[MMike]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html

Nobody in the world knows more about how the atmosphere works than this guy. He even said so.

 

[Da Peach]

No. Just misrepresentation....

 

[Andyman_1970]

I'm glad they included James Hansen's comments in that article.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I believe they also included that the vast majority of climate change deniers are funded by corporations like Exxon. Imagine that.

 

[fluff]

deniers

Isn't that to do with stockings (I believe you guys refer to them as panty-hose).

Mmm, stockings... I was about to suggest a Google Image search for stockings but if you're at work it's best not to (as I have just discovered).

 

[N8 v2.0]

While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I used to share N8s POV on this one, but after finishing an exhaustive research paper last semester, the evidence simply doesnt support it. The only reason there is a controversy is because people like controversy IMO. There is more than enough data out there to prove it.
Im not saying there's an Al Gorre doomsday coming, but it sure appears that human industry plays a massive role.

 

[fluff]

I used to share N8s POV on this one, but after finishing an exhaustive research paper last semester, the evidence simply doesnt support it. The only reason there is a controversy is because people like controversy IMO. There is more than enough data out there to prove it.
Im not saying there's an Al Gorre doomsday coming, but it sure appears that human industry plays a massive role.

I wonder if N8 really believes it himself.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The only reason there is a controversy is because people like controversy IMO.

Exxon, and others, have quite a stake in this and have a reason to try and drum up controversy. In turn, the politicians that rely on campaign funding from those entities end up having a reason to drum up the controversy (besides the reason that they don't have to actually do anything about it, beyond calling for more conclusive studies, if it is controversial).

I wonder how much money Inhofe gets from energy companies.

 

[MMike]

Welcome back to the sane side, Burly

 

[N8 v2.0]

Well, then you all should support the move convert all of our power production to nuke palnts... they are about the only green house gas free way to produce power.

So what are you waiting for?

 

[Silver]

The president's science adviser, John Marburger, thinks the politicized debate has made it almost impossible to talk sensibly about the issue.

This is like having David Duke point out that there is racism in the world.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Well, then you all should support the move convert all of our power production to nuke palnts... they are about the only green house gas free way to produce power.

So what are you waiting for?

I agree on the nuclear power... if it gets them to stop removing mountains from my precious appalachia.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I agree on the nuclear power... if it gets them to stop removing mountains from my precious appalachia.

I have said for years that a little American nukie never hurt anyone....

 

[Andyman_1970]

I believe they also included that the vast majority of climate change deniers are funded by corporations like Exxon. Imagine that.

Wasn't (or isn't) GWB's adviser on climate change a former oil industry lobbyist...............I mean come on, let's at least look like you're trying to be objective instead of letting the fox guard the henhouse so to speak.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Wasn't (or isn't) GWB's adviser on climate change a former oil industry lobbyist...............I mean come on, let's at least look like you're trying to be objective instead of letting the fox guard the henhouse so to speak.

I believe you are right.

It's also known that Bush has had at least one closed door meeting on GW with Michael Crichton. So, he seems to be looking for information from novelists instead of scientists.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I believe you are right.

It's also known that Bush has had at least one closed door meeting on GW with Michael Crichton. So, he seems to be looking for information from novelists instead of scientists.

Dude, these are the kinds of posts that make people write off your opinion right here. You seem like a pretty smart guy, but come on... You take one example of a meeting bush had with a guy, and use that to draw a conclusion that is completely off base and retarded, and try to present it in a factual context.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Dude, these are the kinds of posts that make people write off your opinion right here. You seem like a pretty smart guy, but come on... You take one example of a meeting bush had with a guy, and use that to draw a conclusion that is completely off base and retarded, and try to present it in a factual context.

I'm being a bit wry here, but couple that with the admin's energy policy and their habit of silencing people like Hansen and it makes for a compelling case that something is amiss.

Also, this might prove to be interesting:
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/02/wheres_the_outrage.php

http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/02/the_full_barnes_treatment_of_b.php

http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/02/gaggle_time.php

http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2006/03/bush_questions_humancaused_war.php

Like I said, I was being wry, but on the other hand you have to wonder. This coming from the same president that endorses ID, abstinence-only education, etc.

 

[BurlyShirley]

You know, I havent read the book where the guy claims to debunk a bunch of the "junk" science, but who is to say he doesnt have a valid point with some of it? It'd be irresponsible for the admin NOT to look at all viewpoints...right?

In related news, I think the president met with the Pittsburgh Steelers this week. Could he be taking defense advice from Bill Cowher?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You know, I havent read the book where the guy claims to debunk a bunch of the "junk" science, but who is to say he doesnt have a valid point with some of it? It'd be irresponsible for the admin NOT to look at all viewpoints...right?

In related news, I think the president met with the Pittsburgh Steelers this week. Could he be taking defense advice from Bill Cowher?

Gee, I don't know. Does Bill Cowher espouse a view on a scientific issue that is contrary to the concensus, but that he has zero expertise in? Did the president come out and change his rhetoric after the meeting with Bill Cowher on that issue?

And, yes it is irresponsible sometimes to look at all viewpoints, or do you think that Biblical Creationism is a valid scientific viewpoint?

 

[Andyman_1970]

I'm being a bit wry here, but couple that with the admin's energy policy and their habit of silencing people like Hansen..........

When 60 minutes interviewed Hansen the administration had a "minder" there to monitor what he said............

 

[BurlyShirley]

And, yes it is irresponsible sometimes to look at all viewpoints, or do you think that Biblical Creationism is a valid viewpoint?

Steven Hawking says creationism is a possibility. Of course, you know, before the big bang...

No. Its not irresponsible to listen to all viewpoints. This is what's called "open mindedness" something you ultra-liberals are always spouting off about when it fits your agenda...

 

[binary visions]

Is it just me, or does the issue with Crichton seem overblown?

Look, as an author he did a tremendous amount of research on the subject of global warming. I read the book. I don't really agree with a lot of the conclusions that were drawn, but hey, it was a work of fiction. A work of fiction with a whole lot of respected and peer-reviewed sources pointed at, but a work of fiction nonetheless.

However, just because Crichton is an author doesn't discredit his research. It is clearly in Bush's best interests to discredit the idea of global warming, and in doing research, Crichton has given himself a lot of knowledge on the subject. Especially a lot of knowledge with the area that Bush is interested in: the theories that do NOT support global warming, or support it as being a natural event.

It would be stupid and irresponsible for anyone to rely on Crichton as a sole source of information on the subject, but I don't think it's appropriate to imply that Crichton is "just a novelist" and thus his knowledge on the subject is invalid. I don't think they were asking him to chart the future of the earth's warming trends . Regardless of his chosen profession, he has familliarized himself with a lot of global warming data and research.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Bingo BV. I approve. People go out of their way, WAY too far to bash this admin. There are some things that need bashing, but pointing out each and every little thing they do as a horrid, irreperable mistake is getting trite.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Steven Hawking says creationism is a possibility. Of course, you know, before the big bang...

No. Its not irresponsible to listen to all viewpoints. This is what's called "open mindedness" something you ultra-liberals are always spouting off about when it fits your agenda...

Too bad science is not a democracy. Also, is it really open-mindedness to seek out those contrary viewpoints in order to put them on an equal footing, when they are clearly not equal? Hey, we might as well elevate the opinions of holocaust deniers and say that they have valid viewpoints.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Bingo BV. I approve. People go out of their way, WAY too far to bash this admin. There are some things that need bashing, but pointing out each and every little thing they do as a horrid, irreperable mistake is getting trite.

This admin. has been the worst at science abuse ever. This is well documented in place like The Republican War on Science, numerous papers, reports by those being affected, the report of the UCS, etc. When the president meets with a novelist that goes against the concensus in an area where he does not have expertise, or has at least ignores the expertise he does find.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

I've heard that he contacted the real climate people to ask them about global warming before he wrote his book, so how did he get it so wrong?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Is it just me, or does the issue with Crichton seem overblown?

Look, as an author he did a tremendous amount of research on the subject of global warming. I read the book. I don't really agree with a lot of the conclusions that were drawn, but hey, it was a work of fiction. A work of fiction with a whole lot of respected and peer-reviewed sources pointed at, but a work of fiction nonetheless.

However, just because Crichton is an author doesn't discredit his research. It is clearly in Bush's best interests to discredit the idea of global warming, and in doing research, Crichton has given himself a lot of knowledge on the subject. Especially a lot of knowledge with the area that Bush is interested in: the theories that do NOT support global warming, or support it as being a natural event.

It would be stupid and irresponsible for anyone to rely on Crichton as a sole source of information on the subject, but I don't think it's appropriate to imply that Crichton is "just a novelist" and thus his knowledge on the subject is invalid. I don't think they were asking him to chart the future of the earth's warming trends . Regardless of his chosen profession, he has familliarized himself with a lot of global warming data and research.

BV, I don't think the issue is overblown at all. It's another straw on the camel's already broken back (at least for me it is.) This is an issue that affects the world, and Bush's scientific misuse could have damaging repurcusions on all of humanity. This can not be overblown.

 

[binary visions]

BV, I don't think the issue is overblown at all. It's another straw on the camel's already broken back (at least for me it is.) This is an issue that affects the world, and Bush's scientific misuse could have damaging repurcusions on all of humanity. This can not be overblown.

You say this as if Bush is going to change his stance on global warming if Crichton wasn't there to provide him with some alternate data.

If you want to get pissy with Bush about his junk science, be my guest. My post specifically addressed the fact that people are getting mad about Bush meeting with someone who was specifically knowledgable about the subject. He did not ask him to publish a paper. He was (presumably) asked to share his research, of which there was a considerable amount.

I disagree with Crichton's conclusions, but the fact is that he did enough research to back up his findings, much of it in well respected and peer reviewed journals. Whether or not it takes into account the whole picture or conveniently leaves things out is not the point - anyone who wants to prove a point only presents the part of the story that proves them right. The environmentalists do it, too. So Bush very astutely went to a source of information where he knew he could get some hard data to back up his point. This would have been done with or without Crichton, it was just made a little easier because he was there.

My point is that it was not inappropriate to consult Crichton on the subject, and ask him to share his research.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You say this as if Bush is going to change his stance on global warming if Crichton wasn't there to provide him with some alternate data.

If you want to get pissy with Bush about his junk science, be my guest. My post specifically addressed the fact that people are getting mad about Bush meeting with someone who was specifically knowledgable about the subject. He did not ask him to publish a paper. He was (presumably) asked to share his research, of which there was a considerable amount.

I disagree with Crichton's conclusions, but the fact is that he did enough research to back up his findings, much of it in well respected and peer reviewed journals. Whether or not it takes into account the whole picture or conveniently leaves things out is not the point - anyone who wants to prove a point only presents the part of the story that proves them right. The environmentalists do it, too. So Bush very astutely went to a source of information where he knew he could get some hard data to back up his point. This would have been done with or without Crichton, it was just made a little easier because he was there.

My point is that it was not inappropriate to consult Crichton on the subject, and ask him to share his research.

So, it's not inappropriate for a president to go to a novelist for a contrarian view when said president has never gone to actual scientists for their views? I'm sorry if I have to disagree with that. Besides, Crichton didn't present hard data. He misconstues a lot of the basic science and gets a lot of the facts wrong, either intentionally or not.

But, the fact remains that it is highly inappropriate for Bush to go to Crichton instead of scientists. Would you go to a scientist and ask how to write a popular novel?

 

[Silver]

You say this as if Bush is going to change his stance on global warming if Crichton wasn't there to provide him with some alternate data.

Crichton does provide a useful foil. Much like Cheney's gay daughter.

(Bush doesn't actually hate gays...he just wants to make sure they can't ever be equal, that's all. Look, he can stand in the same room as Cheney's rug munching daughter and not flip out. He's obviously not a homophobe. Global warming? He talked to a person who wrote a book about it? What more do you want?)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

More problems with Crichton's novel:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/

 

[binary visions]

But, the fact remains that it is highly inappropriate for Bush to go to Crichton instead of scientists.

It would be stupid and irresponsible for anyone to rely on Crichton as a sole source of information on the subject

Would you go to a scientist and ask how to write a popular novel?

If said scientist had a lot of accrued knowledge on the subject of popular novel writing, specifically in regards to the genere of novel I was interested in, and I had ready access to this person, I'd consider it foolish to not go to him or her.

Are you implying that the only people who are worthy of questioning on any subject are those that make their sole living at it? Those who have studied or researched a subject are not to be trusted?

 

[binary visions]

More problems with Crichton's novel:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/

Good read.

Not the point.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

If said scientist had a lot of accrued knowledge on the subject of popular novel writing, specifically in regards to the genere of novel I was interested in, and I had ready access to this person, I'd consider it foolish to not go to him or her.

Are you implying that the only people who are worthy of questioning on any subject are those that make their sole living at it? Those who have studied or researched a subject are not to be trusted?

No. I'm saying that Bush has never gone to any scientists and instead gets his science from fiction writers. That is highly inappropriate.

And, as has been shown, Crichton either doesn't seem to have really gotten a lot of knowledge on the subject, or else he deliberately has misrepresented it.

Good read.

Not the point.

But, it's part of the point. I could do some google searches myself, but I wouldn't claim that I am knowledgable enough to brief the president on so sensitive an issue. It also happens to be an issue that takes years and years of study. I wouldn't go to Crichton for an expert opinion on an issue that he has no expertise in. Yeah, he might have done some research, but his book proves that he either missed it or he never put away his ideological blinders (in which case he still missed it.) Does that mean that no one can talk about a subject unless they make their living at it? No. But it's highly inappropriate to base policy decisions around non-experts and to consult non-experts in lieu of consulting the experts that do this stuff. He could probably call James Hansen (who works for the president) at any time, but he doesn't. In fact, Hansen is even more accessible to Bush than Crichton.

 

[binary visions]

No. I'm saying that Bush has never gone to any scientists

...which is bad.

<snip>But it's highly inappropriate to base policy decisions around non-experts and to consult non-experts in lieu of consulting the experts that do this stuff.

Agreed.

I agree with you about these things. I've stated that twice in this thread. I simply disagree that Bush meeting with a writer who has done a lot of research on a certain subject is inappropriate.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

...which is bad.


Agreed.

I agree with you about these things. I've stated that twice in this thread. I simply disagree that Bush meeting with a writer who has done a lot of research on a certain subject is inappropriate.

It seems we agree for the most part then. I probably just misunderstood your position. This case has to be considered on its own merits, and those add up to this being highly inappropriate since he has not met with climate scientists. If he had met with a bunch of climate scientists as well as Crichton, I wouldn't be so upset. Also, if he didn't come out of that meeting with Crichton taking more of a hard-line stance against GW, then I wouldn't be so upset. Unfortunately he hasn't met with those climate scientists and he has taken a more hard-line stance.

I'm not surprised at any of this, but my non-incredulity over the developments does not excuse Bush's actions on this issue.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Chill out over global warming
By David Harsanyi
Denver Post Staff Columnist
DenverPost.com

You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

Why not give it a whirl?

Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.

"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

And N8 posts something that brings up the ice age canard that has already been dealt with in another post. It's funny how much these guys sound like evolution deniers and conspiracy theorists. Yeah, there's a grand conspiracy amongst scientists to make people think GW is real. But Harsanyi figured us out...I guess the jig is up.

 

[noname]

And this from the N.Y. Times:
May 31, 2006
Arctic Once Felt Like Florida, Studies Say
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

The first detailed analysis of an extraordinary climatic and biological record from the seabed near the North Pole shows that 55 million years ago the Arctic was much warmer than anyone had thought — a Floridian year-round average of 74 degrees Fahrenheit.

The findings, in three separate papers in the issue of the journal Nature that comes out on Thursday, show how much remains to be learned about climate change, both natural and human-caused. But experts say that if anything, the papers suggest that scientists have greatly underestimated the power of greenhouse gases to warm the planet.

Computer simulations done without the benefit of the seabed sampling do not reproduce an ancient Arctic nearly that warm, the authors said, and thus must be missing elements that lead to greater warming.

"Something extra happens when you push the world into a warmer world, and we just don't understand what it is," said one lead author, Henk Brinkhuis, an expert on ancient Arctic ecology at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands.

At the same time, he said, the new work reveals no tendency in the polar climate system to turn things around, from warming to cooling. Some scientists have suggested that warming may be a self-limiting process."There is nothing pointing in the other direction," Dr. Brinkhuis said.

The studies draw on the work of a pioneering 2004 expedition that defied the Arctic Ocean ice and pulled the first significant samples from the ancient layered seabed just 150 miles from the North Pole: 1,400 feet of slender shafts of muck, ancient organisms and rock representing a climate history that dates back 56 million years.

While there is ample fossil evidence around the edges of the Arctic Ocean showing great past swings in climate, the ocean itself has been a glaring blank spot in scientists' understanding of climate history. .

The new analysis confirms that the Arctic Ocean warmed to a remarkable degree 55 million years ago and that the warming was driven at least in part by an explosive buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases — one far greater than the current human-caused rise.

The samples also chronicle the subsequent cooling, with many ups and downs, that the researchers say began about 45 million years ago and led to the cycles of ice ages and brief warm spells of the last several million years.

Experts not connected with the studies say they also support the idea that it is greenhouse gases — not slight variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun — that largely determine the extent of warming or cooling.

"In my opinion, the new research provides additional important evidence that greenhouse-gas changes controlled much of climate history, which strengthens the argument that greenhouse-gas changes are likely to control much of the climate future," said one such expert, Richard B. Alley, a geoscientist at Penn State.

The $12.5 million Arctic Coring Expedition, run by a consortium called the International Ocean Drilling Program, was the first to drill deep into the layers of sediment deposited over millions of years in the ice-cloaked Arctic.

The samples were gathered late in the summer of 2004 as two icebreakers shattered huge drifting floes so a third ship could hold its position and bore into the bottom for nine days.

Estimates of the prevailing temperatures in the different eras represented by the sedimentary layers were made in part by tracking the comings and goings of certain dinoflagellates, a kind of algae that typically indicate subtropical or tropical conditions.

Because the samples lacked remains of shell-bearing plankton that are usually relied on to provide temperature records, the researchers used a newer method for approximating past temperatures: gauging changes in the chemical composition of the remains of a primitive phylum of microbes called Crenarchaeota.

Some scientists familiar with the research said that while there were still questions about the precision of this method at temperatures like those in the ancient Arctic Ocean, over all it was clear that the area was extraordinarily warm.

Another significant discovery came in layers from 49 million years ago, where conditions suddenly fostered the summertime growth of vast mats of an ancient cousin of the Azolla duckweed that now cloaks suburban ponds.

The researchers propose that this occurred when straits closed between the Arctic Ocean and the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

The flow of water from precipitation and rivers created a great pool of fresh water, but about 800,000 years after the blossoming of duckweed began, it ended with a sudden warming of a few additional degrees. The researchers suggest that this signaled when shifting land formations reconnected the Arctic with the Atlantic, allowing salty warmer water to flow in, killing off the weed.

The researchers said the sediments held hints that earth's long slide to colder conditions and the recent cycle of ice ages and brief thaws began quite soon after the hothouse days 50 million years ago.

A centerpiece of their argument is a single pebble, about the size of a chickpea, found in a layer created 45 million years ago.

The stone could have been deposited on the raised undersea ridge only if it had been carried overhead in ice, said Kathryn Moran, a chief scientist on the drilling project, who teaches at the University of Rhode Island.

The stone was most likely embedded in an iceberg or perhaps a plate of sea ice that tore free from a gravelly shore. It then sank as the ice melted or broke apart, Dr. Moran proposed. Such "dropstones" have long been used to date when an oceanic region has been ice covered or ice free.

The amount of ice-carried debris in the sediment layers started increasing about 14 million years ago, the scientists said.

That is also about when the great ice sheet that now weighs down eastern Antarctica originated, Dr. Moran noted. In general, the results from the Arctic drilling project suggest that the cooling and ice buildup at both poles happened in relative lock step.

This simultaneity tends to support the idea that the cooling was caused by a drop in concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which mix uniformly in the atmosphere around the world, said Dr. Moran and other members of the team.

Julie Brigham-Grette of the University of Massachusetts, an expert in past Arctic climates who was not connected with the new studies, cautioned against putting too much significance in the single sample, and particularly the single stone from 45 million years ago.

She said it was vital to try to mesh the new core results with existing data gathered around Arctic coasts, where there is plenty of evidence for warm conditions in at least some places at some times as recently as 2.4 million years ago.

Despite the questions, she said the project was a stunning achievement.

"It's all very, very exciting to me, because now we can start to rewrite the history of the Arctic," Dr. Brigham-Grette said. "It's like working a giant landscape puzzle of 500 pieces. For a while we only had 100 pieces. Now we have 100 more, and the picture is getting clearer."

 

[noname]

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.

Albert Einstein