Citizen Power

The ice in Greenland is melting at an ever-increasing rate, with the water disappearing down into a moulin as seen in this video. Are we approaching a point of no return, a tipping point in our climate, after which the sea will rise 20 feet or more? It’s a fact that the glaciers on Greenland are not holding, but melting faster and faster. This dramatic recent video shows a team measuring the flow rate at which this glacier in Greenland is melting. Prognosis: Bad. In this post I will be adding a lot of information about melting glacier and ice stories from several different places last week. More information about this also appears after the break.

Scientists capture dramatic footage of Arctic glaciers melting in hours

Glaciologist Jason Box has been testing a Moulin, a shaft that allows water to travel from the glacier’s surface to its bottom, in a glacier on the Greenland ice cap to find out how fast it is melting. More on this here.

Despite widespread concern over global warming, humans are adding carbon to the atmosphere even faster than in the 1990s, researchers warned last week. Carbon emissions have been growing at 3.5 percent per year since 2000, up sharply from the 0.9 percent per year in the 1990s.

To study how fast melting caused by rising temperatures is happening, a parka-clad band of environment ministers landed in this remote corner of the Antarctic on Monday, in the final days of an intense season of climate research, to learn more about how a melting Antarctica may endanger the planet.

Representatives from more than a dozen nations, including the U.S., China, Britain and Russia, were to rendezvous at a Norwegian research station with American and Norwegian scientists coming in on the last leg of a 1,400-mile (2,300-kilometer), two-month trek over the ice from the South Pole.

The IPCC forecast that oceans may rise up to 23 inches (0.59 meters) this century, from heat expansion and melting land ice, if the world does little to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for atmospheric warming.

Continue Reading »

Atmospheric test rockets might be causing mysterious chemtrails.  Chemtrails are reported by people all over the world and it’s a phenomenon  that people are blaming for all sorts of things such as global dimming, weather control and other theories.  The official explanation of this is that chemtrails are jet contrails, the byproduct of jet fuel and a serious kind of air pollution.  These contrails hang in the atmosphere and bond with water particles, which is what determines whether they dissipate quickly or not.  Some people who are much more familiar with chem trails than I am, (where I live we do not get these)  swear that they criss-cross the sky as though they were put there deliberately by rockets or planes for reasons unknown. The most likely explanation seems to be the theory that government planes  are seeding clouds with barium and aluminum nanoparticles, to either affect the weather, or to reflect global warming back out into space.  Or, they are just being used to seed clouds to make it rain, etc.  However,  barium and aluminum have been found in the air and on people after chemtrails have been observed.

The picture on the top is of a rocket from Clemson University.  Clemson University researchers and students launched four rockets in Alaska in 2007  to study heat in the upper atmosphere.   They are continuing these rockets this year, most recently to study “atmospheric conditions” and turbulence in the atmosphere.   These rockets themselves are adding chemicals  to the sky that are contributing to vapor clouds.  In fact, are these rockets causing chemtrails?

Clemson scientists launch rockets to test atmospheric conditions

From Science Centric –27 February 2009 — Clemson University space physicists have travelled around the world to launch rockets to test atmospheric conditions. This [photo above] shows the fourth launch of a rocket at Poker Flat Research Range. Centre: time exposure of first- and second-stage firetrail. Background: auroral arc in the north. Scientists most recently launched a salvo of four rockets over Alaska to study turbulence in the upper atmosphere. The launches took place at Poker Flat Research Range north of Fairbanks as part of a NASA sounding rocket campaign.

Associate professor of physics and astronomy Gerald Lehmacher is the principal investigator for the experiment and was assisted by graduate students Shelton Simmons and Liyu Guo.

‘After six days of cloudy and snowy weather, we had perfect conditions with a clear, moonless night sky over interior Alaska,’ said Lehmacher. ‘We needed excellent viewing conditions from three camera sites to photograph the luminescent trails the payloads produced in the upper atmosphere.’

Continue Reading »

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confused. She sent out a letter today claiming that natural gas is a “clean fuel”.

Washington, D.C.— Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent the following letter today to the Acting Architect of the Capitol, Stephen T. Ayers, asking that the Capitol Power Plant (CPP) use 100 percent natural gas for its operations.

The leaders wrote: “The switch to natural gas will allow the CPP to dramatically reduce carbon and criteria pollutant emissions, eliminating more than 95 percent of sulfur oxides and at least 50 percent of carbon monoxide…We strongly encourage you to move forward aggressively with us on a comprehensive set of policies for the entire Capitol complex and the entire Legislative Branch to quickly reduce emissions and petroleum consumption through energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean alternative fuels.”

Pelosi and Reid are giving us the mistaken impression that natural gas is a “clean alternative fuel”. That’s clearly deceptive. Natural gas is a fossil fuel that emits CO2, the main greenhouse gas. She also wrote:

“The conversion will also reduce the cost of storing and transporting coal as well as the costs associated with cleaning up the fly ash and waste. Eliminating coal from the fuel mixture should also assist the City of Washington, D.C., in meeting and complying with national air quality standards, and demonstrate that Congress can be a good and conscientious neighbor by mitigating health concerns for residents and workers around Capitol Hill.”

I’m having a flashback to the campaign — the John McCain campaign. Sarah Palin often mentioned natural gas, since Alaska is in the business of selling it. In one speech, Sarah Palin even called Natural Gas “clean and green”. My message to all politicians: Natural Gas is a fossil fuel. It is burned, and when it is used, it emits C02, methane, nitrous oxide, and other things like radon and mercury. Surely Nancy Pelosi can’t seriously call any fossil fuel “clean alternative” energy. What is she thinking? If she really wanted to use clean alternative energy she would advise the use of solar panels or wind power. But she is calling for 100% natural gas. The letter says,

Continue Reading »

A very serious report by the UK’s Institution of Mechanical Engineers says that we should accept that the world will change drastically due to climate change, and that we’ll  need to adapt. One of the changes the IME says is coming is rising seas that may flood England — and large parts of the U.S. coastline where major cities are located. In order to survive, they advise, we had better start planning. This is similar advice to what English  climate scientist James Lovelock is telling the BBC lately. In a short interview on Monday morning (02/23) he told the BBC’s Today program that it’s too late to do anything about climate change and we’d better plan on how to adapt to it.  I’m wary of such predictions because they tend to let people get away with doing nothing. If people feel, “what’s the use” then they won’t support the governments that have barely begun to take action on climate change.

We need to support efforts to both do something about climate change now, and plan ways to survive if what we do isn’t enough. President Obama signaled his intent last night in his speech before a joint session of Congress, when he declared that he wants a market cap on C02 emissions to be submitted to him soon. That means he wants a carbon cap, which is drastic action for the United States and something that would never, in a million years, have happened under a Republican administration. This means that the president who has surrounded himself with the best and brightest scientific minds in America to be his science and climate advisors still feels there is something we can do about climate change and it’s worth a try, even if it costs a lot in both money and effort and work. So read the following with a grain of salt and remember — no one can predict the future with any absolute accuracy.
Britain should prepare for massive loss of landmass, warns engineers

UK should change building design, transport and energy infrastructure ahead of climate change and high sea level. Engineers fear London could be submerged as the climate changes. According to the BBC, the report states:

“However, the existing Kyoto Protocol has, to date, been a near total failure, with emissions levels continuing to rise substantially.”

While the report’s authors point out that the Institution, like many scientific bodies, has a strong belief that we need “to reduce CO2 to secure long-term human survival”, they also say that we should be realistic about what we can achieve. And “even with vigorous mitigation effort, we will continue to use fossil fuel reserves until they are exhausted.”

It’s clear to me that people will try to use all the remaining fossil fuels, which would change our climate for the next 10,000 years or more, but just because people will try does not mean they will be successful. This is where politics comes into policy. Political viewpoints on this subject do matter.

From The Guardian, February 2009.
Continue Reading »

President Obama Confident with a Focus on ENERGY, Healthcare, and Education

President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress Tuesday night and did all he could to calm our fears and give us a vision for the future, and he knocked it out of the park. He spoke with confidence of our economy (much more confidence than I feel) and of America’s ability to tackle great problems and find solutions. I especially liked the part about focusing on 3 things (besides the economy and jobs) in the future: Energy, health care, and education. Notice there is no longer any paranoid focus on terrorism, or war, or “national security”. Also noticed he managed to give an entire speech without using the words “war on terror” or the WWII Nazi-like word “homeland”, a word I absolutely despise. (I do not live in a “homeland”, I live in my country, known as the U.S.A. My home is in Minnesota.) The text of his speech in its entirety can be found here, and there is video there also. The speech also went over well with viewers. According to the Huffington Post:

“…a poll on CNN showed that 68 percent of respondents — who skewed a bit Democratic — viewed the speech positively, 24 somewhat positively, and only eight percent not positively. Eighty-two percent supported the president’s economic plan as outlined in the speech, while 17 percent opposed it.”

It was a speech that was light years more calm, confident, adept, knowledgeable, and wise than anything his predecessor could have given on his best day. If this speech doesn’t take care of banks and investor attitudes, there is no hope for them. Yet he he made very clear that we must make clean energy a top priority, that we have to get off foreign oil, and that we have to “save our planet from the ravages of climate change”. Here are some of the energy related excerpts:

“We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before….

Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. . . .

The recovery plan and the financial stability plan are the immediate steps we’re taking to revive our economy in the short-term. But the only way to fully restore America’s economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world. The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil….

We are a nation that has seen promise amid peril, and claimed opportunity from ordeal. Now we must be that nation again. That is why, even as it cuts back on the programs we don’t need, the budget I submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our economic future: energy, health care, and education.

The specifics on clean energy and climate change action:

Continue Reading »

The trouble with predictions is that they can’t be sure. Two doomsday scenarios painted for us by two experts in their field in the space of two days. Has global warming already doomed us? Personally, I don’t think so, but at least one scientist does. On Monday morning, climate expert James Lovelock told a BBC Today’s morning audience that it was too late, and we should forget alternative energy, and that trying to stop warming would all be for nothing. He said we should be focusing on survival and how to save the human race.

Lovelock said he felt that Canada and some countries like England would withstand climate change OK, and those were the countries where climate refugees would migrate to, so those of us lucky enough to live in the north already should be preparing for that. (I’m hoping the northern U.S. escapes the worst of it too). His viewpoint was not met with skepticism by the BBC reporter, but with a sort of acceptance and sadness. Lovelock said we should be building hospitals and planning our cities for mass food distribution and mass housing, when the time comes, which he felt that would be sometime within 100 years. The reason the situation might get so grim, in his estimation, is that climate change is going to bring us to a temperature rise of 5 degree Celsius, there is nothing we can do to stop it, and that earth can’t support the 7 billion people that will be here when that happens. There will be incredible food shortages and migrations from the coast, and not enough fresh water for so many people in a shrinking land mass. So, he said he felt about 6 billion humans will die. I certainly hope he’s wrong, and he admitted that’s totally possible. Still, even to think of that many people not making because of something we could do something about now is terrible.

That was the worst prediction I had heard yet. But now another “prediction” has come to light, although the second guy doesn’t feel we’re all doomed for sure like Lovelock does. The 2nd prediction is for mass and extended war for land and resources. That’s a terrifying scenario. Here is the story from South Africa, and I strongly hope this is only the “worst case scenario”. In this case, an economist is the one making the dire prediction. Can he be right or are these people too pessimistic? We are only just now starting to do what we can about C02 emissions and it will take years before these things are put into place.

Mass migrations and war: Dire climate scenario
By Charles J. Hanley

CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) — If we don’t deal with climate change decisively, “what we’re talking about then is extended world war,” the eminent economist said.

His audience Saturday, small and elite, had been stranded here by bad weather and were talking climate. They couldn’t do much about the one, but the other was squarely in their hands. And so, Lord Nicholas Stern was telling them, was the potential for mass migrations setting off mass conflict.

“Somehow we have to explain to people just how worrying that is,” the British economic thinker said.

Continue Reading »

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the Beijing Taiyanggong Gas-fueled Thermal Power Co., Ltd. (Taiyanggong Power Plant) of the Beijing Energy Investment Co., Ltd. in Beijing, capital of China on February 21. She also visited the Chinese president the same day, especially to reassure him that China’s investments in the U.S. were safe (that must have been a hard sell) and that we will work together to makes our economies strong again, according to a report by the CBC.

Clinton said she had “very good meetings” with Chinese officials during her visit, which she called the beginning of “a new era” of China-U.S. relations characterized by positive cooperation. China owns a lot of our economy so they were mainly interested in meeting with Sec. Clinton on economic matters. The purpose of Clinton’s visit was to work on general relations with China, economic issues, and climate change/energy issues.

“BEIJING, Feb. 21 (Xinhua) — China and the United States on Saturday agreed to establish a dialogue on strategic and economic issues and pledged to work together to tackle the global financial crisis and climate change. The agreement came out of a flurry of meetings between Chinese leaders and visiting U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Saturday. “Now it is more important than anytime in the past to deepen and develop China-U.S. relations amid the spreading financial crisis and increasing global challenges,” Chinese President Hu Jintao told Clinton. Saying the relations were “among the most important bilateral relations in the world,” Hu proposed both countries work closely to address international financial crisis and tackle climate change and other global challenges so as to seek a sound and smooth growth of bilateral ties. . . . . . “

We’d better hope China is enthusiastic about working with us on climate issues. Last year, Science reported that China’s C02 emissions could equal the whole world’s emissions today, by 2030. They were constructing new coal plants at the rate of about two per week in 2008, with no serious signs of stopping in 2009. According to the journal Science in 2008: “China is completing two new coal plants per week. That power is being used to drive an enormous manufacturing expansion. China has increased steel production from 140 million tons in 2000 to 419 million tons in 2006, the authors report.” The U.S. has basically stopped opening new coal plants and the EPA’s decision on new coal plants and whether to tie them to the Clean Air Act is expected before April 2nd. The news source Xinhuanet also reported:

Continue Reading »

President Obama met with Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper on Thursday during a brief official visit to Canada.

They talked privately and later held a join press conference. The crowds loved President Obama; he stopped at a shopping center and got a lot of Canadian love along with some Maple Leaf cookies for the Obama daughters. (Finally, we can be not ashamed that our president is liked, and not despised, when he visits other countries!) But the discussion during this brief visit was serious. In part, Harper and Obama discussed “clean energy”. We presume they discussed the Alberta tar sands, or what the industry euphemistically refers to as the “oil sands.” There isn’t technically oil in the dirt in Alberta; it’s a form of tar, which is a super thick, sludgey form of a very crude, very dirty substance than can be processed into oil, after a massive expenditure of heat and water and energy. Then it is shipped into the U.S., where we buy a lot of it, unfortunately, to run our cars and more.   All this at the expense of the atmosphere and the environment in the area where this sludge is mined.

But they did make some quasi-progress:  they both vowed to speed up carbon capture and sequestration to clean up C02 in some type of joint agreement/project.  This will be difficult, however, since CCS does not yet exist except in experimental stages.  It just does not exist.  Basically, if this is progress, it’s meaningless.   Canada will continue to pump C02 into the air, uncaptured, and so will the U.S.  When will real progress come?

Environmental groups and most everyone else who knows about the tar sands were hoping President Obama would finally tell Canada that we don’t want their dirty tar for our energy. But the conversation was obviously much more amicable than that, (as it probably needed to be) and at the very least it laid the groundwork for cooperation on “clean energy” in the future. Oil and especially tar sands oil will never, ever be “clean energy”, no matter what they do with it. And the environmental damage being caused in Canada is just devastating.

This all comes after a federal court judge has reversed a decision on mountaintop removal in the United States. (See Appeals court overturns new mountaintop mine rules).

The coal mining issue is not turning out as well as I had hoped, but there is time for Obama to redeem himself in all of these areas and I expect he will soon. Meanwhile, you can see amazing photos of the tar sands in Alberta at this Flickr stream called Stop the Tar Sands.

Continue Reading »

Graphic from the Sustainable Scale Project

The days of pumping unlimited C02 into the air are numbered.  The new, improved EPA is going to be run based on “science” which means right-wing claims that C02 is “a life-giving gas” are no longer going to fly.  About two years ago there was a big backlash against environmentalists by Big Oil and Big Coal with videos that claimed C02 was good for us.  Well, C02 is poisonous in large quantities, and it’s also what is causing global warming, so it cannot accurately be described as “good for us.”   In fact, a new report has set off alarm bells.

We all need to know how to spot alarmist anti-science propaganda. One example: Is it on a website called Prison Planet? That’s a good tip-off. For some reason, libertarian alarm-monger Alex Jones is pushing the idea that not only did our government plan and carry out the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but he’s convinced that C02 is completely harmless. (it’s obviously not) This is just one example of how nutty Alex Jones is. On his website he says, “Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution.” What a kidder!   Keep in mind, this man has a huge fan club of supposed freedom lovers who hang on his every word. So for some reason Jones goes from warning us about a military police state to the people who want to control your life with climate change claims. It’s an odd side-hobby for a guy who accepts the 9/11 conspiracy theory but denies real science. He posted this video too.

RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA:

Stick to martial law, Mr. Jones.

ACTUAL SCIENCE:

From January 2008 to January 2009, the planet warmed a remarkable 0.37°C (see data here ). This is 20 times the annual rate of warming in recent decades and 20 times what most climate models have projected we should be experiencing. This is startling when you look at the data that goes back to 1880! And what is causing the warming? A rise in C02.

These are real numbers from NASA, not some opinion from a conspiracy-obsessed blogger. And this news is not great either:

Continue Reading »

Marine Life Census Finds 235 Common Species at Poles

This is  amazing.   Many people think that no life can exist in very cold water at the poles, but life has a way of surviving even the most extreme conditions.   At least 235 marine species live both in the Arctic and Antarctica, way more than previously thought, according to research by the Census of Marine Life. Although almost 7,000  miles separate the polar seas, the researchers discovered the same species of cold-water worms, crustaceans, sea cucumbers, and snail-like creatures, called pteropods, among others. Scientists suspect that during ice ages, the common species were carried from one pole to the other — most likely from Antarctica to the Arctic — by frigid currents that drop to the bottom of the sea floor and slowly move north. The Census of Marine Life is a decade-long project to catalog the world’s marine species.

You can see some of their photos here. (pictured above: The nemertean, Pelagonemertes rollestoni, which is about three centimeters long, uses a dart attached to its tongue to harpoon its prey. Its yellow stomach reaches out to feed all other parts of the body.)

I hope what this accomplishes in part is to keep the oil and gas developers from swooping in to the areas at the poles and destroying some of this fascinating life as they search for yet more finite oil and gas.   According to the report, it says,

“The polar seas, far from being biological deserts, teem with an amazing quantity and
variety of life,” says Dr. Ian Poiner, Chair of the Census Scientific Steering Committee.
“Only through the co-operation of 500 people from more than 25 countries could the
daunting environmental challenges be overcome to produce research of such
unprecedented scale and importance. And humanity is only starting to understand the
nature of these regions.”

The polar Census teams are documenting:
• The distribution of ocean animals – mapping their changing ranges and hotspots;
• The diversity of species (to date: 7,500 animals in the Antarctic and 5,500 in the
Arctic, of a global marine life species total estimated at 230,000-250,000); and
• The abundance and sizes of major species groups at various levels in the food
web, in order to gauge how they change over time;

These places include seafloors exposed to light for the first time in as long as 100,000 years,  when  ancient ice shelf lids melted and disintegrated in recent years.

We already have Frankenfood — vegetables, fruit, and grains, genetically engineered to produce the maximum growth in the least amount of time with the maximum size, shape, etc., for transport. That’s why we get funny-tasting bananas and tasteless strawberries and squarish, pinkish tomatoes that travel well but taste like nothing. Is engineering of nature a trend we want to carry out on a planetary scale with our climate? We might not have a choice in the matter, say some scientists, due to America’s incredible procrastination on the crisis of climate change.

A “Frankenplanet” scenario might be necessary to take the existing C02 out of the atmosphere because we need to keep C02 levels at 350ppm and we are currently at 386ppm. Some scientists have suggested CCS — carbon capture and sequestration, to remove the C02. Some scientists are suggesting planting more plants to absorb the C02 and act as a “carbon sink”. Others are suggesting bio-char. Biochar is burning  biomass at low levels of heat to make charcoal and then burying it in the soil to take it out of the carbon cycle. It seems like a huge job, but it’s what NASA scientist James Hansen recommends. Those are the sane suggestions.

Other scientists are recommending even stranger things to save our atmosphere from runaway climate change, like geoengineering. That’s a very drastic remedy, but consider that we aren’t doing anything at all about climate change, you can see why it might be necessary. And, all this supposes that we stop putting C02 into the air. This is the biggest problem and it’s not happening. Geoengineering is back in the news recently in articles published by the on-line magazine Yale Environment 360 and by The Economist .

In the photo above you can see a “dead zone”. It’s a zone of water off our coasts that contains insufficient oxygen for fish and other life to exist in it. These dead zones are caused by pollution, runoff and too much carbon in the water, because the ocean is a big carbon sink too, and it’s nearly saturated with carbon. So these dead zones are popping up all over the world and they are getting bigger every year. Geoengineering seems like it might be necessary after all, if we are ever to stop the spread of these dead zones and to get carbon out of the air.

Geoengineering is not necessarily a crazy idea by itself, but when combined with this fact it is: we could avoid it by acting now on climate change, — but we won’t. Endless meetings around the world is not “action”. Action would involve an immediate cap on C02 with a target date that might seem impossible but isn’t, because we’d do it. But our government doesn’t have the cojones to do that, so scientists must work on ways to reflect sunlight on a planetary scale in case of an “emergency”. Quick, planet-wide sunlight reflection. That’s really the crazy part.

Continue Reading »

We all keep hearing about climate change (or global warming) and we think, well why doesn’t someone do something about it? The fact is, governments really aren’t doing anything substantial about the quickly-rising C02 in the atmosphere even though they have known it was happening for a long time. People within the U.S. military have been warning about the destablizing effects of climate change for years, publicly since at least 2005. Yet our governments are not taking bold action to stop C02 emissions when they very well could. Why? It’s still seen as politically “dangerous” to political careers to act on climate change. So governments send envoys to attend endless meetings about it instead. The envoys then return to their respective countries and report, and then nothing happens except more plans for the next round of meetings. When the Poznan, Poland meeting ended in December, about all anyone agreed on was some technological ideas, and deforestation, which hasn’t stopped, and to meet again in Copenhagen this December.

What if they all keep meeting and meeting and no real action is ever taken? Well, then, it’s goodbye life on earth as we know it. GHG (greenhouse gasses) continue to rise, the weather becomes more unpredictable, and the planet approaches more dangerous tipping points that threaten all life on earth.

One  argument being made by so-called reasonable people is that the economy world-wide is in such dire straits that we can’t really focus on anything but economies at the moment. That’s wrong for at least two major reasons. Fighting climate change seriously would create tens of thousands of jobs, if not more. And no one can afford to ignore the largest threat to life on the planet that we have ever faced. The economy, war and terrorism are big problems, but they are nothing compared to climate change and the fact that humans are bringing it on. Once the magic amount of C02 is in the atmosphere, it’s probably not coming out. Even if we can find a way to remove it, we can’t return ice sheets to Greenland or the Antarctic if they melt and the sea levels rise as a result. That’s permanent. How many major world cities are on coastlines that will be submerged by rising sea levels? A lot of them.

Why isn’t the media talking about this more? Because they are run by large corporations who don’t want their brand or their products threatened by regulations that may come with fighting climate change. The media has an obligation to inform the public about climate change and they are failing dismally. Most scientists know that they aren’t getting their message across very well, with the media or without it. There is always Youtube, of course, but only people interested in this subject search for those types of videos in the first place. ( I will have another post following this one about the problem with communication.)    I will keep writing this and providing evidence until people start reading this, commenting, and deciding the problem is not only worth their notice but worth spreading the word. Apparently, not nearly enough people yet know about climate change. I have found this to be true among people I talk to, so obviously, we have to do something to change that. And as we figure that out, the situation becomes more serious every week.

Last weekend, the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) met and featured several very good speakers.   One was Christopher Field who said a few things reprinted below.

Continue Reading »