Stoat strongly criticises AMEG
Andrew Lockley
This is very damning. I have also asked John several times to clarify the membership of the group and he has not done so. Bearing in mind the high media profile of the AMEG group, the issue is a major threat to the public credibility of the entire geoengineering research community.
Arctic Methane Emergency Group? Posted on: March 17, 2012 4:16 PM, by William M. Connolley
From Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methane I find ameg.me who say:
AMEG POSITION DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY We declare there now exists an extremely high international security risk* from abrupt and runaway global warming being triggered by the end-summer collapse of Arctic sea ice towards a fraction of the current record and release of huge quantities of methane gas from the seabed. Such global warming would lead at first to worldwide crop failures but ultimately and inexorably to the collapse of civilization as we know it. This colossal threat demands an immediate emergency scale response to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice. The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months.
So who are these bozos? (Note: I've been fairly dismissive about methane before). Aunty says "Scientists told UK MPs this week... At a meeting in Westminster organised by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (Ameg), Prof Salter told MPs that..." so I think the first thing to realise is that there is less to this than meets the eye. If you follow their "about" link you come to:
ABOUT AMEG In the preparation of the 2010 workshop report and AGU conference poster presentation, scientific and/or engineering advice was sought and obtained from the following people
and there follows a list of distinguished-looking folk, whose only misfortune was to have talked to these people. Lower, we come to
a position statement on the Arctic methane emergency, proposed by the chairman, John Nissen, was agreed by the following: Graham Ennis Doly Garcia Jon Hughes Veli Albert Kallio Graham Knight Dr. Brian Orr Prof. Stephen Salter Prof. Peter Wadhams
Salter will be familiar to Old Folk as the inventor of the Duck, a doubtless noble project but which has, as far as I know, been perennially unused. Wadhams is a climate scientist - well, he is a sea ice person. The rest I don't know. Wadhams has some credibility. Unfortunately, we don't know what the position statement they agree was. They don't directly link to it. It is possible that the text I've quoted is part of it, but its impossible to know.
Wadhams clearly believes something, see Rebuttal: Imminent collapse of Arctic sea ice drives danger of accelerated methane thaw (thanks B for reminding me). I see that page relies heavily on the Piomas graphs, whose extrapolation I've disagreed with before and do now. But onto what W says there: Archer clearly acknowledges the vulnerability of methane hydrates to thawing in response to rising Arctic temperatures. Given that ice loss is accelerating, which in turn will only accelerate that temperature rise through the albedo effect, one has to wonder why he does not perceive an imminent and urgent crisis, which certainly suggests that W does indeed believe in "an imminent and urgent crisis". I think that is well over the top; I don't think anything he says there supports it, nor do the links.
I've worked with Wadhams a little bit, in the past. Wadhams knows about sea ice, indeed as far as I know its his main specialism. But perhaps in a local-processes sense. He was involvedin garnering thickness data from UK submarine cruises. What I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't really trust him to have a great deal of feel for the connection between sea ice and global-scale methane; I'd expect him to care for the Arctic, but quite possibly to over-emphasise local detail.
And apart from Wadhams I can't see this group has any credibility.
Update: bottom-trawling, I ran across a comment at JEB (thanks VB) talking about "invaded by out-and-out nutters such as the UFOlogist and Arctic methane expert Graham Ennes (AKA 'Omega Institute')". Well yes, GE (though with an "i") is on that list. And yes, if you search for his name you'll find some weird stuff. Wadhams ought to remember that if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Ken Caldeira
That said, I do think vague and poorly supported claims (e.g., "The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 ..." ) are damaging as outside observers often have little ability to distinguish between the robust findings of mainstream climate science and the poorly supported claims of what I would consider to be fringe elements.
We can be sure that this statement will be cited in 2015 to try to demonstrate that climate scientists are once again resorting to unjustified alarmism to advance their political ends. I am sure that John Nissen and others at that time will be produce definitions of "collapse" that make the statement true (or would they like to define "collapse" now?), but by then the damage will have been done.
There is a paper in press by Irina Mahlstein and Reto Knutti (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011JD016709.shtml) [attached] that expresses something closer to what I would consider to be the findings of mainstream climate science. Reality is disturbing enough. We do not need to exaggerate.
_______________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira
YouTube:
Climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricity
Crop yields in a geoengineered climate
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Andrew Revkin
Mike MacCracken
Mike MacCracken
On 3/18/12 3:43 PM, "Andy Revkin" <rev...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm with Stoat, Ken Caldeira, David Keith, Alan Robock and others who see this "emergency" effort to rush cloud intervention in the Arctic on behalf of sea ice (and indirectly seabed methane) as undermining the case for a serious push on geo-engineering options, impacts and policy issues. You're getting headlines and the attention of factions in Parliament now, but just wait until the variability kicks the other way.
"Yelling fire on a hot planet" <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/weekinreview/23revkin.html?_r=2> can have unanticipated consequences.
Nathan Currier
Ice" Emergency Group,
but the Arctic Methane Emergency Group?
The primary issue in all this is: what is happening with arctic
methane
emissions right now. That's what matters here. Criticizing PIOMAS or
whatever is what Al Gore
made into effectively exploding fish in the newest version of his
slideshow - red herrings.
Connelley's blog hardly addresses methane, and nor do these various
posts either, to a degree
that is, frankly, a little odd.
For the record, if I were in the group and asked my opinion of them,
I'd recommend against the
sea ice loss statements in question, in part because even if the ice
losses evolved as predicted, it could end up being more as
a consequence and not as a driver. That is, methane increases and sea
ice losses are looped, but
in complex ways, and the group makes it sound as though it's a one-way
street, sea ice loss leading to more methane releases.
It should hardly be controversial to say that if there ARE really
major methane releases there that the paper Ken attached will no
longer be relevant.
And thus far the news on the ground makes AMEG seem like quite a
rational enterprise, since from what we know it looks
relatively probable (much more than so than anyone should be
complacent about) that there are rapidly increasing methane
excursions going on there.
The thing that really matters here for AMEG in terms of expertise and
credibility is what Shakhova
and Semiletov have been finding in the ESAS region. They are there
again right now, and what they see
is what will be important. Those wishing to critique the legitimacy of
their group should really have things to add
to the discussion about those methane releases.
Best,
Nathan
Andrew Lockley
There was a good study at WCRP which showed that much of the inter annual variability is wind related, as ice is moved towards the Atlantic in certain years.
I don't know if It's in print yet.
Veli has made this point before, and the modelling seems to support his view.
This is worrying, as It's a non thermal process. SRM can't predictably change the wind, so unless we can rapidly rebuild the ice to a continuous mass, it will tend to get blown away when the winds dictate.
A
--
Stephen Salter
If we can cool water flowing towards the Arctic it must delay the loss of ice.
The word 'variability' implies increases alternating with decreases in roughly equal proportion.� Do you think that this fits the figure below?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering Mayfield Road University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland Tel +44 131 650 5704 Mobile 07795 203 195 www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 19/03/2012 07:51, Andrew Lockley wrote:
There was a good study at WCRP which showed that much of the inter annual variability is wind related, as ice is moved towards the Atlantic in certain years.
I don't know if It's in print yet.
Veli has made this point before, and the modelling seems to support his view.
This is worrying, as It's a non thermal process. SRM can't predictably change the wind, so unless we can rapidly rebuild the ice to a continuous mass, it will tend to get blown away when the winds dictate.
A
On Mar 19, 2012 1:15 AM, "Mike MacCracken" <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:
Just to note, however, that we really do not have a good sense of how big or small variability can be at this melting trend continues�variability is very unlikely, in my view to be much of a saving influence on the decadal scale unless some strong cooling influence results�whether from a major volcanic eruption, lots more sulfate pollution on the global scale, or climate engineering. With world warming, it is hard to have the Arctic go very far or very long in the opposite direction.
Mike MacCracken
On 3/18/12 3:43 PM, "Andy Revkin" <rev...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm with Stoat, Ken Caldeira, David Keith, Alan Robock and others who see this "emergency" effort to rush cloud intervention in the Arctic on behalf of sea ice (and indirectly seabed methane) as undermining the case for a serious push on geo-engineering options, impacts and policy issues. You're getting headlines and the attention of factions in Parliament now, but just wait until the variability kicks the other way.
"Yelling fire on a hot planet" <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/weekinreview/23revkin.html?_r=2> �can have unanticipated consequences.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Andrew Lockley
Cooling water will help, but if the ice has already disintegrated then we may have passed a tipping point where wind clearance is ultimately inevitable.
I'm certainly not denying a steep downward trend, but there's also inter annual variability about that trend.
We also must be careful because the area data is solid and the mass data isn't so solid.
My money is on a total collapse within a decade or two at most, irreversible without geoengineering. Whether this triggers a methane emergency is uncertain but possible, imo.
A
Andrew
If we can cool water flowing towards the Arctic it must delay the loss of ice.
The word 'variability' implies increases alternating with decreases in roughly equal proportion. Do you think that this fits the figure below?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering Mayfield Road University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland Tel +44 131 650 5704 Mobile 07795 203 195 www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 19/03/2012 07:51, Andrew Lockley wrote:
There was a good study at WCRP which showed that much of the inter annual variability is wind related, as ice is moved towards the Atlantic in certain years.
I don't know if It's in print yet.
Veli has made this point before, and the modelling seems to support his view.
This is worrying, as It's a non thermal process. SRM can't predictably change the wind, so unless we can rapidly rebuild the ice to a continuous mass, it will tend to get blown away when the winds dictate.
A
On Mar 19, 2012 1:15 AM, "Mike MacCracken" <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote:
Just to note, however, that we really do not have a good sense of how big or small variability can be at this melting trend continues—variability is very unlikely, in my view to be much of a saving influence on the decadal scale unless some strong cooling influence results—whether from a major volcanic eruption, lots more sulfate pollution on the global scale, or climate engineering. With world warming, it is hard to have the Arctic go very far or very long in the opposite direction.
Mike MacCracken
On 3/18/12 3:43 PM, "Andy Revkin" <rev...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm with Stoat, Ken Caldeira, David Keith, Alan Robock and others who see this "emergency" effort to rush cloud intervention in the Arctic on behalf of sea ice (and indirectly seabed methane) as undermining the case for a serious push on geo-engineering options, impacts and policy issues. You're getting headlines and the attention of factions in Parliament now, but just wait until the variability kicks the other way.
"Yelling fire on a hot planet" <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/weekinreview/23revkin.html?_r=2> can have unanticipated consequences.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Josh Horton
Mike MacCracken
Mike
On 3/19/12 3:51 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <and...@andrewlockley.com> wrote:
Nathan Currier
I hope the irony is not entirely lost on you, in your quote from
Shakhova, that the people she hopes will keep their minds "open to the
yourself, Ken Caldeira, the David Archers, etc. We all know her work,
and I certainly believe that is what she intended by that sentence,
and in its context she was simply expressing that she was well aware
that their findings were butting up against some very strongly
entrenched opinions.
I think I have gone over my own considerations of the statements of
Dlugokencky and many others in some detail (for example in the series
of pieces I did at Huffington Post, discussing such things as the
isotopic data, what ice core data can and can’t be expected tell us
about future hydrate behavior, etc.). Of course I agree with you that
we should keep looking – to repeat, what is found on the ground at the
ESAS re escaping methane is what really counts. But if you really
think that what has been observed over the last ten to fifteen years
around ESAS doesn’t strongly suggest a change going on there, I don’t
know what to say. I’ve discussed some of my interpretations of the
psychology of it, using the extreme case of David Archer, in one of my
Huffpost pieces. I think the topic could make an interesting analogue
to Gore's analysis in his last book of the neuroscientific basis of
climate denial generally. Joe Romm, in Climate Progress, took a
totally different approach – he never discussed Archer’s opinions in
any detail at all, except that he found a response to one comment,
hundred of comments deep in the thread to one of Archer’s follow-up
pieces, in which Archer admitted to the commenter that actually he,
too, was quite worried about the methane bubbles happening now on the
shelf.
If one simply adds in the cautionary principal of taking preventative
measures where possible, then it becomes easy for me to say that John
Nissen is actually the one who is being the most rational here – the
time to start doing something is actually now. I suspect my only
disagreement with John’s viewpoint would be in extent: I gather he has
been, at least until quite recently, wanting a full-fledged massive
response, which I see as both practically impossible, and on principle
unwise. I believe one’s Hippocratic oath should, in dealing with a
“class-of-one” type situation like ours dealing with the planet, bind
one to always doing the absolute minimum to get any desired effect, so
the only way to do this, practically speaking, is (irrespective of
modelling) to start on the small side and then adjust one’s parameters
in real time based on actual responses, increasing the scale as
needed.
All best,
Nathan
On Mar 19, 9:48 am, Josh Horton <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Nathan that we shouldn't lose sight of the methane issue,
> which is the motive force behind AMEG's assertions and activities. In this
> regard, here is a short excerpt from something I posted in December:
> *
> *While declaring a methane emergency and calling for immediate action is
> In scientific terms, the available evidence simply does not support
> assertions that a worst-case scenario is unfolding. Shakhova and Semiletov
> have discovered an important phenomenon in the ESAS, but there are no data
> to indicate that this is a new phenomenon, or that methane venting is
> increasing at a statistically significant rate, or that venting is tightly
> connected to sea-ice retreat and the ice-albedo feedback. Arctic climate
> expert Ed Dlugokencky has written that "There is no evidence from our
> atmospheric measurements that there has been a significant increase in
> emissions during the past 20 years from natural methane sources in the
> paleoclimatic data that methane can be an important feedback but isn't
> reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent
> climate change. ... We would urge people ... not jump to conclusions and be
> open to the idea that new observations may significantly change what we
> "*
> *
> *
> *Demands for quick deployment are also politically unwise. Given the
> geoengineering community. This would be especially tragic if compelling
> evidence subsequently emerges that we are indeed at an Arctic tipping
> point: climate remediation solutions may be dismissed as the
> science-fiction fantasies of doomsday prognosticators, even if the
> underlying engineering is sound and deployment warranted by an objective
> reading of events. Monitoring of Arctic methane venting should be
> increased, and research on global and regional geoengineering schemes
> should be intensified, but assertions that we are on the brink of calamity
> and must act now should cease. There is a difference between vigilance and
> alarmism, and the Arctic Methane Emergency Group is rapidly drifting toward
>
> (see here for the full post including links --http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/12/arctic-methane-eme...)
Joshua Horton
We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change. In fact, we explained in detail the mechanism of subsea permafrost destabilization as a result of inundation with seawater thousands of years ago. We have been working in this scientific field and this region for a decade. We understand its complexity more than anyone. And like most scientists in our field, we have to deal with slowly improving understanding of ongoing processes that often incorporates different points of views expressed by different groups of researchers.
Yes, modeling is important. However, we know that modeling results cannot prove or disprove real observations because modeling always assumes significant simplification and should be validated with observational data, not vice versa. Much of our work includes this field validation. Last spring, we extracted a 53-meter long core sample from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, to validate our conclusions about the current state of subsea permafrost. We found that the temperatures of the sediments were from 1.2 to 0.6 degrees below zero, Celsius, yet they were completely thawed. The model in the Dmitrenko paper [link] assumed a thaw point of zero degrees. Our observations show that the cornerstone assumption taken in their modeling was wrong. The rate at which the subsea permafrost is currently degrading largely depends on what state it was in when recent climate change appeared. It makes sense that modeling on an incorrect assumption about thaw point could create inaccurate results. [Dec. 29, 9:28 a.m. | Updated Dmitrenko disputes this reading of his paper. See comment below.]
Observations are at the core of our work now. It is no surprise to us that others monitoring global methane have not found a signal from the Siberian Arctic or increase in global emissions. [This refers to the work of Ed Dlugokencky and others; see his comments in my Dot Earth post.] The number of stations monitoring atmospheric methane concentrations worldwide is very few. In the Arctic there are only three such stations — Barrow, Alert, Zeppelin — and all are far away from the Siberian Arctic. We are doing our multi-year observations, including year-round monitoring, in proximity to the source. In addition to measuring the amount of methane emitted from the area, we are trying to find out whether there is anything specific about those emissions that could distinguish them from other sources. It is incorrect to say that anyone is able to trace that signal yet.
All models must be validated by observations. New data obtained in our 2011 cruise and other unpublished data give us a clue to reevaluate if the scale of methane releases from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf seabed is assessed correctly (papers are now in preparation). This is how science works: step by step, from hypothesis based on limited data and logic to expanded observations in order to gain more facts that could equally prove or disprove the hypothesis. We would urge people to consider this process, not jump to conclusions and be open to the idea that new observations may significantly change what we understand about our world.
Nathan Currier
distinct parts.
First, in terms of the Shakhova quote, I know it very well and knew
exactly where it came from, as I had already used some it myself in a
Huffington Post
piece. Maybe I expressed myself poorly, though: of course, she is
being a good scientist,
and so she is admonishing EVERYONE to keep their minds open, includes
herself, I suppose.
But you must remember the context of the piece, in which, quite
rightly, Andy Revkin had elicited from them their responses
to public criticism, which started when many within the climate
community seemed unhappy
with the tenor of media attention to their AGU presentation. Thus, her
piece was a response to criticism, and I think in that
context it is abundantly clear whose minds she is most hoping that she
can keep open. She is emphasizing, after all, that the actual
observations they are making are more important than the models, etc,
that various others are calling upon, knowing that not a single one of
those
taking a critical position on her work had one iota of first-hand
experience - and that includes Dlugokencky, Archer, Pierrehumbert,
etc, etc - in studying
the actual place that was being discussed. None of them has ever been
there once, to my knowledge.
But, yes, in the end, we ALL need to keep an open mind, that's true,
both me and you.
Now, in terms of John's statements, I wasn't particularly commending
his specific phrasing or use of language.
In fact, I myself would phrase it differently. But I think, like in
Gladwell's "blink" idea, that a judgement can be
both a fast process and include a lot of slow ratiocination at the
same time. I think John has, like Lovelock did on 2005, made
his calculations based on what he knows and concluded that, should
there be a large methane release in a rather short time period,
it would be highly likely to lead to a concatenation of events that
our current civilization could not withstand. I actually agree with
that
assessment, in fact. It is based on imperfect knowledge, of course.
But often to act we have to behave so. I don't think that Shakhova, in
asking
people not to "jump to conclusions", is asking that when judgments be
made on this, ultimately, that they won't still be "snap" judgments in
a way.
Judgment always includes that aspect in the end, no matter how much
information is behind it. It's always a Gestalt, as it is for every
juror in every court case. And knowledge is always imperfect. In
medicine, there's a point when it's better not to wait any longer for
data, and simply to act, for the good of the patient, when things seem
strongly like they will go in a certain direction. I agree with John's
position on this. I suspect that Shakhova, while straining hard to
retain professional objectivity in order to be the trusted reporter of
the facts as they emerge, feels the same way, although I certainly
don't know that.
All best,
Nathan
On Mar 20, 5:27 pm, Joshua Horton <joshuahorton...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nathan,
>
> Leaving aside the issue of my psychology, I think you misinterpret the
> Shakhova/Semiletov statement. I've reprinted their full comment below
> (taken from Andy Revkin's Dot Earth Blog), so group members can judge for
> themselves what was intended. What I take from it is a warning not to jump
> to conclusions ("This is how science works: step by step, from hypothesis
> based on limited data and logic to expanded observations in order to gain
> more facts that could equally prove or disprove the hypothesis. We would
> urge people to consider this process, not jump to conclusions and be open
> to the idea that new observations may significantly change what we
> understand about our world."). As I see things, predicting a collapse of
> the Arctic as early as summer 2012 followed "ultimately and inexorably to
> the collapse of civilization as we know it" epitomizes jumping to
> conclusions, while urging restraint, close monitoring, and an immediate,
> robust research program represents sound science, good politics, and common
> sense.
>
> Josh
>
> ):
> We would first note that we have never stated that the reason for the
> currently observed methane emissions were due to recent climate change. In
> fact, we explained in detail the mechanism of subsea permafrost
> destabilization as a result of inundation with seawater thousands of years
> ago. We have been working in this scientific field and this region for a
> decade. We understand its complexity more than anyone. And like most
> scientists in our field, we have to deal with slowly improving
> understanding of ongoing processes that often incorporates different points
> of views expressed by different groups of researchers.
>
> Yes, modeling is important. However, we know that modeling results cannot
> prove or disprove real observations because modeling always assumes
> significant simplification and should be validated with observational data,
> not vice versa. Much of our work includes this field validation. Last
> spring, we extracted a 53-meter long core sample from the East Siberian
> Arctic Shelf, to validate our conclusions about the current state of subsea
> permafrost. We found that the temperatures of the sediments were from 1.2
> to 0.6 degrees below zero, Celsius, yet they were completely thawed. The
> model in the Dmitrenko paper
> cornerstone assumption taken in their modeling was wrong. The rate at which
> the subsea permafrost is currently degrading largely depends on what state
> it was in when recent climate change appeared. It makes sense that modeling
> on an incorrect assumption about thaw point could create inaccurate
>
> Observations are at the core of our work now. It is no surprise to us that
> others monitoring global methane have not found a signal from the Siberian
> Dlugokencky <http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090925_arctic.html> and
> others; see his
> comments<http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arc...>
> in
> my Dot Earth post*.] The number of stations monitoring atmospheric methane
> such stations — Barrow, Alert, Zeppelin — and all are far away from the
> Siberian Arctic. We are doing our multi-year observations, including
> year-round monitoring, in proximity to the source. In addition to measuring
> the amount of methane emitted from the area, we are trying to find out
> whether there is anything specific about those emissions that could
> distinguish them from other sources. It is incorrect to say that anyone is
> able to trace that signal yet.
>
> All models must be validated by observations. New data obtained in our 2011
> cruise and other unpublished data give us a clue to reevaluate if the scale
> of methane releases from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf seabed is assessed
> correctly (papers are now in preparation). This is how science works: step
> by step, from hypothesis based on limited data and logic to expanded
> observations in order to gain more facts that could equally prove or
> disprove the hypothesis. We would urge people to consider this process, not
> jump to conclusions and be open to the idea that new observations may
> significantly change what we understand about our world.
>
>
> read more »