As you enter Glacier Bay in Southeast Alaska you will cruise along shorelines completely covered by ice just 200 years ago.
Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was barely an indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4000 ft. thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St.Elias Range of mountains.
By 1879 naturist John Muir found that the ice had retreated 48 miles up the bay. By 1916 the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay’s mouth.
http://www.glacierbay.org/glaciers.html
The glacier that filled Glacier Bay during the Little Ice Age began its retreat from the mouth of the bay more than 200 years ago and has exposed a magnificent fjord system about 100 km long. The massive glacier retreated past Sitakaday Narrows ~190 years ago, retreated past Whidbey Passage ~160 years ago, and reached the upper end of the main bay by 1860 (~140 years ago). There the glacier bifurcated and the multibeam data set terminates. The amount of fine sediment reaching the lower bay is largely restricted to local runoff and plankton debris. In addition, the currents through Sitakaday Narrows can be as fast as 7 kt, scouring the bottom of fine sediment. So a long history of morphologies is clearly visible on the bottom.
Spring Multibeam Cruise in Glacier Bay Provides Spectacular Images
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
Recent Comments
- D. Boss on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Michael L Dee on Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Bob G on Mann Says He Was Correct
- conrad ziefle on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Mike Peinsipp on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Disillusioned on Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Disillusioned on Mann Says He Was Correct
- Gamecock on Mann Says He Was Correct
- toorightmate on Mann Says He Was Correct
TOO wants to know if you have a peer reviewed journal that verifies this, or at least a satelite photo from then.
No David,
I only want to see the “factual” evidence that proves Norway’s and Alaska’s entire glacial mass decreased by half over a 50-year period before GISS instrumentation. Even today it is easy to find a single glacier growing, but making that sound as if the other 90% are NOT decreasing takes a special talent.
So then, we agree that anthropogenic C02 will make this particular inter-glacial of the never-ending kind?
If not, why?
Chewer,
So then, we agree that the Mets will have a hard time winning their division.
If not, why?
There are no empirically discernable differences between today’s climate that are outside the parameters of the Holocene.
Finally, per your question: I give weight to empirical evidence such as ice core data, and long term raw temperature data such as the CET record. The following links may help you understand that today’s global temperatures are well within the parameters of the Holocene:
click1
click2
click3
As we can see, we are currently in an ideal “Goldilocks” climate. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening now or on the horizon. Further, routine and abrupt temperature changes have happened naturally without regard to CO2 levels, which follow ?T.
To claim that the planet has warmed from 288K to 288.8K is due to human activity over the past century and a half is fine, so long as you understand that it is simply a conjecture, not a testable hypothesis. The same applies to the natural variability in polar ice cover, which has many natural precedents.
Anyone who looks at a chart like this, and then claims that at times during the Holocene polar ice cover was not naturally less than curent ice cover has an agenda that has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with keeping the grant gravy train rolling.
Recent evidence that the natural climate is turning colder. (Notice the plural in glaciers.)…
http://iceagenow.info/2012/07/alaskan-glaciers-grow-time-250-years/
http://iceagenow.info/2012/05/himalayan-glaciers-advancing-melting-study-finds/
http://iceagenow.info/2012/04/glaciers-asia%e2%80%99s-largest-mountain-range-bigger/
http://iceagenow.info/2012/02/himalayas-lost-ice-10-years-study-shows/
http://iceagenow.info/2012/01/glaciers-growing-kilimanjaro-guide-insists/
http://iceagenow.info/2011/11/glaciers-growing-rockies/
http://iceagenow.info/2011/03/glaciers-growing-on-mt-shasta-2/
http://iceagenow.info/2010/02/glaciers-growing-in-italy/
http://iceagenow.info/2008/11/glaciers-growing-on-canada%e2%80%99s-tallest-mountain/
http://iceagenow.info/2008/07/california-glaciers-growing/
http://iceagenow.info/2013/07/largest-glacier-dolomites-stops-retreating/
http://iceagenow.info/2012/09/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-high-ipcc-models-predicted/
So, it is no longer warming, and snowfall appears to be increasing. CO2 is greening the planet. And all you have is a desperate shouting of “THE ICE IS MELTING” which unlike all the FALSE claims of increased hurricanes, tornadoes, multi meter sea level rise, etc, etc, WAS happening, BUT now appears to be reversing.
David,
In all that, I did not find a single bit of evidence which showed that half of Alaska’s and Norway’s glaciers were lost in the first 50 years of last century.
RE: T.O.O – “I only want to see the “factual” evidence that proves Norway’s and Alaska’s entire glacial mass decreased by half over a 50-year period”
That isn’t the assertion at hand. The assertion at hand is that a very large glacier was decimated prior to industrialization, but then stabilized even during periods of extreme industrialization.
Start here – Microfilm of George Vancouver’s north Pacific journey, “in which the coast of north-west America has been carefully examined and accurately surveyed”
http://archive.org/details/cihm_42062
Inform yourself. In the service of the king, and at great risk, qualified individuals accurately surveyed Glacier Bay. Over the decades, other qualified individuals followed in their stead, and produced a record worthy of study and contemplation.
Ben, every non-scientist alarmist knows that ice did not melt before the invention of the SUV. Glaciers could not have retreated because there was not enough CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 controls the climate (according to Gavin). It is consensus and therefore fact. So, TOO is as educated as his mind will allow him to be.
I think what he needs is a verification of this possibility against a computer model.
Well Will,
Anything has got to be better than 2 old newspaper clippings that don’t actually link to anything one could call evidence. Wouldn’t you agree?
The stories of the Roman Empire are nonsense too. All we got are some old scribbles, a few coins and a broken column or two. Wouldn’t you agree?
Will,
There is considerably more than a few coins to mark the time of the Roman Empire. There is architecture, manuscripts and a wealth of artefacts strewn about more than a dozen countries. Besides, I am not debating whether there was a Roman Empire or even if Norway has glaciers, all I want to know is where is the evidence behind Steve’s assertion that it is a fact that 50% of the glacier mass disappeared early last century.
I am surprised that you guys will pass judgement on the billion-point BEST temperature study based on whether a single member of that team, Muller, is or isn’t a “true” sceptic, but will give Steve a free pass when he makes “factual” statements based on nothing more than two old newspaper clippings written in foreign papers.
Your collective bias is bigger than a small moon.
TOO:
There is a lot of evidence regarding the extent of glaciers at various times in history. You just want to be a pest. The problem with BEST is that it is not an independent review and it was meant to be propaganda for CAGW. It was not even accepted for publication in some of the PAL reviewed journals. Most all the alarmist groups ignore it also. It is so bad even the fraudsters do not refer to it.
What Will was saying is there is a much evidence for retreating glaciers as there is for the Roman Empire. How do you know Romans built Rome? It could be all a farce and a rewrite of history to discredit the real builders of that empire.
Wow Mike,
You certainly are in an evidence-free mood today.
You guys want to talk about WWII, atom bombs, the Roman Empire, consensus, acorns and the Holocene, but I really just want an answer to some very simple questions. Steve said it was a fact that Norway and Alaska lost half their glacier mass last century. All I am asking is where is the evidence for that and why is it so convincing that Steve would proclaim it as a fact.
All this evasion and deflection makes me start to wonder whether Steve was just making it up. That is not exactly what I would expect from a site that criticizes climate scientists for supposedly doing the same thing.
CO2 was hiding in Glacier Bay in the 1800’s waiting….watching…..multiplying…….building its strength ready to take over the world. Puny humans in 2013 do not understand what they are up against!!!
United States Geological Survey – Professional Paper 69
Earthquakes at Yakutat Bay, Alaska – In Septemebr 1899
pgs 50/51 onwards (including maps)
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XUPwAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA52&dq=muir+glacier&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kQvpUYjjCOfliAeQ8ICACg&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBA
Unless of course the USGS was also making shit up 100 years ago.
[T.O.O. says “I am spam”]
THAT was spammable?
TOO
You are spammable, just being yourself. You do not seem to realize there is a lot of history showing that we are currently experiencing some of the mildest climate the world has experienced. The glaciers melted faster in the past than they do today. The majority of the glaciers may well be gaining as we speak, but you would not know that because it does not fit with the so called consensus point of view. Most likely the consensus point of view is 180 degrees out of sync with reality. You seem to “Believe” that point of view. At least you badger anyone that disagrees with the party line.
No YOU are! 😆
Oh! And laghable T.O.O! 😆
Did the acorn actually penetrate your skull? That would explain alot.
Gator:
I thought only the CLB wannabees came to this site! Those are the ones that believe the Acorn will soon fall on their heads. The true CLB members do not debate as they know the sky is falling. They have their acorn bump to prove it. If TOO keeps banging his head against reality he may soon reach the enlightened plateau and become a full fledged member of the Chicken Little Brigade. Then he will be awarded his own web site to spout any nonsense he wants. Just like DavidA.
Mike,
I believe in evidence. For example, you just made 5 different proclamations and all of them were evidence free. (1) Today is the mildest weather in the history of the planet; (2) glaciers melted faster in the past; (3) that I would believe a consensus over evidence; (4) the consensus is out of sync with reality; (5) that there is some sort of “party line”.
I would not call that a convincing argument.
TOO:
Observe historical records and you will notice today we are experiencing some of the mildest weather that humans have experienced. I think the RWP and MWP were milder, but we are close to those periods. However that is about to end if climate patterns repeat themselves, there is nothing to show they will not.
You must have missed all the evidence that support the claim that glaciers melted faster in the past than they are today, or for the last 50 years. It is there for those that want to find it, I and many others found it. Google is your friend.
You spew the consensus line that is not based on real world evidence!
The consensus being out of sync with reality is just to obvious. However I must admit there really is no Consensus, just a claimed Consensus and that is out of sync with the well known fact there is no Consensus.
CAGW/ CACC/ CACA. Whatever the IPCC is promoting and all the warmists are promoting today is the Party Line. Do I also need to list the names of the people and groups that proclaim the Party line?
Are you just playing ignorant?
Wow again Mike,
All that typing and not a single link, citation or reference. But lots of accusations about what you believe I believe.
Sorry, but I still don’t find your arguments convincing. May I suggest you try peppering your next argument with independent evidence?
OMG. Maybe the Glacier Bay glacier is still there? Maybe the Holocaust never happened?
Steve,
Your attempt at distraction with this comment: “OMG. Maybe the Glacier Bay glacier is still there? Maybe the Holocaust never happened?” is pretty lame Steve. I have seen you do much better.
Can we just finally stop with the diversions and just be honest? Is there or is there not any real evidence to support your statement that Alaska and Norway lost half their glacier mass last century? And if so, where is it. And please, please, please no circular links back to another blog — just the pristine and unvarnished source.
TOO, I goggled ….Norway glacier retreat…..
That’s great Latitude,
Did goggle point you to some studies on Alaska and Norway’s glaciers of the 20th century?
TOO
You have been given all the links you need. I am basing my opinion of your state of mind on your words and claims. Of course I also think we have been going over these same points for years because you remind me of other anonymous posters on other sites I participated on over the years. It is like someone used a cookie cutter to form a bunch of narrow minded brains that can only see the propaganda they are being force fed by the ECOcatastrophists. I want to ask if you have visited your proctologist recently to have your eyes examined because you appear to be suffering from Myopia. I do realize it is only mental Myopia because of the blinders you proudly display every time you post on this site.
why do I bother….
…I’m not any more
TOO:
I found lots of evidence regarding glacier retreat.
Mike,
I have been given all the links I need? For what starting a new Trivial Pursuit edition? The only link I am interested in is the one that shows me evidence to support Steve’s claim that Norway and Alaska lost half their glacier mass last century. Either it exists or it doesn’t. Why doesn’t Steve just come out with it? And, if real science is truly important to any of you, why don’t you also demand the answer for yourselves?
My claim? I went back in time and wrote dozens of articles about ice loss in Norway?
You really are a DB.
Well Steve,
There was only those two snippets I have previously mentioned contained in the newspaper articles from your link. And you tried to give me the link above as well, but that does not relate to 20th century glaciers. If you have other evidence, I would love to see it. And I would really appreciate it if you could provide only the source evidence — no blogs please.
TOO:
We do not ask for links because most of us have already read about the glacier retreats during the 1800s and early 1900s. There was something called the LIA that ended in the mid 1800s depending on which research you read and which region of the world you are reading about. LIA was a global phenomena as was the MWP, no matter what MANN or the IPCC says.
Mike,
I have been visiting this site now for a few months and I have rarely seen citations , links or references contained within the comments. And of those I have seen, by far the largest percentage are links back to the Real Science blog site and the remaining are mostly from the WUWT blog site.
You and I appear to have a different interpretation of what constitutes independent evidence.
TOO:
You might want to try a different approach! You just happened to step in right after another with the same attitude was sent packing.
If you stop by Climate Audit you will find a treasure trove of links to research in all regions of the globe in the files there. If you stop by http://theresilientearth.com/?q=blogs/doug-l-hoffman
You will find a lot of research regarding historic climate.
This will give you a lot regarding research in the Arctic region
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
Some of the web sites that hosted research I no longer have links to but they are out there.
Mike,
How many times do I need to say it? All I am interested in is the evidence behind Steve’s assertion that Alaska and Norway lost half their glacier mass last century. My God, I feel I am in a Shrek movie and I am trying to get the answer from Pinocchio.
Lat:
You bother because it is so much fun frustrating people like TOO.
I know what you mean Mike,
What is more rewarding? Searching for the truth or frustrating those who are actually in pursuit of it?
TOO
You display none of the characteristics of a person searching for the truth. It does not matter what name you use to post behind.
Well mike;
Your wrong. I am truly interested in knowing the truth behind Steve’s statement of “fact” that Norway and Alaska lost half there glacier mass over 50 years last century. I am amazed, however, how much effort, obscuration and diversion has been placed in my path in trying to discover this simple truth. I can only guess as to your motivations.
You do not have to guess! Since you started posting on this site you have done everything to disrupt any conversation and contribute nothing. You have acted like you have absolutely no knowledge about historic climate and you use the same phraseology as a number of other anonymous people that have visited this site.
The truth is waiting for you and people have given you links to sites that provide more information. Also you can read many threads on this site that will give you a glimpse of the truth, but you keep asking the same dumb questions even after you have been given references. You also egg on anyone that tries to disrupt conversations, such as Reggie Blowhard.
Well Mike,
That is simply not true. But, please, if you have any evidence which proves otherwise, post it so we can all review it together.
Go back and read your comment about sea ice in response to Andy. As a matter of fact go back and read all your posts on this site. That is all the evidence I need.
Mike,
Andy asked a question about how the Arctic ice could be tracking so low seeing as how this has been an unusually cool Arctic summer. My response was direct and accurate and in keeping with the theme of that blog. I will post it again (below):
“Because Andy,
The ice is extremely thin and will melt out even in cooler than normal air or water temperatures and is also more susceptible to cracking and the resultant mixing with the ocean. PIOMAS modelling (extensively verified by real world observations) has shown us how little Arctic ice volume there is and if this small volume is spread out, that means the ice is unusually thin. Looking at the last few days of extent and area graphs, I would say that we are looking at new low records for the days of early August (measured against the same days on other years).”
Looks perfectly reasonable to me — how in the world does my comment represent a “disruption to the conversation”?
How do you know the ice is EXTREMELY THIN? How do you know the change in Arctic sea ice is not the result of changing wind patterns like it was during past ice declines? Are you watching the CGI that is being prepared by groups that want you to think there is a problem with sea ice when they do not know what “Normal” sea ice should be? The satellites have been up for to short of a time to realize what the ice extent normal is. The one thing we know for certain is the ice extent changes and has for this entire interglaciation. Actually we know the ice extent has been constantly changing since ice started forming at the poles. That would mean there is NO “Normal” other than variability of the ice conditions.
The theme of this post is glaciers in Alaska and not the ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean! So both you and Andy were off base.
Mike,
How do I know it is really thin? You mean other than this sentence from the comment above?
“PIOMAS modelling (extensively verified by real world observations) has shown us how little Arctic ice volume there is and if this small volume is spread out, that means the ice is unusually thin.”
Well there are the buoys and the Arctic Bridge flyovers and there is also the satellites and submarines. and, of course, there is real-time trend lines which are showing an usually steep drop in extent and area even though the Arctic weather is cooler than normal.
Isn’t that enough?
Mike,
“The theme of this post is glaciers in Alaska and not the ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean! So both you and Andy were off base.”
Mike, you are the one who brought that comment into this arena:
“miked1947 says:
July 19, 2013 at 4:24 pm
Go back and read your comment about sea ice in response to Andy.”
Oh come on Steven! Why won’t you show T.O.O.L. the 19th century satellite data? What are you hiding? 😉
I am still waiting for the 16th century satellite data. 😉
Somebody get the smelling salts ready for T.O.O.L!
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/sr05-02.pdf
Gator,
Why would I be interested in a document that has not one word in it about either Norway or Alaska?
“T.O.O. says:
July 19, 2013 at 5:08 pm
Mike,
How do I know it is really thin? You mean other than this sentence from the comment above?
“PIOMAS modelling (extensively verified by real world observations) has shown us how little Arctic ice volume there is and if this small volume is spread out, that means the ice is unusually thin.”
You really are a DB! 😆
And you continue to shrink.
No, I continue to show you for what you truly are, a wannabe Chicken Little commander. 😆
Oh, and a duplicitous cherry picking liar, Laz2.0.
Well guys,
I have to go. It is up to someone else to try and get Steve to give up his secret evidence on the spectacular loss of glacier mass in Norway and Alaska last century.
The only secret is whether you have always been a moron, or if it just happened recently.
See ya DB.
Try this TOOL:
ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/engels/Stanley/Textbook_update/Science_297/Arendt-02.pdf
The abstract for that paper states that it discusses the period from the mid-1950s to the mid-1990s. Steve’s heading refers to 1794 to 1879. So the paper is not relevant to Steve’s claims at all. Try again.
Gina, I was referring to TOOL’s comment:
:T.O.O. says:
July 19, 2013 at 3:44 pm
Well mike;
Your wrong. I am truly interested in knowing the truth behind Steve’s statement of “fact” that Norway and Alaska lost half there glacier mass over 50 years last century.
Seems to be right on the money – 50 years, last century, etc.
Don’t be upset, you should have understood that TOOL would change the subject.
Glacierman,
Gina is right, there is nothing in your links or in my comment to Steve that relates to Steve’s claim that it was a “fact” that half the glacial ice lost from both Norway and Alaska happened in the first 5 decades of the 1900’s (as per Carlson’s statement in a 1962 Australian newspaper) . Your links show neither that half the ice was lost or that it happened in the proper time frame.
But at least you tried — I will give you that.
I am about done with your bullshit.
igsoc.org/journal/59/216/t12j101.pdf
RE: T.O.O – All I am interested in is the evidence behind Steve’s assertion that Alaska and Norway lost half their glacier mass last century
RE: T.O.O – I am truly interested in knowing the truth behind Steve’s statement of “fact” that Norway and Alaska lost half there glacier mass over 50 years last century
RE: T.O.O – It is up to someone else to try and get Steve to give up his secret evidence on the spectacular loss of glacier mass in Norway and Alaska last century.
You repeatedly assert that Steven claimed that Alaska and Norway lost half their glacier mass from 1901-1950. I will ask you what you always ask. Can you point to a single citation that shows Steven made that claim? When you look at the graphic, it is clear the surveys started in 1760, not 1901. It is also clear that Glacier Bay does not represent the entirety of Alaska, and is nowhere near Norway.
That isn’t the assertion Steven made. The assertion at hand is that a very large glacier was decimated prior to industrialization, but then stabilized even though periods of extreme industrialization followed.
Start here – Microfilm of George Vancouver’s north Pacific journey, “in which the coast of north-west America has been carefully examined and accurately surveyed”
http://archive.org/details/cihm_42062
Inform yourself. In the service of the king, and at great risk, qualified individuals accurately surveyed Glacier Bay. Over the decades, other qualified individuals followed in their stead, and produced a record worthy of study and contemplation.
RE: T.O.O – “Anything has got to be better than 2 old newspaper clippings that don’t actually link to anything one could call evidence. Wouldn’t you agree?”
RE: T.O.O – “I believe in evidence.”
RE: T.O.O – “not a single link, citation or reference.”
RE: T.O.O – “May I suggest you try peppering your next argument with independent evidence?”
T.O.O, Read the actual survey journals of the original explorers upon which the graphics were based.
Hi Ben,
Steve’s claim of “fact” comes from this blog post:
“Arctic Expert : Alaskan And Norwegian Glaciers Lost Half Their Mass Between 1900 And 1950
Posted on July 16, 2013”
And here are some sample comments from that post (as you can see, Ruck is experiencing the same issues with Steve as I am and also receives the same technical assistance as I do):
• “stevengoddard says:
July 18, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Your brain is disordered.
This is a discussion of the FACT that glaciers lost half their mass during the coldest years in the GISS instrumental record. Rather than dealing with this INCONVENIENT FACT, you choose to try to change the subject to your mindless fantasy about the person who presented this information.
• Ruck says:
July 18, 2013 at 3:35 pm
Notice he didn’t answer…. I rest my case
• stevengoddard says:
July 18, 2013 at 3:41 pm
Your case is that you are too stupid to use the search bar and search through the 17,000 blog posts here to get the answers to your questions.
Like many global warming alarmists, you display stupidity, laziness, zero technical competence, no understanding of science, refusal to look at HISTORICAL FACT, prejudice, hatred and you behave like a total douche bag.”
Ben, Steve made the assertion, I simply want to know where he got his information from that was so convincing that he labeled it as FACT. The ball is definitely in Steve’s court (and has been for 3 days now).
There is no possible amount of information that could be given you which would cause you to stop being an idiot.
The Mindel-Riss IG, Holstein IG and Yarmouth IG stages have everything in common with the present IG, and trying to defend AGW in regard to glacial advance/retreat shows the wishful thinker’s common desperation.
T.O.O doesn’t appear to have any interest in glaciers or the Cryosphere, but does appear to enjoy harassing others in Saul Alinsky fashion… T.O.O needs attention, like most warped, delusional and mentally suffering individuals who are found throughout the world. Many individuals have no want to change others thought processes or beliefs, but the enthralled progressive cannot live comfortably with that state of human conditions. Born into the world as a weak creature is a crying shame!
Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book Rules for Radicals.
And writing the modern progressive’s/democratic party’s play book.
The Agitators in Chief are nothing new in the history of man and they are the weak ones among us that need agitation and unrest to survive and too feed their shortcomings.
Their masculinity cannot live up to their egos and Narcissistic personality (disorder), so they substitute their lack of manhood with Alinsky style worthlessness.
Chewer,
How is it harassment to request verification for a claim that was made? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t this site, and practically every poster on it, decry the fact that East Anglia avoided FOI requests? Why should you have one standard for them and a different one for Real Science?
You aren’t interested in facts. Your purpose is to make noise.
They drive Government actions through their scientific credentials & influence, and by extension the lives of millions of people who only suspect that their studies may be biased…
Are you kidding?