What Crisis? — By Dr Lee Gerhard

The below essay is written by Dr Lee Gerhard, a retired geologist from the University of Kansas (B.S. in Geology in 1958, M.S. in Paleontology minor. in 1961, and Ph.D. in Geology in 1964). Dr Gerhard believes that climate change has been a natural phenomenon driven by natural processes for 4.5 billion years, but that cultural pressures now exist to identify a human cause for current trends.

“I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.” — Dr Lee Gerhard

It is appalling that so many scientists have purposely abdicated their principles to advance a climate change (anthropogenic warming) theory already disproven by empirical data. They prefer to believe their computer models, models that are designed to support their beliefs owing to imbedded assumptions. That there has been warming since the latter half of the 20th Century is undeniable. To attribute that miniscule warming to human-added carbon dioxide and prophesy that it is dangerous to humanity is either pernicious, demonstrating either willful dismissal of climate history, or ignorance.

Ice core temperature reconstruction is empirical, reproducible, and accessible. The Earth has been getting colder for more than 4000 years (Davis and Bohling, 2000). The “colding” has been episodic, certainly on a millennial scale, with warm peaks variously labeled Minoan, Roman, Medieval, and, putative, Modern (Alley, 2000; Cuffey and Clow, 1997).

There are other data sets that are not empirical, but relate human activities and artifacts to temperature. The exhaustive data published by Lamb (1996) documents and illustrates relationship of temperatures and human activities by interpreting soil sequences, recorded history such as wine production in England, tax records of the Roman Empire and such. The amount of data is almost overwhelming, recording the large swings of global temperatures in the centuries and millennia before the last 50 years, long before significant human additions to carbon dioxide. Lamb illustrates that during all the warm events, human civilization has prospered; in the intervening cold time, pestilence and poverty raged.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely credited by media and governments as being authoritative about the state and future of global climate, but it is not a scientific group. Although it includes a group of scientists, it is political, not scientific. Its mission is a political agenda: “Document human impacts on global climate.” It is neither a scientific examination or nor a test of their assumption that human emitted carbon dioxide controls global temperature.

Now that global temperature has not risen to create any “crisis,” scientists who dare to speak out about data and thus challenge the IPCC hypothesis are excommunicated by the church of social media and academia. They have lost income, employment and acceptance. Being a true scientist is not easy in this day and age.

The last few decades of warming have been beneficial, saving hundreds of thousands of lives and helping feed a burgeoning global population. It is unfortunate that that climate cycle has apparently ended. Will pestilence and starvation abound?

That is the real crisis.

References cited:

Alley, R.B. 2000. The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-226.

Cuffey, K.M., and G.D. Clow. 1997. Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet elevation in central Greenland through the last deglacial transition. Journal of Geophysical Research 102:26383-26396.

Davis, John C., and Geoffrey Bohling, 2001, The Search for Patterns in Ice-Core Temperature Curves: in Gerhard, Lee C., William E. Harrison, and Bernold M. Hanson, eds.,2001, Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology #47, Tulsa, OK, p. 213-230.

Thomasson MR, Gerhard LC (2019) The True and False of Climate Change. J Earth Environ Sci 7: 169. DOI:10.29011/2577-0640.100169.

Figure 1: Ice Core temperature reconstruction, Davis and Bohling, 2001.
From Thomasson and Gerhard, 2019.

Lee Gerhard
February, 2022

Civilization exists by geological consentsubject to change without notice.’ — Will Durant

Further reading:

Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach: Twitter are purging followers, while Facebook are labeling posts as “false” and have slapped-on crippling page restrictions. And most recently, the CCDH has stripped the website of its advertising.

Facebook, in partnership with the ‘fact-checkers’ at USA Today have conspired to restrict my use of the social media platform for 90 days, meaning I can’t post anything new. I’ve been found guilty of contesting a scientific theory, which in today’s world is considered a ‘violation’:

So, be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email. And also consider becoming a Patron or donating via Paypal (buttons located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile). The site receives ZERO funding, and never has.

Any way you can, help me spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.

Related posts

42 Thoughts to “What Crisis? — By Dr Lee Gerhard”

  1. John Schofield

    God there really is 3% of scientists who don’t agree,.
    Without sunlight very little lives yet the models don’t seem to take the sun’s activity into account.
    Just like the condemic global warming is a fraud.
    Our leaders are not looking after us wake up people and revolt.

    1. Dallas Schneider

      Canadian Truck Drivers

      1. Dallas Schneider
        “Freedom Convoy Friday Night Party | #IrnieracingNews Ottawa Selena Paley”
        “Canada is Rocking tonight”
        Like the Ghost Buster music – Who you gonna call – Truckers!
        This first one is the one they don’t want you to see, as it did not come up on the google search “Canadian truckers Sat night party”!
        The next one was the one came up, but it does not demonstrate the party atmosphere nearly as well.
        Compare the two, see what you think? “Freedom Truckers Convoy 2022 Party Night”

    2. Michael Peinsipp

      Take an Global Warming believer outside and ask them ‘What does that ball of Plasma do for Earth?’ and watch as they try to comprehend what you are asking.
      IF they answer than say ‘Can Earth survive without the Sun or Sun Light?’
      Watch their whole world view disintegrate in front of your eyes!

      1. Ice Age Eugenics and Biodigital-convergence Now.Info

        Take a Global Warming/TV watcher/believer outside and ask them, “Have you ever heard of Cyclical Ice Ages or Eugenics, Soft Kill, Graphene or even `BitChute` or Brighteon or anything at all about the Electroverse or alternative news/views? Their eyes immediately start to glass over at the word `cyclical`and you`re now looking at wide eyed visibly stunned “vacant shark eyes“ desperately looking around for someone else to share TV cliches and gov`t talking points with – no exaggeration. Gaslighting Eugenical Democide Works… just be happy it does… and that you/we are at least half-ways in the know, right here, right now. Thanks Cap`n, there is no other site that even comes close to combining the totality of the situation.

      2. Ballistic Logos

        Take a Global Warming/TV watcher/believer outside and ask them, “Have you ever heard of Cyclical Ice Ages or Eugenics, Soft Kill, Graphene or even `BitChute` or Brighteon or anything at all about the Electroverse or alternative news/views? Their eyes immediately start to glass over at the word `cyclical`and you`re now looking at wide eyed visibly stunned “vacant shark eyes“ desperately looking around for someone else to share TV cliches and gov`t talking points with – no exaggeration. Gaslighting Eugenical Democide Works… just be happy it does… and that you/we are at least half-ways in the know, right here, right now. Thanks Cap`n, there is no other site that even comes close to combining the totality of the situation.

      3. Richard Greene

        To give the Climate Alarmists a break, the sun is not a part of their belief in a coming climate crisis. You are thinking of incoming energy, and they are thinking of outgoing energy, assuming they do any thinking at all.

        1. Andrew Stone

          The climate alarmists may deserve a break, but not so for the reptiles that filled their brains with that sewage and pushed their fear buttons. Personally, I despair a little for people who do little critical thinking, but feel anger and resentment toward those who take advantage of such people.

          Always enjoy reading your thoughtful comments. Thank you.

    3. Matt Dalby

      There’s probably a lot more than 3% of scientists who don’t agree.
      All the claims about there being a 97% or 95% consensus are based on heavily biased surveys e.g. asking only those scientists who had written papers stating that warming was caused by humans if they believed that warming was caused by humans then claiming to be supprised when 97% said yes. Another example was a survey that asked scientists if they thought none, some, most or all of the current warming was caused by humans. Any response other than none was then classed as agreeing with the alarmist narrative even though a large percentage of respondents said some, father than all or most.
      Any claims of massive consensus are no more reliable than the othe claims made by activists/ the MSM.

  2. Patrick Donnelly

    The AGW folks are not real scientists: they have not disclosed their models to scientific scrutiny….. why not?

    1. Richard Greene

      They ARE real scientists.
      But the always wrong wild guesses
      of the future climate are not real science.
      They are climate astrology,
      from people with science degrees
      who call themselves scientists

  3. Mervyn Hobden

    When I discovered the mathematical method used by Mann to characterise climate change, I could not believe it. Eigenvectors can only be applied to a system where the boundary conditions are inviolate over the period of the calculation – this is assumed to be true using the theorems of linear algebra and small levels of perturbation of the system. If these conditions are not met, then the system must be considered non-linear and a priori assumptions concerning its long term behaviour doubtful at best.
    As Dr. Gerhard shows, the empirical data refutes such a conclusion and therefore ‘averaging’ out perturbations in the data is incorrect – such a conclusion is only valid if the system has a single defined ‘steady state’ controlled by the boundary conditions. Tim Ball’s representation is therefore a more correct representation of the data, as it can be seen there is no singular mechanism acting on the system, as is clearly recorded in the ice cores and the geological record.
    Mann and Hansen have therefore made a similar mistake to that made by Claudius Ptolemy – believing that a system based on highly simplistic mathematical conditions can predict the future. Because of the highly linear nature and low level of perturbation of the planetary system, Ptolemy got away with it for nearly 1500 years, but by that time, the errors were plainly obvious. In Mann and Hansen’s case, it has only taken decades.

    1. Dallas Schneider

      Very Well Said!

      It appears the High Priests once again have “NOTHING” behind
      the seventh veil of secrecy!

    2. Andrew Stone

      Sincere thanks for pointing out the mathematical errors in the model.
      Much appreciated!

  4. Dallas Schneider

    Both Mars and Venus have mainly CO2 atmospheres.
    Venus is hot, Mars is not, WHY?

    Seems to me the “big” guys (Branson, Elon, the other one) are getting ready to go into space. The industry needs a reason to spend money on CO2 based equipment.
    Oil companies already have a reason, CO2Injection IS the third stage production necessary to get the last remaining oil out of the formation, by core test 99%!!

    The whole operation is a sham, or as your cell phone tells you –

    1. Ray

      “Venus is hot, Mars is not. WHY?”

      Might have something to do with the facts that:

      (1) Venus is much closer to the Sun;
      (2) Venus is eight times bigger and so has a greater gravitational hold on its atmosphere;
      (3) Venus has 20,000 times as much carbon dioxide.

  5. Y.D. Robinson

    It is high time that the environmentalists, journalists, politicians, and even a whole number of scientists leave behind the AGW/climate change fantasy and go on to much truer and more pressing environmental and social issues such as biodiversity/wildlife decline, oil spills, smog in Indian/Chinese cities, and absolute poverty in less developed countries.

    1. Anonymous

      Spot on! That is where the real problems are!

  6. As we already knew – and it’s the same in the USA, the UK, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, France and so on. Your clue:
    Every country that embraced the “Global Warming & Green Energy Fraud” and the “Covid-19 Lockdown & Vaccine Fraud” is part of this global scam.

    Traitors all! Nuremberg 2.0 will need a big tent.

    Justin Trudeau’s own half-brother outed him for being a pawn of the globalist elites.

    Kyle Kemper, who is Justin’s half-brother and son of Margaret Trudeau’s second husband Fried Kemper, told The Western Standard that his brother is a pawn of the New World Order and takes orders from Bilderberg and the Council on Foreign Relations.
    Transcript via The Truth Seeker.
    “He is the face and the lead spokesperson of the Canadian government, but the policies and initiatives that are driving it and are driving this narrative that he continues to push, that in my opinion is anti-freedom and anti-Canadian, is coming down from the higher ups, from groups like the World Economic Forum, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Bilderberg. They recognise they need to have these strong agents within governments and one thing we have seen within governments all around the world are weak leaders who are able to act as spokespeople.”
    “He is not speaking from his heart. I don’t honestly believe… it’s not candid, there is no actual discussion. He is not allowed to actually engage with the Freedom Convoy and with these people, because there is a lot to unpack here and there are a lot of serious questions.”
    “Also when you look at the history of people like Jeffrey Epstein and what their role was, to trap people and blackmail people, and you think about a life of opulence and opportunity, you make mistakes and you get coerced into doing something bad.”
    “Blackmail is a very powerful tool.”

  7. Andrew Stone

    Correction: Two officially recognized labs

    1. Andrew Stone

      The item linked to was removed from the site.

  8. Alex

    What an incredible service Dr. Gerhard has done in writing this and assembling these images. It’s wonderful to see updated charts showing this data.

  9. Richard Greene

    “(anthropogenic warming) theory already disproven by empirical data.”

    This statement is disinformation.
    It is embarrassing coming from a scientists who should know better.

    Laboratory tests clearly show CO2 is a greenhouse gas

    A lot of CO2 has been added to the atmosphere since 1850 — roughly roughly + 137ppm, which is almost a 50% increase of the roughly estimated CO2 concentration in 1850.

    Adding CO2 to the atmosphere should impede the ability of our planet to cool itself by some amount.

    The exact effect of CO2 must remain unknown because there are so many other variables that can affect the global average temperature.

    But that fact does not disprove man made “warming”

    In fact, the rise of the global average temperature since 1975, along with the CO2 rise, is evidence to support man made “warming”.

    While the same amount of warming could have 100% natural causes, the warming since 1975 is larger per decade than one would expect from 100% natural causes alone.

    Once again, that does not prove or disprove what effect CO2 had in the past 47 years.

    It is safe to say whatever effect CO2 had since 1975, it was not harmful in any way, and certainly there is no emergency. We love the warmer winters and less snow since the 1970s here in Michigan USA.

    Some people claims man made CO2 has been proven to “controls the average temperature and others claim man made CO2 been proven to NOT be the cause of the measured temperature changes in the past 47 years.

    Both beliefs are wrong.

    The CO2 level rising over the current 417ppm should act as a mild greenhouse gas, expected to have a mild greenhouse effect, but that effect is impossible to measure, or predict. Unfortunately there are lots of predictions.

    1. mervhob

      I do not think that anyone has claimed that added CO2 has zero effect – in fact the empirical data demonstrates the beneficial effect on plant life. But the claim by Mann and Hansen that anthropogenic CO2 is the sole vector of importance in climate is ludicrous and not backed up in any sense by historical data. As I pointed out above, a computer simulation based on mathematics not applicable to the system, must always fail and it doesn’t matter if it is computer code or mechanical wheels and pinions as in the case of clocks demonstrating the Ptolemaic system. We can blindly add more exotic combinations of wheels, epicycles and deferents as Ptolemy did, but in the end , the system will diverge from reality if run for long enough. Both computer code and mechanical clocks are examples of ‘closed’ systems based on a priori assumptions about the structure of the system. Averaging can be applied to linear systems but not to a highly non-linear system like climate. We can, as Paul Homewood does, take time series of recorded data and investigate them for trends but, the inverse operation is a fools paradise. We are much troubled by fools.

      1. Richard Greene

        The statement from the article:

        “(anthropogenic warming) theory already disproven by empirical data.”

        IS WRONG>

        1. Itz Me

          No, its just your opinion that its wrong.

          1. Richard Greene

            I have studied the climate science for 25 years and have a climate science and energy blog that has had over 286,000 visits. I also have a BS degree and common sense. AGW has not been “disproven”. It is CAGW i, however, that is what is normally called “climate change” and there is no evidence that prediction og CAGW is true.

            You might want to contribute some of your own climate science knowledge in a future comment, rather than a generic, meaningless character attack.

    2. TheMronz

      ‘In fact, the rise of the global average temperature since 1975, along with the CO2 rise, is evidence to support man made “warming”.’
      Not so. CO2 levels are much more a function of temperature rather than vice versa.
      Historic atmospheric data sets prove this over and over:
      1. The great majority of recorded atmospheric profiles show that CO2 concentrations follow temperature.
      The mechanism whereby this occurs is fully understood but wilfully neglected by the IPCC.: Warmer oceans release CO2 conversely cooler oceans absorb more.
      2. At the end of warm periods CO2 levels continue to rise long after temperatures have fallen back.
      3. Despite in the past CO2 levels of 3000ppm+ there has never been the ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ promised by the IPCC.

      1. Richard Greene

        You are conflating two different processes.

        (1) Natural long term process:
        — Long term exchange of CO2 between oceans and the atmosphere, with a long lag, as the temperature of the oceans gradually changes. Ocean temperature changes lead CO2 levels in the troposphere by an average of 800 years, based on Vostok, Antarctica ice cores used to study the past 800,000 years.

        (2) Man made short term process:
        — Adding man made CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels should inhibit Earth’s ability to cool itself by some amount. This effect is short term, and is unrelated to the long term process (1)

        1. TheMronz

          It’s good to see that some understanding of long term temperature and CO2 relationships along with a multitude of other natural interactions are finally forcing populist science to re-evaluate it’s dumb temperature is solely a function of CO2 mantra.
          The effects of CO2 as greenhouse gas cannot be taken in isolation.
          This and considering the very dubious account of global temperatures supplied by land based monitoring stations a very short term recent temperature rise is, as I said, not necessarily evidence of human intervention.

          1. Richard Greene

            I favor the UAH satellite data which does have some infilling (guessing) over both poles (about 5%)

            The land surface data have at least 4x more infilling and the people who compile it give no indication of integrity. For example, significant global cooling from 1940 to 1975,
            of almost -0.5 degrees C., while CO2 levels were rising, has been revised away.over past decades. That’s science fraud.

            All compilations of the global average temperature, however, do show warming since 1975.

            When I say there are too many variable to know what CO2 does, I should provide my personal list to show how complex climate change is:

            The following variables are known to influence Earth’s climate:

            1) Earth’s orbital and orientation variations

            2) Changes in ocean circulation,
            ENSO and others

            3) Solar Irradiance and activity

            4) Volcanic aerosol emissions

            5) Greenhouse gas emissions

            6) Land use changes
            (cities growing, crop irrigation, etc.)

            7) Changes in clouds and water vapor

            8) Variations of a complex, non-linear system

            9) Unknown causes of climate change

            The variables above are not all independent.

  10. Tricy Dicky

    It is of no consequence at all that global temperatures have risen over the past century. What is important is that we establish the ideal average global temperature first, so we have a true reference point. Randomly picking a convenient starting point of 1880 is irrelevant particularly as Krakatoa was just about to go off and drop average global temperatures by around 1.2°C by dumping an estimated 20 million tonnes of sulphur particulates in to the upper atmosphere. Without a true reference point it would be like me getting in to my car in the morning, seeing the temperature gauge on cold and then starting to drive. As I drive, the gauge rises toward the normal operating temperature. I would be pretty stupid to turn off the car because the temperature was going up. It is only if it rises above the normal operating temperature that I have a problem.
    NASA states: “Part of what makes Earth so amenable is its natural greenhouse effect, which keeps the planet at a friendly 15 °C (59 °F) on average.”
    As I understand it, this temperature is derived from the Stefan Boltzmann equation that gives us an average temperature of 255 kelvin, or – 18°C, and a greenhouse contribution of 33°C resulting in a generally agreed 15°C

    So, if we believe NASA, the Earth should be 15 °C and this gives us our reference point.

    According to the World Meteorological Office, “The average global temperature for 2020 was about 14.9°C, or about 1.2°C above the 1850 to 1900 pre-industrial level.” Or, the temperature has risen by about the same as the temperature fall caused by Krakatoa – just saying. But, 14.9°C, no matter that it may have been amongst the warmest in recent years, still does not exceed the NASA stated climate optimum. According to NASA’s satellite data, if 2020 was 14.9°C, then 2021 has averaged at 14.73°C, continuing the fall since the 2016 El Nino. An analysis of the NASA satellite data since 1979 shows some very interesting discrete trends inside the overall data. Whilst the overall trend is definitely upwards and if you graph it as a whole, the trend line shows an apparent steady and continuous rise from the end of 1978 through to the end of 2021. But if we look at these discrete trends within the data, we see a very different picture. From 1978 to 1987 the actual trend is down very slightly. Again, from 1987 through to 1997, the trend line is flat. From 1997 to the end of 2015 the trend line is absolutely flat, no warming trend at all for 18 years. From 2016 through to the end of 2021, the trend line is down. There is no denying that the overall trend is upwards, but it is not a smooth continuous rise. It has a very definite step profile.

  11. Richard Greene

    The global average temperature has been rising intermittently since the cold 1690s, during the Maunder Minimum low solar energy period. The warming since then is at least +2 degrees C.
    … (+3 degrees C. for the three Central England weather stations — the only stations in operation that long) … creating the best climate for humans, animals and pants since the 1690s.
    We should be celebrating our current climate. In the US major land falling hurricanes, major tornadoes, heat waves and wildfire acres burned have all been in long term downtrends for 125 years, 68 years, 85 years and 85 years, respectively

    The most recent warming period since 1975 mainly affected the colder Northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly in the six coldest months of the year and mainly at night. Think of warmer winter nights in Siberia as the “poster child” of the post 1975 warming.

    Here in Michigan USA we love the warmer winters since the 1970s and want the warming trend to continue for at least another 50 years. For us, and most other people in similar or colder climates, global warming has been good news. And we want more warming — not the cold weather reported at this website — no one with sense wants that.

    Concerning 1880 — I believe you meant 1850, which is used by the IPCC, from the UK HadCRUT temperature data that starts in 1850, rather than NASA-GISS, that begins in 1880.
    The measurements pre-1920 are garbage with almost no Southern Hemisphere data and sparse coverage of too much of the Northern Hemisphere. 1880s temperatures used to be called “Northern Hemisphere only”.

    I ignore all data before the use of weather satellites in 1979, although I recognize there was warming since the 1690s, and the average temperature is similar to 5,000 to 9,000 years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum, perhaps a little cooler

    The concept of a “normal” temperature on a planet not in thermodynamic equilibrium is anti-science.

    When Climate Alarmists talk to me about 1850 or 1880 or “pre-0industrial” climate … I ask them:
    Did you know the global average temperature was PERFECT on June 6, 1850 at 3:06 pm, and ANY change from that temperature, in EITHER direction, is a climate emergency?

    They never know what to say in response to that statement. but they also don’t realize I have just summarized what government bureaucrat scientists consider to be “climate science”.

    1. Tricky Dicky

      Hi Richard,
      I do recognize that there are all sorts of issues with the concept of a “normal” temperature. NASA are a major player in the cult of climate hysteria, so whilst there is actually no “normal”, if NASA are dumb enough to give us one, why not use it? Especially when it undermines their own argument. It always puts a strange look of confusion on the face of an alarmist when I point out that, according to NASA, one of their “go to” sources for alarmism, we are are actually right in the climate sweet spot. I have the NASA and WMO links on my phone, so it makes it easy.

      1. Richard Greene

        It;s sad that we are living in the best climate for humans, animals and plants since late the 1600s yet we are not allowed to enjoy it.

        Because those hysterical leftists are bellowing and waving their arms with visions of climate doom. Similar to mental cases predicting the end of the world, standing on a street corner … But they are also demanding a lot of money from taxpayers, and maximum government authority to implement their green dream utopia. While the mental cases on the street corners just ask passersby for voluntary donations toward their next bottle of whiskey.

  12. AWM

    The earth has been cooling for the last 8,000 years absolutely no doubt.
    This means we have already entered the next “glaciation” and all these fantasies about “global warming” are just that, fantasies.

    1. Richard Greene

      There is doubt. Climate reconstructions on average show a small cooling since the Holocene Climate Optimum ended 5000 years ago. The change in temperature is too small to be sure a cooling trend happened. Climate reconstructions are not that accurate.

      Let’s say the temperature from that Optimum, 5000 to 9000 years ago, was similar to today in spite of much lower CO2 levels.

      We have a similar temperature to that Holocene Climate Optimum period with about +50% more CO2 in the air today, which plants love — greening our planet, and increasing food production from C3 photosynthesis plants.

      That adds up to the fact that our current climate is better than the optimum thousands of years ago for humans animals and plants ! More CO2 and more global warming would be even better

      We are currently in the interglacial (warm) period of an ice age. Global warming is real, not a fantasy. Both real and good news. The fantasies are about rapid, dangerous global warming — runaway global warming (aka CAGW)
      . A prediction completely unrelated to the actual climate in the past 120 years — just a leftist boogeyman to scare people.

  13. Hawaiiguy

    All good, but I’m in the terra firma is flat and the sun and moon switch places at given clock cycles. Makes much more since than we’ve got planets and moons hurtling in various directions around a central sun while flying at millions of miles per hour through a vacuum of space that somehow can’t compress us into gnats or allows Jabbas like women on the view to walk the earth without collapsing into there own black holes.

  14. Jane Young

    I am concerned by the lack of open debate around climate change. I worry that children are today being fed a great deal of information that is biased and potentially dangerous. I don’t want science to be contaminated by political and financial forces that inhibit the search for truth.

Leave a Comment