Monday, May 13, 2013

Logic v. Global Warming

We all know that Global Warming in a hoax. . . well, most of us know. There are some gullible people out there, particularly in Europe. But the rest of us know. Even the left knows, I think, they just keep the theory going because it’s useful. Anyway, that’s not the point... stop distracting me!... the point is that logic tells us the theory is garbage.

Global warming is based on a simple idea: mankind puts carbon in the air when they do things the left doesn’t like, like running a factory, driving a car, or raising flatulent cows.... no, I’m not kidding about the cows. This carbon then sits in the air like a blanket and keeps all the heat from leaving our planet. That causes the planet to become warmer which causes bullying... or something.

To repeat, the theory is simple: carbon causes heat retention.

So riddle me this...

According to “federal scientists” at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Earth has hit a milestone. The amount of carbon in our atmosphere has reached a level it hasn’t been in millions of years – 400 parts per million. But if carbon causes heat retention and we’ve never had more carbon in the air, then why has it been getting colder for a decade now? LOGIC tells us that this disproves the theory doesn’t it?

Not enough? Ok, try this.

The same scientists tell us that the last time the level of carbon was at this level was 2 million years ago during the Pleistocene Era. And back then, “It was much warmer than it is today. There were forests in Greenland. Sea level was higher, between 33 to 66 feet.” Interesting. So it was a lot hotter, but the carbon level was where it is now. Hmm. Doesn’t that disprove the causation as well? After all, shouldn’t causation always cause the same effect... seeing as how it is causation? Apparently not. Apparently causation now means, “kind of like each other around the same times... sometimes.” Interestingly, that used to be called “correlation” and that’s evidence of NOTcausation.

Anyway, I know that many of you are now thinking, “Wait a minute, if it was this carbony warm before and all these species survived from then to now, what’s the danger now?” Well, that’s a good point. In fact, it’s hard to see how all these species will die off if they made it through an ice age that took out Greenland and dropped the water level by between 33 and 66 feet. . . an oh so precise measurement. . . and then turned around and got warm again back to the nice toasty way things used to be in the gold age of Pleistocene. How could a couple degrees hurt anything?

Well, Penn State’s disgraced Climategate participant Michael Mann has an answer. See, animals can indeed adopt to changes in temperature, but not if the change is too fast. “If the carbon dioxide levels go up 100 parts per million over a thousands or millions of years, plants and animals can adapt. But that can’t be done at the speed it is now happening.” Right. Makes total sense. Animals can adapt to a couple degree change every million years or so, but not anything quicker than that. Got it. Oh, by the way, did you know that the average temperature in Colorado during the Winter is 28 degrees. During the summer it’s 65 degrees. That’s a difference of 37 degrees. Strangely, nobody dies off here between the seasons. Nope. I wonder why? Perhaps animals have a mechanism that lets them average their temperatures during the years? Or maybe, just maybe, animals are more adaptive than Mann gives them credit for being?

Anyway, Mann and his Climatecult claim that we are raising temperatures about 2 degrees every hundred years. Seeing as how animals in Colorado can take at least a 37 degree change in temperature, I’ll guess we’ll find out soon enough if Mann is right. . . say, in 2,400 years or so. Maybe in the meantime, Mann and his cult can learn to do science rather than politics?

57 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

there it is ..... exactly!

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Jed. It makes sense to me. :)

Patriot said...

Andrew.....But,,,,if there's no anthropomorphic climate change happening RIGHT NOW, then I might not get any tax dollars to continue to push my b.s. theories! And then what will I do....? I've tried the private sector, but that won't work. They expect results!!

Nice and simple takedown Andrew.

K said...

Speaking of being "useful". The left loves AGW because it becomes absolutely necessary for the survival of the planet for them to control lots and lots of stuff. Like energy production, and manufacturing and education (to tell students about the impending doom)and agriculture and water rights.

Strangely enough, all those institutions will give money to leftist candidates to either tax the snot out of their competitors, provide subsidies or modulate those laws which would put them out of business. Fortunately, as we know, leftists would NEVER let things like staying in power effect their agenda.

Meanwhile, on the BIG SCIENCE front, any scientist who bucks the "consensus" is accused of being on the payroll of big oil (or big Koch, which sounds kinda dirty.) But those earth scientists who form the consensus are riding a 7 billion dollar/yr gravy train. So using their own logic that money influences scientists it's apparent that the AGW consensus is not so much.

What we are really having is a crisis of science. If/when a Republican with some balls gets in office (I know I know) there should be a top down examination of the relationship of scientific funding, the political orientation of scientists and their research and the process of non blind research for politically charged science.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, the Europeans don't seem to be buying AGW anymore, either. In the €U, th€ promis€s of abundant €n€rgy from shal€ s€€ms to hav€ caus€d som€ r€thinking of the matt€r.

Simi£ar£y, in the UK, PM Cameron is said to be surrounding himself with "skeptics" as several energy and climate advisers are stepping down. One of Cameron's new appointments is Peter Lilley, who just published an editorial accusing the Dept. of Energy of being in the grip of the green lobby and stating that the case for global warming is far from clear-cut.

Back to the general topic, I stumbled across a piece of apparently well-established science that stabs at the heart of global warming hysteria specifically related to the 400 PPM milestone: the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas becomes increasingly marginal with greater concentration. There is a logarithmic decline in the amount of warming that CO2 can contribute to as there is more of it, and 400 PPM is near the top of that contribution model. So while an increase in atmospheric CO2 from 200 to 300 PPM can be expected to raise temperatures about 0.144°C, the rise from 300 to 400 PPM only contributes an additional 0.045°C. Moreover, if CO2 levels were to reach 1000 PPM, we could still only expect an additional 0.1°C increase in temperature. Bear in mind, the margin of error for temperature measurements is 1.0°C. In other words, this is trivial minutia being dressed up as a big deal.

Oh, but 400 PPM is significant in another way: it ends in two zeros!

Oh, and while I have your attention, THIS is why getting cooler is worse than getting warmer.

T-Rav said...

From what I hear, apparently the average spring temperature in Colorado is now 28 degrees, too.

The fact is, carbon dioxide is a relatively weak greenhouse gas. Water vapor and methane are much more potent in trapping heat. Also, any effect any of these gases would have on the earth's temperature is dependent on what it does to clouds, which climatologists have already admitted they don't understand any better now than they did 20 years ago.

These guys have made what Sherlock Holmes called the "capital mistake" of twisting "facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, Exactly, the private sector expects results!! How wrong is that!

Actually, I get the feeling their in the dying days of this theory and they will soon be looking for a new angle to keep the funding going. It seems nature has undone them. There was even some Russian climatologist who said the other day that we're about to enter a cyclical 200 year cooling period.

AndrewPrice said...

K, I think the real problem isn't funding so much as the entire profession of climatology. It strikes me as a purely voodoo branch of science. It's the equivalent of "planet psychology" and thus will always be open to psychological projection. Unfortunately, people like to know what will happen in the future. Thus, like astrology, people will always fall for it.

What they really need to do is convince other scientists, the ones with real science, to expose these guys and treat them the way they could something like phrenology.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Fascinating video. Ice sucks... except in drinks.

One Europe, I had a lengthy discussion with some Germans and I think you're right about them. They seem to be changing a lot over there and a lot of this stuff is dying off. They're actually becoming much more American in many ways -- particularly in business management styles.

That said, Britain seems to be a basket case. Everything I see out of Britain seems to indicate that while they do have a small group of people who "get it," the country by and large has lost its mind on this issue. And Cameron strikes me as very much in love with leftist ideas actually. But we'll see.

Interesting point on carbon. To me, there have always been two huge flaws with the theory. (1) It only involves a couple degrees, and a couple degrees isn't enough to change anything (especially since we're only talking about yearly averages). (2) Warming is good for the planet. Even if things suddenly got 10 degrees warmer, I suspect the benefits would far outweigh the negatives... unless you lived in a desert already.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, It's actually very nice this spring. Today is going to be warm though -- 82 degrees. But yesterday was in the 60s... very beautiful.

You're absolutely right that this is just an ideology in search of facts it can point to as validation rather than a scientific theory looking for proof. To me, the biggest clue is that no matter what facts appear, they always spin them right away to fit their theory (always with unbelievable spin too) rather than behaving like normal scientists and saying, "Huh, we should test that and see how it changes things."

So you're saying that carbon isn't the problem, but cow flatulence is? Eat more beef... save the planet!

K said...

What they really need to do is convince other scientists..

When the warmists control the scientific peer reviewed journals overt opposition can end your career. Particularly if you don't have tenure yet.

That being said, I'd like to give credit to Chris Landsea (great name for a climate scientist btw) In January, 2005, Landsea withdrew from his participation in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report due to their promouncements that hurricane activity was increasing due to AGW, criticizing it for using "a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

Landsea is a member of a very small and select group of climate scientists who will actually stand up to the bullies.

AndrewPrice said...

K, That is definitely a problem, but I'm talking about scientists outside the field -- chemists, engineers, physicists, etc. They need to make it clear that "climatologists" are not practicing science, but are instead more like "social scientists." Otherwise, in my opinion, they risk their own fields getting lumped in with the hocus pocus of climatology.

In terms of standing up, the numbers do seem to be growing as the evidence for warming becomes untenable. My guess is that we are near a point where the community will rebel against the cabal.

MissyT said...

Definitely a hoax! This blog also shows a weak case for global warming. http://www.statisticsblog.com/2012/12/the-surprisingly-weak-case-for-global-warming/

AndrewPrice said...

MissyT, Welcome. It is totally a hoax. It's amazing once you start looking at it just how shabby the whole theory really is. They base the whole thing on statistically insignificant evidence, from which they draw wild conclusions, and then they need to ignore reams of contrary evidence. Scientifically, it's the equivalent of saying:

"Earth is always dark and I know this because I looked outside what was probably a window, but could have been a black wall, for all of one-tenth of a second and it looked dark to me. So it must be dark and anyone who points to the light coming in under the door is a witch!"

That's global warming.

K said...

Andrew: There's been several, but you'd have to read websites like "Watt's Up With That?" regularly to know it.

LINK1

LINK2

AndrewPrice said...

K, True. There are definitely some good people fighting this, but they don't get the attention they deserve -- or the support. I think this really does highlight that the scientific community should rethink it's organizations if they all remained silent as something so obviously false gets done in their name.

AndrewPrice said...

FYI and off-topic: PA Abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty of three counts of first degree murder.

BevfromNYC said...

This just isn't going to be a good week for the Obama Adminstration or Eric Holder. This just dropped on HuffPo...

DOJ Secretly Obtains Months Of AP Phone Records; AP Condemns 'Unprecedented Intrusion'

Oops, they have hopefully just unleashed a giant hornets nest...can't wait to see how Holder spins this one...

AndrewPrice said...

Uh... wow. Now they're spying on the press?

Bev, Is it just me, or does this all scream "Richard Nixon!!!" to you?

T-Rav said...

Oh, WOW.

Speaking of Nixon, I found a photo that merged his and Obama's faces. It was both hilarious and apt.

T-Rav said...

Also, Andrew, you call 82 degrees uncomfortably warm? I'm from southern Missouri, we eat 82-degree weather for breakfast. Pansy.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I've lived in your tropical zone at times -- DC is incredibly hot, so is Florida and Tennessee. I prefer the temperate tundra of Colorado.


As for Nixon, Obama has a LOT of parallels to Nixon going all the way back to 2008. I have long suspected he would go down in the same class as Nixon and he seems to be trying to do that.

Koshcat said...

It doesn't bother me that there are people who are concerned about anthropomorphic effects on the environment. What bugs me is how militant, belligerent and closed minded they tend to be.

"It is best to prove things by actual experiment; then you know; whereas if you depend on guessing and supposing and conjectures, you never get educated." -Mark Twain

Koshcat said...

Gosnell should burn in hell.

Nixon was a bit before my time but Obama seems even more paranoid. Of course, the press hated Nixon so if they actually find and report something as damning on Obama it will be 10x whatever Tricky did.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, I agree. It doesn't bother me either. In fact, they could well be right. And if they are, I have no problems with trying to fix whatever the problem is.

But what I cannot stand is people who push their unproven beliefs as if they were fact and demand conformance to what has to be defined simply as a guess at this point. And the more militant and strident they are, the more I despise them. And the global warming crowd is one of the most militant that I've ever seen -- as well as being the least scientifically supported.

AndrewPrice said...

Nixon was before my time too, but I'm talking about historical parallels. If you line things up like the enemies list, the scandals, the push for huge increases in government programs and new agencies, the "unauthorized" wars, the lack of personal popularity, the lack of social graces/high level of anger/paranoia, the dirty tricks, etc.... it all comes up Nixon=Obama.

What's interesting to me is that back in 2008, the MSM kept looking for a President they could compare him too. They tried JFK, LBJ, FDR and Reagan. They seemed to miss the most obvious -- Nixon.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, On Gosnell, the details that have come out are truly shocking. I'm just amazed it took this long for someone to catch him.

Koshcat said...

At least Nixon went to China (and kind of pissed off the Japanese in the process but I digress), what spectacular foriegn policy event could Obama be proud of?

AndrewPrice said...

Well, he stood up to big, nasty Honduras... he stopped global warming at Copenhagen... he helped end gun violence in Mexico... he stood up to China... he saved Europe and brought them out of their crisis... he ended piracy... he made Afghanistan and Pakistan and Libya and Egypt and Syria into thriving democracies... he ended terrorism... he solved the Israel-Palestine kerfuffle... he stopped Iran from going nuclear... he made us loved throughout the Arab world... and he rescued the unicorn from extinction.

Oh... wait, he did none of those things.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - So I'm guessing you would never have survived the summer of '80 when it got to be 117 degrees in Dallas, huh? It was over 110 for almost a month. BTW, that was because Mt. St. Helens eruption in late May that caused a heat inversion and not global warming.

BevfromNYC said...

As for Gosnell, his clinic was not inspected for 17 years. Another clinic was just found in the Bronx in NY and there is a similar clinic where the doctor was arrested in Florida a few years ago. It is truly hideous, however pro-abortion advocates that I have spoken to over the years swear that these kinds of places and these kinds of abortions just do not exist. And no one can define exactly when it ceases to be an abortion and begins to be murder. And the these are otherwise perfectly healthy babies. They just can't bring themselves to admit that this kind of atrocity occurs and are hard=pressed to want to stop it because it would harm the pro-abortion stance.

BevfromNYC said...

The only difference is that at least Nixon didn't kill anyone with Watergate and then try to hide it. And Nixon had at least enough honor to resign. But then, Nixon didn't have a Bush to blame for it all either.

Anthony said...

I was in Peshawar Pakistan when the temperature climbed to over 120 degrees. You could stand in the shade and in less than a minute you'd soak through your clothes. The Pakistanis didn't seem to notice it. I was impressed. I even went about bought some shalwar kameezes (I'm probably butchering the spelling) but they didn't confer the same immunity to me.

I'm dark skinned so it takes a lot to tan me, but when I got off the airplane my parents literally didn't recognize me. I was darker and I lost a lot of weight (20 lbs in a 2 months) in part because of all the running and in part because I got food poisoning several times.

BevfromNYC said...

You know Anthony, you body can adapt to the temperature. When I was an exchange student in Belgium many years ago, they had a heat wave. It got up to the 95 degrees and people were miserable. Having grown up in Texas where 95 was a considered a "cold snap", I was perfectly comfortable. The same in NY. When it gets to be 90 degrees and humid, people are crankier than usual. I call them wimps...they don't know humidity like I grew up in. People actually survived without air conditioning in that kind of heat.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev and Anthony, If you remember the Wicked Witch in Wizard of Oz, that's me in the 90s... pool of goo.

Actually, I lived in DC long enough that I got used to it and mid-80s became "nice" for me. But now that I'm back in Colorado, 70s are normal again... the way it should be! No humidity either.

I've often thought of moving to the North Pole. I hear Santa has a little apartment he rents out.

AndrewPrice said...

As an aside Bev, what I've NEVER understood is the Civil War. How in the world did those guys march around the South (which is hot as Hades in the summer) in full wool uniforms? Unbelievable.

AndrewPrice said...

As for Gosnell, I find it shocking that no one reported him -- even his staff. And it really does call into question everything from the regulation to the type of people who could work there to the whole movement.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, in many cases they didn't. Civil War regiments were supposed to be about 1,000 men at full strength, but midway through the war they were averaging only 300-400 in the field. And the majority of the loss wasn't from combat, from people who had collapsed from the elements, including heatstroke, dehydration, dysentery, etc. Just because they were used to the heat doesn't mean they could handle marching through it 20 miles a day in their wool uniforms.

Also, they were wearing wool uniforms in World War I, and I personally can think of nothing worse than wallowing in hot, muddy trenches in those uniforms.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew - I had the opposite issue. I love cold weather and snow! I thought I might move to Alaska. Then it hit 10 below (wind chill) in NY and I was miserable. My dreams of marrying an Alaskan oil millionaire and furrier died with it...:-(

BevfromNYC said...

As my mother always says, the South was saved by air conditioning.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, WWI would have been truly miserable.

That's interesting about the Civil War. I didn't know that, but it makes sense. I would imagine that most people couldn't march that far in the heat with a pack of equipment. At least the British foreign troops in the topics got to wear shorts... of course, then you die of malaria.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I love snow. :) Always have. When I was young, I apparently used to shovel snow in my underwear.

Anthony said...

The Gosnell thing is horrifying, but I doubt it will change the terms of debate. Everyone has already picked sides. One side wants to ban it, the other thinks any regulation is just a backdoor ban.

T-Rav said...

Bev, I used to love cold weather and snow. Then I came up here to Central Missouri and it started snowing in April. I'm moving back southwards, the first chance I get.

T-Rav said...

Oh, don't worry, Andrew, they were dying of malaria with or without shorts, so no harm done.

World War I is all one needs to know about to stop finding glory in warfare. Both sides fighting in ditches, usually in standing water, living with vermin, getting shot by a sniper if you poke your head over the top, and making occasional charges against the other side only to get cut down by machine-gun fire--I can't think of conditions much worse than that to fight in.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, And don't forget dysentery... because that's always fun. Yeah, that would kind of take the glory out of it, wouldn't it?

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I doubt it will change anything either. I think the public has made their mind up on the issue, but it definitely is sickening and it definitely adds to the moral case against.

K said...

I personally can think of nothing worse than wallowing in hot, muddy trenches in those uniforms.

The trenches were just the warm up for hot muddy shell holes full of body parts, unexploded ordinance and half buried corpses. Under the constant eye of snipers and machineguns. :)

Additional AGW gripe. Just bought a new dishwasher after the last had to be put down. Thanks to AGW and laws passed by excretory Congressional orifices, it does a rotten job of cleaning dishes, leaves a nasty water film all over since it doesn't dry well enough and takes twice as long as before.

In the USS of A, dishes clean you!

AndrewPrice said...

K, My mother is going through "pry my washing machine from my cold dead hands" mode over changes they require about how much water they can use now. She's clinging to an old one and even trying to find others she can store for parts.

T-Rav said...

K, but at least then the front lines were moving somewhat and you generally weren't stuck in the same hole for months at a time. Tedium and horror together are a really bad combination.

Individualist said...


When I was around 11 I think I read an article in Science Digest, a magaxine I bought through a school program. The article was about the
Kangaroos in the Island of Kawaii. Since I lived in Hawaii as a kid (left when I was 7, Dad was a meteorologist for the Air Force).
----------------
Anyrate the article stated that 75 years ago Kangaroos from Australia were released on the Hawaiian Island of Kawaii. They got loose and scientists noted something unusual. The Kangaroos were significantly smaller, had changes in the fur and could eat poisonous plants indegineous to the Island that would kill Australian counterparts.
---------------
The point of the article was that in that short time such significant changes were made in the Kangaroos that the Hawaiian version might be a different species. This led to a theory that challenged Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin thought evolution was dynamic. That creatures are constantly changing and species take thousands of years to alter.

The competing theory was that of static evolution. It stated that change would not occur over time but as a result of drastic changes to the environment. When a species is threatened, there are massive die offs. The few that survive have a mutation that is beneficial and those will be the ones to reproduce. The static theory of evolution says that species will evolve in short static timeframes as a result of environmental change.
---------------
Not sure of the exact details of this as it was only one article but if true this would mean that Mann's statement that animals needed milllions of years to evolve is suspect.

Individualist said...

As an aside the climate change numbers that show C02 increasing from 280 to 288 ppm over 50 years comes from a study of Antartic Ice Cores. Similar studies of Greenland Ice Cores and the pores of leaves do not agree with the Antartic Results. The Global Warming scientists dismiss these disparate results by starting the leaf studies are too affected by seasonal changes and Greenland has too much Calcium Carbonate from Volcanic Activity.

It should be interesting to note that Antartica every year ranges from -4 to -81 degrees C with the lowest temp recorded at -88C. Since the temperature at which CO2 condenses to Dry Ice in normal atmosphere is 78C, one would think that this could affect the amount of CO2 dissolved in An tartic Ice especially at the surface of the South Pole.

It is just my gut feeling but I don't think they have properly accounted for these effects.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, That's interesting. I hadn't heard that before.

I suspect there are three versions of evolution at work. First, you have long term shifts in mating preferences. This is where animals prefer "fitter" mates, which slowly but surely over thousands of years should lead the species to evolve toward what is preferred.

The second seems to be the die-off scenario. This is the thing with the moths in England during the industrial revolution, where lighter colored moths died off because they stood out and became easy prey for birds, so the survivors were darker and moths became darker... to adapt. That's your Kangaroo scenario too.

The third is a recent theory that I personally see as the missing link of evolution. This is the retrovirus idea that is still not accepted, but is gaining ground. The idea is that the world is full of retroviruses, like AIDS, and those re-write DNA, which leads to the spontaneous creation of new traits. That's how fish could grow legs when they had none before.

I suspect that each of those is at work on our planet.

What Mann is talking about would fall under category two, only he seems to assume that somehow plants and animals couldn't adapt without millions of year even though they could adopt almost within one generation. It just means far less carnage if they have thousands or millions of years to adapt, and it means that category one has a chance to prevent any sort of mass die-off at all. In effect, he's created a doomsday scenario that is highly, highly unlikely.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Consider this too. When they said "millions of years," they couldn't decide if it was 2 million or 4 million. Think about how bizarrely imprecise their data must be if they can't tell the difference between 2 and 4 MILLION years ago... yet, they claim they can tell us the temperature back then?

Individualist said...

Andrew

I think all three are valid. With regard to the first one while it would lead to selection of fitter species there is also part of the selection process that standardizes traits. Consdier Big Ears or Big Noses or other weird traits that are considered ugly. Why are they ugly?

Only because they look different and thus the individual might appear to have genes that are mutations. Mutations are bad when the environment is not changing. But if there is some benefit to having a Big Ear (like hearing better) or a big nose like being able to smell better or take in more air at once. Well this trait might make someone desirable because that member of the species can do things others can't.

I think there are two forces at work. One force seeks to create changes and another force seems to control changes. In the die off scenario the force for change wins out automatically since the ones that don't change die.

In essense this would affect the thrid theory as well. Retroviruses that create mutations would be affected by the force that limts change or tries to standardize the species. In essense like radiation it is another form of causing mutation. Interesting points.

Individualist said...

Andrew

I saw a global warming film that got me thinking of the Antartic Ice cores. They were lauding the scientist who was down in Antartica pushing it.

The one thing that I find curious is that no one seems to think governement handing out money ever has strings attached when in fact government money being politcal would have the most strings. This guy could easily have pushed this theory initially for no ohter reason than to justify to congress the need to pay for the ice core experiments.

Everything involved with Global warming has this same weird 2 million to 4 million approach I think because they are using the shot gun appraoch. Prove two million wrong wwll then it was 4 million. The idea is to keep the politicians confident that you should be given money. Private individuals with money need to start charities to fund scientific research that is completely divorced from government handouts just to make certain that there is a diversity of scientific inquiry that is not subject to poltical whims and bureaucratic installments.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, I concur. They really need to depoliticize science and that means creating "neutral" foundations to sponsor genuine research.

I agree with you about evolution.

Post a Comment