Ph.D. (Education), Professor of Discipleship and Theology, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, La Mirada, CA
  54. Bryce W. Johnson, Ph.D. (Nuclear Engineering), retired Senior Staff Scientist, Science Applications International Corporation, retired Professional Nuclear Engineer, State of California
  55. Peter Jones, Ph.D. (Theology), Director, truthXchange, Escondido, CA; Emeritus Professor of New Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, CA
  56. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D. (Ethics), Professor of Ethics, Whitefield Theological Seminary, Lakeland, FL
  57. C. Keister, Ph.D. (Physics), Pharmaceutical Research Specialist, 3M Company (retired), Lakeville, MN
  58. Hugh Kendrick, Ph.D. (Nuclear Engineering), University  of Michigan; former Director, Plans & Analysis, Office of Nuclear Reactor Research, U.S. Department of Energy; retired VP SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation), Tysons Corner, VA
  59. Bernard Kepshire, Ph.D. (Fisheries Science), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon State University (retired), Corvallis, OR
  60. Edward C. Krug, Ph.D. (Soil Science), University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, retired
  61. Richard Land, D.Phil. (Theology), President, Southern Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC
  62. Mark J. Larson, Ph.D. (Historical Theology), Pastor, Peace Reformed Church, Garner, IA
  63. Willes K. Lee, President, National Federation of Republican Assemblies
  64. David Legates, Ph.D. (Climatology), Professor of Climatology and Geography, University of Delaware, Newark, DE
  65. David H. Lester, Ph.D. (Chemical Engineering), retired, Fox Island, WA
  66. David H. Linden, M.Div. (Theology and Bible), Assistant Pastor, University Presbyterian Church, Las Cruces, NM (retired)
  67. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. (Applied Mathematics), Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Emeritus, MIT, Cambridge, MA
  68. Stephen D. Livesay Ph.D (Education/History), President, Bryan College, Dayton TN
  69. Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. (Atmospheric Science), Professor, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO
  70. James F. MacGillivray, CFP (retired), Registered Investment Adviser, Albuquerque, NM
  71. Matt Mackowiak, B.S. (Communication Studies), Executive Director, Fight For Tomorrow, Austin, TX, and Washington, DC
  72. Marion Leroy Madden, Ph.D. (Chemistry), Professor of Chemistry (Retired), Missouri Baptist College, St Louis, MO
  73. Jeffrey Mahn, M.S. (Nuclear Engineering), Sandia National Laboratories (Retired), Albuquerque, NM
  74. Dr. Matthew Malkan, Ph.D. (Astrophysics), Professor of Physics & Astronomy, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA
  75. Mark P. Martin, LCSW-C (Social Work), Clinical Social Worker, Brook Lane Health Services, Hagerstown, MD
  76. Rod D. Martin, J.D., Founder and CEO, The Martin Organization, Destin, FL; Distinguished Visiting Professor of History and Government, Hannibal LaGrange University, Hannibal, MO
  77. The Most Rev. William Mikler (Ph.D., Biblical Philosophy), Archbishop, Communio Christiana, Sanford, FL
  78. Tracy Miller, Ph.D. (Economics), Falls Church, VA
  79. Craig Vincent Mitchell, Ph.D. (Philosophy/Ethics), Associate Professor of Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Criswell College, Dallas, TX
  80. William G. Moore, Ph.D. (Church History), Pastor, Cornerstone Baptist Church, Clinton, SC
  81. Mark Musser, M.Div., Pastor and Missionary, Grace Redeemer Bible Church, Olympia, WA
  82. Barry L. Myers, Ph.D. (Computer Science), Associate Professor of Computer Science and Chair, Mathematics and Computer Science Department, Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID
  83. Erik V. Myhrberg, Ph.D. (International Business), Tactical Chaplain, Quantico, VA
  84. Jerry Newcombe, D.Min., Senior Producer and on-air host for D. James Kennedy Ministries, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
  85. Dave Odell, M.S., (Zoology), NYSDEC Region 8 Wildlife Manager, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Retired, Clyde, NY
  86. George Paul, Ph.D. (Physics), MBA, Senior Lecturer in Physics, University of New South Wales (retired), consultant in Intellectual Property, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  87. Franklin Ed Payne, M.D., Associate Professor, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA (retired); co-founder, Journal of Biblical Ethics in Medicine
  88. Philip Pennance, Ph.D. (Chemical Physics), M.SC. (Geophysics), Professor of Mathematics, University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras, Puerto Rico
  89. Ricki Pepin, Author, Lecturer, Instructor, Institute on the Constitution, Springfield, OH
  90. Mark Pinkerton, MD (Family Medicine), Professor of Pharmacy Practice, Cedarville University, Cedarville, OH
  91. Joseph A. Pipa Jr., Ph.D. (Theology), President and Professor of Systematic Theology, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Greenville, SC
  92. Everett Piper, Ph.D., President, Oklahoma Wesleyan University, Bartlesville, OK
  93. Ronald W. Pritchett  M.S. (MOTM) Master of Technology Management, (B.S.) Geological Engineering, American Institute of Professional Geologists, Lone Tree, Colorado
  94. Jay W. Richards, Ph.D. (Philosophy), Research Professor, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC
  95. Robert J. Romano, D.Min. (Economic Ethics), Founder, Heartist Ministries; AIA Design-Build Architect, Charlotte, NC
  96. Caleb Stewart Rossiter, Ph.D. (Policy Analysis), Adjunct Professor, American University, Washington, DC
  97. Fred P. Rumak B.S. (Geology), P. Geo; CPG; P. Geol; Energy Consultant, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  98. James H. Rust, Ph.D. (Engineering), Professor of Nuclear Engineering (retired), Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA; policy advisor, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL
  99. Anthony J. Sadar, M.S. (Environmental Science, Air Pollution Control), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Adjunct Associate Professor, Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PA
  100. Daryl Sas, Ph.D. (Biology), Professor of Biology, Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PA
  101. Mark R. Saucy Ph.D (Theology), Professor of Systematic Theology, Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA
  102. Richard L. Sauer, M.S. (Environmental Engineering), Col., U.S. Air Force Reserve (ret.), NASA (ret.), League City, TX
  103. Herbert Schlossberg, Ph.D. (History), Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, DC
  104. Kelly Shackelford, J.D. (Law), President and CEO, First Liberty Institute, Plano, TX
  105. Thomas P. Sheahen, Ph.D. (Physics), retired research scientist specializing in energy issues, formerly with several different national laboratories
  106. David Shormann, Ph.D. (Aquatic Science), President, DIVE, LLC, Haleiwa, HI
  107. Chris Skates, B.A. (Biology/Chemistry), former power plant chemist, writer, Adjunct Scholar, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, Frankfort, KY
  108. Buddy Smith, M.Div., Senior Vice President, American Family Association, Tupelo, MS
  109. Willie Soon, Ph.D. (Aerospace Engineering), independent scientist, Cambridge, MA
  110. Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. (Meteorology), Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, AL, and Lead Scientist, NASA Aqua AMSR-3 Satellite Remote Sensing Program
  111. Larry H. Stallard, M.Div., Retired Pastor, Edgemont Presbyterian Church, Bristol, TN
  112. Nicholas Stehle, B.A. (Political Science), CEO, The Stehle Organization; President, Campaign for America’s Future; Little Rock, AR
  113. Frank Stevenson, J.D. (Law), retired President, NCF Title, Jacksonville, FL
  114. Richard F. Storm, PE, CEM, retired engineer, Hilton Head, SC
  115. Owen D. Strachan, Ph.D. (Theology), Professor, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Kansas City, MO
  116. Kenneth G. Talbot, Ph.D., Th.D. (Divinity), President and Professor of Theology and Apologetics, Whitefield Theological Seminary and College; Pastor, Christ Presbyterian Church (RPCGA), Lakeland, FL
  117. Timothy D. Terrell, Ph.D. (Economics), Associate Professor, Wofford College, Spartanburg, SC
  118. David J. Theroux, M.S. (Mechanical Engineering), M.B.A. (Business Economics), Founder and President, Independent Institute, Oakland, CA
  119. Joseph Touhill, Ph.D. (Environmental Engineering), P.E., DEE, F. AIChE, F.ASCE, President, Touhill Technology Management, Jamison, PA
  120. Reverend Thomas Trouwborst, M.B.A., M.Div., Pastor, Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Glenside, PA
  121. Gary Tuck, Ph.D., (Bible Exposition), Professor of Biblical Literature, Western Seminary, Los Gatos, CA
  122. L. (Don) Veinot Jr., President, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., Wonder Lake, IL
  123. Jeffery J. Ventrella, J.D., Ph.D. (Law), Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, AZ
  124. James A. Wanliss, Ph.D. (Physics), Professor of Physics, Presbyterian College, Clinton, SC
  125. Anthony Watts, American Meteorological Society-certified television and radio meteorologist (retired), owner of, Chico, CA
  126. David F. Wells, Ph.D (Theology), Distinguished Research Professor, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA
  127. Scott E. Williams, Ph.D. (Applied Mathematics), Monument, CO
  128. Peter W. Wood, Ph.D. (Anthropology), President, National Association of Scholars, New York, NY
  129. Thomas H. Wysmuller, B.A., Meteorologist, NASA (Ret.); Chair, Water Day 2013, UNESCO IHE Water Research Institute, Delft, The Netherlands; Chair, Oceanographic Section, 2016 World Congress of Ocean, Qingdao, China; NASA TRCS charter member, Ogunquit, ME
  130. William Zmistowski, Jr., AIA, NCARB, IIDA, B.S. (Architecture, Land Planning, Urban Design, Environmental Design), International Design Consultant, Boulder, CO
  131. Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D. (Economics), John G. Searle Chair, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 16, 2017 8:44 am

LOVE IT! Very positive and thoughtful.

January 16, 2017 8:53 am

…and after reviewing the list of names and re-reading the letter, I do see any possible way any one of signatories can make any money from this letter or the positions/opinions state therein. How refreshingly different than the AGW community.

January 16, 2017 8:56 am

Please consider tacking this to the top of WUWT for a period of time.

January 16, 2017 8:57 am

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
My knowledge of Mr. Pruitt is he respects and upholds the law. Just as importantly, he limits enforcers per the law. He fights to uphold the law for all. That is enough for me. I support Scott Pruitt for EPA.

January 16, 2017 9:11 am

The International Monetary Fund is raising its forecast for the U.S. economy this year and in 2018, reflecting an expected boost from the economic policies of President-elect Donald Trump.

Nigel S
Reply to  Latitude
January 16, 2017 10:25 am

UK too! ‘Despite Brexit!’

Reply to  Nigel S
January 16, 2017 11:55 am

butbutbutbut…..the experts said it was the end of the world

Reply to  Nigel S
January 16, 2017 4:56 pm

end of their world, maybe

Reply to  Nigel S
January 17, 2017 1:23 pm

‘Third World War’ after Brexit, we were – misleadingly? – told here, in this sceptr’d isle.
Now, I note that Pyeong-Yang’s very own Fat Boy Kim is still growing up, and making all sorts of peri-pubertal plaints, but I do not think a Third World War is likely from him.
Squashed pretty quickly.
One or two other big players [no names, no pack drill; although I’m sure the delightful, fragrant, Mr Putin knows where I live, like the Soccer World Cup 2018 voters].
Is Russia, state-sponsored doping program and all, being stripped of the 2018 Soccer/Football World Cup?? ??
Official Advice is – don’t hold your breath.
So the druggies host the World Cup.
Next, the Superheated World Cup in Qatar, 2022; summer temperatures over 50 C, in the shade. Without any ‘Global Warming’, of course!
Allegedly the stadia will give shade to the players, at the cost of migrant workers’ lives.
And the fans will be encouraged to be alcohol-free.
I wonder how that will work?
Bigger casualties than several recent Saudi hajjes?
I do hope not. Fervently.
Auto, raising awareness of a few other interesting things out there.

J Mac
January 16, 2017 9:11 am

Hear, Hear!

January 16, 2017 9:52 am

Uh oh, they said publicly that he was a Christian. That means that the hard left will now double down on doing everything they can to personally and professionally destroy him.
Like all new religions, the new religion of progressivism cannot abide the continued presence of any of faithful members of a religion that preceded them, especially one that is likely to long outlast them. THIS is Pruitt’s most unforgivable crime, in their eyes – HERESY!!!!

Reply to  wws
January 16, 2017 11:55 am

Progressivism is a secular religion. The state is now God.

January 16, 2017 10:00 am

Why do we need a petition supporting an appointment? What am I missing?

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  commieBob
January 16, 2017 10:49 am

It lets Mr Trump know that there is support for his nomination of Mr Scott Pruitt.
It is important that even someone as confident as Mr Trump gets encouragement from the public.
As Napoleon said “Moral is to the physical as three is to one”.
It keeps moments of self doubt at bay.

Reply to  commieBob
January 16, 2017 11:53 am

He has to get approved by the Senate, not a guarantee with a 52-48 split Repubs-Dems.

Reply to  commieBob
January 16, 2017 1:31 pm

Is there a problem with citizens writing in support of a person or issue? It just so happens to be their right! That maybe what you are missing!

Reply to  Flyoverbob
January 16, 2017 7:13 pm

They are soliciting signatures and that makes their letter a petition. Until now, I have never seen a petition for a government to do something that it was already doing. There’s nothing wrong with it, but I do find it surprising.

Dodgy Geezer
January 16, 2017 10:03 am

Please can someone petition to get an unbiased look at the CO2 science? So long as the Hockey Stick Team have a stranglehold on the science the Warmists will always be able to claim funds.
When their ‘science is disproven, they can be defunded easily and safely.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
January 16, 2017 3:04 pm

They can be forced to defend their science in order to procure funds. As it has been they avoided debate and we’re essentially assured of funding.

January 16, 2017 10:40 am

“Some radical environmentalists and religious activists oppose Mr. Pruitt”
Should read:
Some radical environmentalists and other religious activists oppose Mr. Pruitt

Reply to  TA
January 16, 2017 2:25 pm

Has anyone stopped to ask, “What does religion have anything to do with this subject?” (other than the religious aspects of the AGW crowd)
Why should we believe that religion could have anything useful to say on this subject.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  rocketscientist
January 16, 2017 3:12 pm

Well they believe they have an obligation to steward creation wisely and that should be everybody’s obligation. To the present we have tossed away trillions on an unproven theory. That is a resource that could have been used for real environmental conservation and world health and generation of economic development.

Reply to  rocketscientist
January 16, 2017 3:22 pm

Just another advocacy group with a dubious agenda.
If religion comes upon a correct solution to anything it comes as pure luck.

Reply to  rocketscientist
January 16, 2017 5:52 pm

If religion comes upon a correct solution to anything it comes as pure luck.

A number of prominent atheists–Michael Shermer, Jerry Coyne and Sam Harris for example–claim that human beings do not have free will. If they are correct (which I seriously doubt) then it’s “pure luck” whenever any human being or organized group of them “comes upon a correct solution to anything.”

Pat Frank
Reply to  rocketscientist
January 16, 2017 6:45 pm

These people, Shermer, etc., claim the stance of science as their own yet claim to pronounce on something — free will — that has no scientific explanation. I.e., there is no falsifiable theory of “free will.”
No one knows what “free will” is, how to define it, what an unambiguous free will observable would look like, or how to measure it. And yet, these folks claim it doesn’t exist.
Their stated belief fundamentally contradicts their principle of judgment. They suffer from cognitive dissonance without even knowing it.
On the other hand, the existence of science itself and its undoubted objective novelty, indicates that humans have creative volition.

Reply to  rocketscientist
January 16, 2017 7:05 pm

Lots of mainstream religious leaders speak out often in support of the global warming scam, and pressure their flocks to do the same. Perhaps these religious leaders decided that it’s high time a voice of reason was heard from the faith on that topic.

January 16, 2017 10:42 am

January 18, is the date of the U.S. Senate hearing for Scott Pruitt.

January 16, 2017 10:55 am

Well Done . They have already disproven the “science hypothesis ” about CO2 causing the earth to have a fever .The whole thing is based on climate models that have been proven to be highly inaccurate , grossly over stating any warming . Following the scientific method the hypothesis must be supported by observed real observations and data other wise it isn’t scientifically valid to start with .
It was been warming for thousands of years which has allowed nature to flourish .

Pamela Gray
January 16, 2017 10:59 am

Hmmm. Not particularly enthralled with the letter. Like solar variability is hardly a strong or even tepid cause of warm/cold oceanic variation, one’s religion is no premiere endorsing cause of our responsibility to guard Earth’s natural resources with due diligence. Let us continue to separate church and state. Our own belief in the one creator is best allowed free reign when no particular religion is touted as better or more endorsing than another. Therefore we best present our opinions on politically connected scientific matters based on reviews of unbiased gold-standard scientific research methods following the practice of unexaggerated observations.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 16, 2017 12:57 pm

” Our own belief in the one creator is best allowed free reign when no particular religion is touted as better or more endorsing than another.”
Who is the “our” in that sentence, Pamela? You got a god in your pocket? ; )
“Let us continue to separate church and state.”
What are you talking about? I am not the state . . I am free under that arrangement to say “No dice” to your request that I pretend I believe you (or some group of yous ; ) can just magically determine what constitutes the “unbiased gold-standard scientific research methods following the practice of unexaggerated observations.”
I say, freedom of the mind is best, and freedom of speech, for all. You got a problem with that? Come and take it, lightweight ; )

Pamela Gray
Reply to  JohnKnight
January 16, 2017 1:12 pm

You appear to argue that anyone can say anything in persuasive sciency oratory. Which explains blood-letting, slavery, hysterectomies and lobotomies for mental illness, toddlers with autism being forcefully removed from mothers, the “reasoned” approach to the Jewish problem, and the crazy notion to rid the air of CO2.

Reply to  JohnKnight
January 16, 2017 1:26 pm

“You appear to argue that anyone can say anything in persuasive sciency oratory.”
It seems self evident they can . . for now. Is that not best, to your mind?
“Which explains blood-letting, slavery, hysterectomies and lobotomies for mental illness, toddlers with autism being forcefully removed from mothers, the “reasoned” approach to the Jewish problem, and the crazy notion to rid the air of CO2.”
But, aren’t those things done in the name of science? How can eliminating the freedom to think and speech freely on such matter be blamed for such things? It’s contra-logical to me . . without that freedom wouldn’t such things become perpetual?

Gunga Din
Reply to  JohnKnight
January 16, 2017 1:35 pm

“Let us continue to separate church and state.”
When that means no denominational control of Government and no Government control of denominations (or whatever names are given to other belief systems splinters) , fine. I’m all for it.
But if that means that only those who believe in … Nothing … are allowed to be in or have a say in Government, not fine.
Part of the job of “Government” is to keep all of us with different beliefs, including the belief in “Nothing”, from suppressing each other’s rights to believe and speak.
Even if the phrase “separation of church and state” was in the Bill of Rights, it could not have meant the separation of a man or woman from their “god”.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 16, 2017 2:01 pm

Ask Anne Frank if she wished ill-guided “science” to have seen the light of day. Oh wait, she can’t. That “science” killed her. Ask slaves who felt the whip one too many times because of religion-fueled science. Oh wait, they can’t. That “science” killed them. Ask women who have borne much unnecessary pain in the name of “science”. Can’t. Their dead. Ask female children who continue, now, to suffer at the feet of religious and communistic “science” how they feel about their mutilated genitalia or untimely death because they were not borne with a penis. Sorry. Not buying your anything goes. I would imagine if you were to find yourself at the mercy of such freedom of thought that would lead to your disfigurement, or death, you would be hoping someone might come along to say wait just a cotton pickin minute.
A case in point, we have bigger governments who wish to direct smaller governments to stay in energy-deprived poverty but here is some money to ease their pain. I say, hell no. I don’t think that thought should rule the day. Do you? I for one am all for telling Merrill Streep and her Obamaclinton-drooling ilk to shut the hell up.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 16, 2017 2:41 pm

“I for one am all for telling Merrill Streep and her Obamaclinton-drooling ilk to shut the hell up.”
I’m for you being allowed to tell them that . . that’s my point. Not just if some special people have granted that you get to “mix” one form of thought/understanding with another, and so your words are allowed, but those of people who see other forms of thought/understanding as rightly “mixed” don;t get to tell you the same thing . . No special people, with such powers is best, it seems to me. No; Though shalt not mix religious thought with political or scientific or celebrity or whatever thought . . Just freedom.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 16, 2017 5:30 pm

Can you be more specific when you mention slaves. Not all slaves were whipped and what’s religion gotta do with it?

John M. Ware
Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 16, 2017 4:46 pm

The expression is “free rein” not “free reign.” “Free rein” is letting the horse choose its own path. I don’t know what “free reign” is, other than to hope that we will soon be free of Obama’s reign (rule).

January 16, 2017 11:03 am

what !!!!! “We write to you as evangelical and mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish scientists, economists, legal scholars, policy experts, and religious leaders in support of your nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to the office of Administrator of the federal Environmental Protection Agency.”.
Why did you put this in your blog, Mr. Watts? With a nearly 70% disapproval rating, none of Mr. Trumps choices should be supported. We will now have q uite mentally ill president in charge of the upcoming Nuclear winter.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Mike
January 16, 2017 11:14 am

MIke, are you saying that you disagree that Pruitt is qualified?

Reply to  Steve Fraser
January 16, 2017 12:03 pm

Uh yeah. RE: Finally, as a committed evangelical Christian, Mr. Pruitt….”
My position: Because evangelicals are anti-Planned Parenthood, anti-LGBT and probably agrees with Mr. Pence who thinks that being gay can be cured with electro-shock therapy. I can only imagine how he would blame Muslims for climate change. Radical is radical. We need moderates, regardless of which position they hold in government. So yes, he is unqualified by even announcing he is evangelical. Years ago we had a very Mormon congressman in the City of Carlsbad CA for many year+s. He NEVER announce his religion or made voting decisions in the House based upon his church. THAT is the type of person we need in any cabinet position, not someone who influences choices, even environmental choices, based on his religious beliefs.

Reply to  Steve Fraser
January 16, 2017 5:47 pm

What are the limits of this “approval or else” litmus test of yours? How ’bout pedophilia? Bestiality? . . Is it OK if someone doesn’t engage themselves . . or is that not sufficient approval for you to conciser them worthy of holding public office?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Mike
January 16, 2017 12:13 pm

Stop it. You obviously know nothing about the heartache mental illness causes, else you would not paint a political adversary so unfeelingly with the overwhelming heartache borne by families dealing with this significant medical issue. Call him any name in the political lexicon you wish. But leave the families dealing with mental illness alone. They have enough ostracism every minute of every day without your boorishness on top of it. Sir, apologize.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 16, 2017 2:47 pm

Pamela, I doubt he will apologize.
I had an Uncle who died of Alzheimer. His body eventually “forgot” what it was supposed to do.
I remember once he and his son came to visit. We met and had a cold-cut buffet lunch at another of my cousin’s house. He thanked us all for coming to visit him at West Point. We were in Ohio.
My sister helped him make his sandwich because, at the moment, he had forgotten the meat went inside the bun.
This man had been a law professor. I know he wrote at least one law book. (It was on my Dad’s shelf.)
In short, I have an idea where you’re coming from though I suspect that your personal experience was/is closer and more prolonged than mine.
Again, I doubt he’ll apologize. But, for how it hit you, I’m sorry for what he said.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Mike
January 16, 2017 12:21 pm

Trump is putting together the best cabinet I could have possibly hoped for. And I’m fairly certain your 70% disapproval rating is as manufactured as any poll designed to BE the news and not reflect it.
Watching the Progressives pucker up is proof enough.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Joel Snider
January 17, 2017 11:10 am

Obviously the same pollsters that said Hillary (a.k.a. “Turd Sandwich”) would win in a landslide.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel Snider
January 17, 2017 12:37 pm

Yep. That’s called trying to create opinion rather than reflect it.

Reply to  Mike
January 16, 2017 3:01 pm

We will now have q uite mentally ill president in charge of the upcoming Nuclear winter.

Trump Derangement Syndrome at it’s most hysterical.
It is despicable that the Left is doing everything in it’s power to attempt to delegitimize the Trump presidency.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Mike
January 16, 2017 3:32 pm

You will think very differently before too long ,Mike. What you are seeing is the setting up of negotiations by an expert to change the awful direction the whole world has been a going in. Even the IMF is forecasting an uptick in the US economy under Trump. Stop watching CNN and listening to weeping Dems. Trump is even going to change the Dems for the better, once the NWO dinosaurs are put out to pasture.

Reply to  Mike
January 16, 2017 5:09 pm

Mike, you appear to have forgotten to take your medication again.
Your mummy will be cross.

January 16, 2017 11:39 am

A new science field should focus on Catastrophic Human-Caused Global Fear (CHCGF for short).
Of course, we will have to come up with a way to measure this and average it out over billions of people. That measure would be, appropriately, … average global fear factor. This would have to be determined by extrapolating limited regional surveys, correcting the data from time to time, and drawing lots of cool-looking, convincing graphs that exaggerate the y axis by using extremely small gradations.
In this way, we would see clearly that increases in CO2 correlate very well with Global Average Fear Factor.
Now the trick would be to prove causality. But this should be no problem.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
January 16, 2017 12:18 pm

The State of Fear. Nuff said.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
January 16, 2017 7:43 pm

No proof of causality necessary. The government already applies the calculated “Global Average Fear Factor”. It is called the “Social Cost of Carbon”.

January 16, 2017 11:57 am

Unfortunately, the letter is too narrowly framed for me to sign. They identify as:

“… evangelical and mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish …”

As a shamanist I am definitely NOT one of the above … but I definitely support the rest of the letter. Go for it, guys!

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 16, 2017 12:49 pm

Just like most people credit men, not women for bringing slavery to such national attention that it was finally eradicated, the letter’s religious platform does not cover my brand of spirituality which comes from a reasoned investigation that uncovers a mostly female source either.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 16, 2017 2:49 pm

Actually, I thought that ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ – written by a Harriet Beecher Stowe – was a big factor in shifting public opinion on slavery.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 16, 2017 3:17 pm

Based on recent research there were likely legions of women on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line who spoke/wrote against slavery. Interestingly few were driven to also include women’s rights. That came later. And many women remain anonymous to this day. Not a few carried scars from stoning. Most antagonists who rose to levels of general concern were also white. Men who spoke against slavery were left unmolested for the most part, though not especially liked. And in fact some women who spoke against slavery were pulled from the public eye by their husbands or fathers even though they also did not support slavery. Yet the female voice, when measured against the male voice in terms of local volume, appears louder in spite of efforts to subdue it. In terms of the times, it amazes they spoke at all and speaks volumes regarding bravery. Indeed, if we knew all their names and stories, the biography would have to be published in volumes.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 16, 2017 4:18 pm

‘The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.’
Women have always found their own avenues of power, and due to the nature of human sociobiology – circles of protection around slow-developing children – social selection tended to place men on the outer circle and women on the inner circle. It’s why a man is most dangerous defending his women, while a woman is most dangerous defending her child (not exclusive to humans, BTW). But both are at least equal factors.
But you’re right, this influence tends not to be recorded in history, simply because records are recorded by the outer circle, which women have only become more directly part of within the last century or so.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 16, 2017 3:42 pm

I don’t read it that way Willis, It seems to be more of an OR rather than AND in the logic, I place you in the Scientist category – even though I don’t agree with some of your ideas. Different ideas are what the science needs in the end, not a single climate Hymn book to sing from.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 16, 2017 4:36 pm

Willis,comment image
I though I recognized you in this photo.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Lancifer
January 16, 2017 9:22 pm

Sorry… not enough tattoos -:)

January 16, 2017 12:51 pm

Anytime religious affiliations come into it, I’m a little hesitant too. Can we qualify a signature with a sticky note ? (^_^) or get a non-religiously or non-any-other-cause-affiliated letter for anybody to sign. … Just don’t use the words, “skeptic” or “denier” or any variant thereof.
We the undersigned humans of planet Earth, …

January 16, 2017 1:50 pm

Disclaimer: I’m not American (though I lived in the USA for a year and more, 25+ years ago). And I lost the Christian faith (or, more precisely, it lost me) nearly 50 years ago.
I support the nomination of Mr. Pruitt, not because of his religion, but because there seems to be a decent chance that he will clear out lies and dishonesty from the agency he is to boss. I look forward to him turning over the rock, and finding what lies underneath. Probably it will be “worse than we thought.”

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Neil Lock
January 16, 2017 2:05 pm

4 marks for finding an excellent redeeming phrase for “worse than we thought”.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Neil Lock
January 16, 2017 3:05 pm

I have the feeling we’re all going to get a good look at the critters that have been crawling around in that swamp for a long time.
And I agree – it will probably be even worse than we thought.

Gary Pearse
January 16, 2017 2:31 pm

I’m relieved to see a fair number of still active hard scientists and engineers that haven’t been ‘compromised’ by the end of the world money trough. I wasn’t sure what we had to build on when the climate jig is up.

Ron Clutz
January 16, 2017 2:47 pm

People are commenting about separation of church and state, but maybe not paying attention to how climate beliefs are showing up in the confirmation hearings. Here’s some Q & A on recent queries by US Senators

tony mcleod
January 16, 2017 2:57 pm

Another zealous lawyer who knows the Truth, just what Trump needs.

January 16, 2017 3:05 pm

I’d prefer Bill Nye.

January 16, 2017 3:15 pm

Everybody, take a deep breath. Pruitt was getting knocked for being an Evangelical. These guys decided to attack the objection to his nomination by saying the religious scope among people who agree with Pruitt is greater than Pruit’s personal religious choice. That’s all.
I mean, fercrissake, look at #5. Tim Ball. Ever heard him make a scientific argument based on religion, his or others?

Reply to  MRW
January 16, 2017 3:17 pm

For all we know, Tim Ball is a Wiccan. So calm down.

Pamela Gray
January 16, 2017 3:34 pm

The point is, what makes a more cogent argument, resorting to religious background or undergirding your premise with a top quality literature review critique? It seems to me that several signers have the chops to have done that. Wish they had stuck to that in the body of the work instead. Then listing credentials/affiliation (religious or otherwise) under your own names would have followed a higher standard related to what first appeared to be an academic/investigative reporting focus.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 16, 2017 6:43 pm

“The point is, what makes a more cogent argument, resorting to religious background or undergirding your premise with a top quality literature review critique? ”
The man is being “attacked” because of his religious belief . . What is your problem with some people trying to stand with/defend him in that regard? Other arguments can be engaged in as well, of course, but this is the one currently being employed against him . .

January 16, 2017 5:23 pm

How can someone call himself a scientist and believe in the imaginary man watching us down from the sky?
Why are Americans so backward when it comes to religion?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  mountainape5
January 16, 2017 5:35 pm

Because life appears so wonderful in all its forms. And the more we know about how it’s made the more miraculously wonderful it is to me. I am always inspired by it, even when it is surrounded by ugliness.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 16, 2017 9:20 pm

Nicely put, Pamela.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 17, 2017 3:06 pm

Nothing in life is a miracle, everything is a consequence and everything can be explained with logic. When you add the “god” keyword you’ve failed in science and should probably focus on something else.

Reply to  mountainape5
January 16, 2017 6:02 pm

Closed-mindedness on the part of a scientist is best avoided, including closed-mindedness about the possibility of the metaphysical. It’s fascinating how militant atheists behave so much like the stereotypical religious fundamentalists they claim to combat. The irony seems completely lost on them.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  drednicolson
January 16, 2017 9:15 pm

The scientist, as such, has no choice but to ignore the metaphysical. The scientist, as a person, may choose to engage with it. Many have, many do not.

Reply to  drednicolson
January 17, 2017 3:08 am

What was magic yesterday is science today & what is magic today is science tomorrow.
Unless it’s “climate science” of course. That will always remain electrickery & bamboozlement.

Reply to  drednicolson
January 17, 2017 3:01 pm

My dog is a god, and created the world. I can prove it as much as the bible can prove that god exists. It’s the religion that needs to prove it and not the other way around. If you want to believe in fairy tales that’s your choice but don’t call logic thinking adults atheists or close-minded,

Pamela Gray
Reply to  drednicolson
January 17, 2017 6:56 pm

Then mountainmonkey, don’t call me a failed scientist. Have you published in a major peer reviewed research journal?

Reply to  mountainape5
January 16, 2017 7:36 pm

“How can someone call himself a scientist and believe in the imaginary man watching us down from the sky?”
If they witness things that convince them God exists, of course. That would in no sense preclude them from conducting science, and indeed, it was “believers” who invented what we now call science . . I’m not at all sure atheists can handle it, frankly ; )

Reply to  JohnKnight
January 16, 2017 9:10 pm

Seems many would rather pretend the whole of human philosophy, morality, and endeavor can exist in a teleological vacuum, than acknowledge any intellectual debt to religious thinkers.

Reply to  JohnKnight
January 17, 2017 4:35 am

Newton (the Newton), is on record as saying that the Earth is going to end in 2060. Something to do with one jubilee’s worth of time having passed since some people repopulated some land, or something like that.

Gunga Din
Reply to  JohnKnight
January 17, 2017 2:26 pm

Let me rephrase that quote:
“How can someone call himself a scientist and not believe there might something beyond his understanding of the natural realm, maybe more to understand about the natural realm? And, Gosh!, maybe there exist a spiritual realm that can’t be measured! Maybe even a God that is above both?”
Most Christian scientist (and others of other religions) have a motive to be honest in their handling of the facts regarding the natural realm that goes (or should go) beyond greed, pride, deception or the fear of being discovered to be wrong.

Reply to  JohnKnight
January 17, 2017 3:03 pm

You gotta prove it first in order for me to believe it and before you call me an atheist. I may as well call you an atheist for not believing on my god, which is my 2 year old dog. I have as much proof as you do about it’s holy status.

Reply to  JohnKnight
January 18, 2017 8:58 pm

“You gotta prove it first in order for me to believe it . . ”
Speak to Him about that, I suggest, He proved it to me when I did . . shocked the hell out of me ; )

michael hart
January 16, 2017 5:23 pm

I am more than happy to see Scott Pruitt nominated for the head of the EPA. He gets my vote for this job, all day, every day.
But I don’t see why President Trump should care one whit about the religious affiliations of the people penning this letter. WTF?

Steve Fraser
Reply to  michael hart
January 16, 2017 9:18 pm

As you may already know, Trump cares more about ability than some other things.

January 16, 2017 6:31 pm

Hmmmm…why did the signers stop at 131 this morning, – many hours ago. Are you listing new signers?? I sent this link to some Ph.D.s who were not on that list, but no more shown than 131 still show up…?

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
January 16, 2017 6:38 pm

Where are all the 31,487 American scientists from the “Global Warming Petition Project” who should be on this list?
I guess they all fell asleep or don’t check in with WUWT.

January 18, 2017 1:39 am

The pigs at the trough will whine loudest about Pruitt because the climate con is going to get blown out of the water .They will do everything they can to make sure the cash cow continues showing that the $Trillion dollar heist is by far the only thing most of them care about because their bag men do .
People have no idea how badly run the EPA is and the extent of tax payer abuse as they pay off their lobbyist pals .
The EPA and Obama administration declared open warfare on coal ,a key strategic asset of the USA
employing 10’s of thousands . Obama was checked out trying to improve his golf handicap and the EPA
ran around Congress at will . The recent Court decision confirmed the EPA arrogance for not considering the economic consequences of their rule making . A basic requirement just trashed by the EPA mafia .
If Republicans actually want to get the country back on track Pruitt is a good choice but he isn’t going to do it by himself . Way to many vested interests will do everything to pull him down .
On a positive note we won’t have to listen to the current EPA management for long . Good riddance .
What other non military government agency has a stock pile of weapons like the EPA ?

Michael in Dublin
January 18, 2017 9:43 am

A just confirmation hearing should be thorough, the questions civil and the questioners give the candidate the opportunity to reply and refute caricatures.
The questioning by many of the politicians of Scott Pruitt has, however, been rude, disingenuous, distorting, hateful and lacking clear logic.
These self-centered politicians are not interested in having a principled candidate and simply rehash the muddled thinking and emotionalism of climate alarmists and sadly see nothing wrong with a blatant defamation of the candidate.

Johann Wundersamer
January 19, 2017 9:10 pm


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights