RealClimate logo

What has science done for us?

Filed under: — rasmus @ 13 December 2016

Where would we be without science? Today, we live longer than ever before according to the Royal Geographical Society, thanks to pharmaceutical, medical, and health science. Vaccines saves many lives. Physics and electronics have given us satellites, telecommunications, and the Internet. You would not read this blog without them. Chemistry and biology have provided use with all sorts of products, food, and enabled the agricultural (“green”) revolution enhancing our crop yields. The science of evolution and natural selection explains the character of ecosystems, and modern meteorology saves lives and help us safeguard our properties.

So what is science? It’s more than just a body of knowledge. It’s a mindset and strategy to build an understanding of our world. This understanding is extremely valuable for our society, especially when it comes to establishing where we stand and what the likely outcomes will be from perceived future actions.

The scientific method is perfect for resolving uncertainties such as controversial claims about facts. It builds on the principles of transparency, testing, and independent replication. Every scientifically trained scholar should get similar results when the analysis is repeated for a finding that is universally true.

Scientific testing and replicating scientific facts are usually based on data analysis and require an understanding of statistical reasoning and what the data really represent. The data analysis is often the point where differences arise. Climate science is no different to other science, and I have myself contributed to the process of checking the findings in a number of controversial papers (Benestad et al., 2016).

There is always a story behind each conclusion that goes back to its roots. The difference between science on the one hand, and dogma and propaganda on the other, is that the latter is not traceable. In other words, you should be more confident about scientific results and sceptical when it comes to intransparent or undocumented claims.

The scientific community has a well-established system for taking care of scientific findings, mainly through publication of papers in the scientific literature. A scientific paper should provide sufficient information for others to replicate the work done and reproduce results. Scientific results are also presented and discussed at conferences, such as the present American Geophysical Union (AGU) fall meeting. The science presented in conferences, however, is not readily broadcasted to the wider society, partly because of difficult language and partly because of limited media presence.

I strongly believe we need a public voice of scientists and historians (see Defending Climate Science), but there is a concern for the future of Earth and space science. It is not just a potential problem for the science community. This is also a genuine worry that affects the wider society and its right to scientific facts and objective information. It is also an issue when it comes to education.

Science benefits everyone and is part of the fabric of our civilisation. It is therefore unwise to dismiss or twist for short-term benefits. The concept “science denial” has been discussed in the magazine called Physics World (September 2016), Nature, blogs, videos, as well as books, just to mention some examples. One of my favoutites is nevertheless the book with the title ‘Agnotology: the Making and Unmaking of Ignorance‘ by Proctor and Schiebinger

History of science can explain how absurd the notion is regarding global warming being a hoax from China. We only need to search for scientific publications from the past, as I did when I wrote a review about the greenhouse effect, based on a paper from 1931 by the American physicist Edward Olson Hulburt (Benestad, 2016)). There is an excellent historical account of modern climate science American Institute of Physics written by Spencer Weart.

It is also a disservice to our society to close down faculties, such as earth observations and climate science. We need both observations and updated analysis more than ever in the times of unprecedented global warming. They are essential inputs to fact-based decision-making concerning our global environment on which we all depend. Our society has progressed and become great much thanks to science, and it would be a sad story for everyone if we were to undo that.


  1. R.E. Benestad, D. Nuccitelli, S. Lewandowsky, K. Hayhoe, H.O. Hygen, R. van Dorland, and J. Cook, "Learning from mistakes in climate research", Theoretical and Applied Climatology, vol. 126, pp. 699-703, 2015.
  2. R.E. Benestad, "A mental picture of the greenhouse effect", Theoretical and Applied Climatology, vol. 128, pp. 679-688, 2016.

231 Responses to “What has science done for us?”

  1. 51
    Sue says:

    #12 Lynn – thanks for the sociology references, they are useful.

  2. 52
    Dan DaSilva says:

    #39 SteveP Why Am I here? One factor is that I have not yet been sent to the borehole. If I disrupt things too much that is where I will end up. I am not at all a scientist but a lowly retired engineer. You know the ones who take ideas developed by scientists and make stuff out of them. Being the turd in the punch bowl maybe others here will look before they drink. Hope the beverage is punch and not cool aid. I do not want troll but want to break up the echo chamber for a very brief period of time. Thanks everyone for the thoughtful form. I will think about what you have written and may even change my mind. Cheers

  3. 53
    Romain says:

    Zebra 31,
    “that postulating some cause outside of our understanding of physics is not part of scientific reasoning”
    You seem to imply I postulated something. I did not. The author of the blog post did. I was merely reacting on his postulation, about “unprecedented global warming”.
    So, “unprecedented” based on what? The rest of your comment is unclear on this, which was the focus of my comment.
    It’s a mixture of “many inputs”, a “theoretical framework”, a call for “supernatural intervention”…
    Also at the end, you seem to admit there could have been precedents:
    “In any event– who cares if some wacky combination of phenomena might have caused a similar rise in the past? That combination isn’t happening now, unless, again, you are invoking something supernatural, which we can’t detect.”
    Saying “it does not matter” is not the same as saying “it did not happen”. So, unprecedented or not?

  4. 54
    Romain says:

    David B Benson, 33:
    “Romain — Yes, there has never been faster climate change since the end Cretaceous impact. Well, some say PETM proceeded as quickly but I doubt that.”
    Not even talking about as remotely an event as PETM. Let’s keep it at the last 10,000 years.
    According to you, which studies support the assertion of “unprecedented global warming”? Is this merely paleoclimate study like Marcott et al as I suggested or is it something else?

  5. 55
    SecularAnimist says:

    Equating the narrow, short term profit interests of the fossil fuel corporations with “capitalism” is nonsense.

  6. 56
    Dan DaSilva says:

    #39 SteveP I am not as you say an expert in climate science, however, it is not hard to look at the presented evidence when it is presented in a straightforward manner. Richard Feynman could do this very well. All I can really say is that I remain skeptical of the most radical pro climate change positions. Does this make me somehow a denier? I really do not care. I find your response very thoughtful although a tad ad hominem. I guess that combination is what drew me into a responding.

  7. 57
    zebra says:

    Romain #53,

    Perhaps you need to clarify your question. I thought you were asking if other factors, in addition to studies like Marcott, were taken into account in concluding that the current energy increase in the climate system is unprecedented.

    Did I get that wrong?

  8. 58
    Phil Scadden says:

    “All I can really say is that I remain skeptical of the most radical pro climate change positions.”

    A radical pro-climate change position?? Wow what exactly is that? This blog is written by climate scientists writing about their research – is that a radical “pro climate change” position?? Is the IPCC WG1 report a radical pro-climate position? You wanted “evidence presented in a straightforward matter” so have you read it? On the other hand if you are referring to Guy McPherson and some of more radical statements by environmental activists, then yes, skepticism is in order. The burning question is whether there is evidence to support the argument. When you are outside your area of expertise, then you want to be sure that evidence is coming from peer-reviewed publication. shows you how easily it is to be misled by distorting myths in the blogosphere.

    Skepticism is great – the beating heart of science. Being “skeptical” of peer-reviewed, hard-won published data and not at all skeptical of ignorant distortions of the science published on right-wing blogs is not. I hope that doesnt apply to you.

    And I would join with others in decrying your characterization of commentators here as “anti-capitalist”. This could only apply if you redefined capitalism and instead suggests you are simply swallowing the propaganda that climate science is somehow a liberal plot to enlarge government or something. Perhaps you should ask yourself what measures you would think appropriate to advocate if you became convinced that reducing CO2 emissions was the best and cheapest approach to changing climate? Would it be different to what measures are being advocated by the science community? If your position is really “I dont like the political solutions to climate mitigation, therefore climate science must be wrong” then dont expect much respect.

  9. 59
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Dan DaSilva,
    First, Appeal to authority is not in itself logically invalid, as long as the authority in question is actually a real authority. Second, who, pray, has a pro-climate change position? If you mean those who accept that we are changing Earth’s climate and that it is a concern, those people are referred to as climate scientists. Yes, I know there are some who claim to be climate scientists who say the concern is overblown, but for all practical purposes, they don’t publish–and that should tell you a lot.

  10. 60
    Dan DaSilva says:

    14 Bryson Brown, Wow that was an outstanding comment. I did not know that about MIRVs and Nixon. I must admit to working on the MX (MIRV) rocket project for Rockwell Rocketdyne in 1979-1981. Do you think the Russians would never have developed MIRVs if we had not done it first? I am not so sure. Do you think that a government that inspired Gulag Archipelago would be less inclined to pursue military advantage than the USA? Maybe, maybe not.

  11. 61
    Hank Roberts says:

    Romain says:
    15 Dec 2016 at 9:30 AM

    ““In the times of unprecedented global warming”.
    By what scientific measure do you make this statement?”

    Temperature rate of change, LMGTFY:“rate+of+change”
    In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. … The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

  12. 62
    Hank Roberts says:

    Here, Romain, this should be clickable

  13. 63

    Romain, #54–

    “Let’s keep it at the last 10,000 years.
    “According to you, which studies support the assertion of “unprecedented global warming”?”

    OK, AFAIK, the entire Holocene is, according to strong consensus, a remarkably stable time climatically. Which would mean that the existence during that span of another episode of warming like the present one would amount to an extraordinary claim.

    So, if you are suggesting that there has been such an episode, which studies support its existence?

  14. 64
    Romain says:


    My question is:
    What are the data or studies backing up the claim that the current warming is unprecedented?

  15. 65
    zebra says:

    Romain 64,

    For example, studies that show that CO2 has remained relatively steady over the time period in question make us more confident– which I count as “backing up”– in making the claim “unprecedented”, along with the Marcott study.

    If, OTOH, a study by Romain showed that CO2 levels say 5,000 years ago went up to current levels over a similar time period as they have now, I would be less confident in the characterization of “unprecedented increase in energy in the climate system”; I would have to question both studies and wait for further information.

    So, given our understanding of the underlying physics– e.g. what might cause a similar energy increase in the past– and existing data, as others have said, about the stability of such variables over that period, it is the best scientific conclusion we can come up with.

    As I said earlier, effects have to have causes. So, absence of plausible causes and/or evidence that what plausible causes there might be haven’t occurred is pretty convincing when it comes to having confidence that something (the “effect” in cause and effect) didn’t happen.

    Hope that’s clearer.

  16. 66
    Romain says:

    Kevin McKinney, 63

    “strong concensus” based on what?

    To answer your question, allas, there isn’t much to support the existence of a precedent rapid global warming, the data being so scarce. I dont know.

    If anything, ice core records, such as Vostok or Greenland, contain such rapid warmings. Several degrees (3°C to 4°C) in as short as 300 years. So definitely in the same ballpark as the current global warming. Problem is : it is local. I know. But that such local swings (centuries wide – it’s not weather!!) could happen in a stable global climate is not easy to grasp.
    That is why I am asking people here: why are you so sure that what we are living now is unprecedented? Thanks in advance.

  17. 67
    Hank Roberts says:

    Romain, use the search. You’re asking for homework help level information.
    Any school librarian can help you with this. Or let us google it for you.

    Please, read the pages that suggested search finds. One example:
    Frequently Asked Question 6.2
    Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earth’s History?

  18. 68
    Hank Roberts says:

    Here, Romain, let me read that for you:

    A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid
    global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest temperature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C
    between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were
    much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However,
    the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age
    was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It
    is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much
    more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. The
    much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Section 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were probably due to
    changes in ocean heat transport, which would be unlikely to affect
    the global mean temperature.
    Further back in time, beyond ice core data, the time resolution of
    sediment cores and other archives does not resolve changes as rapid
    as the present warming. Hence, although large climate changes have
    occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at
    a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately
    5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realised, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount
    of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there
    is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was
    matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last
    50 million years.

  19. 69
    Hank Roberts says:

    Or you can look at the picture. Note the reference to Annan about resolution:

  20. 70
    Steven Sullivan says:

    Ah, Dan….

    “Since science enabled modern capitalism it would appear that many here have a conflict.”

    Science enabled the modern world, period. That includes the other ‘isms’ besides capitalism.

    “In short, science is not an answer but a tool that is abused by mankind.”

    As is *philosophy*.

    Scientists are skeptical but they aren’t, and should not be, compelled to re-invent the wheel just become someone who’s poorly informed questions whether wheels actually work.

  21. 71

    Romain, try Marcotte et al., 2013:,%202013,%20Science.pdf

    Figure 1 is pretty on point.

  22. 72

    Looks like the link broke, so be careful to paste the whole link into your browser; simply clicking will not work.

  23. 73
    Lawrence Coleman says:

    The problem stems not through a distain of capitalism but rather looking at the bigger picture at what rampant capitalism has done to the planet. We have to work with the earth and it’s timeless bio-systems and not against it. A sustainable planet is our goal after all.

  24. 74
    Dan DaSilva says:

    #58 Hello Phil Scadden, quoting you,
    “Skepticism is great – the beating heart of science. Being “skeptical” of peer-reviewed, hard-won published data and not at all skeptical of ignorant distortions of the science published on right-wing blogs is not. I hope that doesn’t apply to you.”

    The theory of Special Relativity received very little peer review acceptance until years had passed. That is the problem, our minds can never be completely closed or completely open to new ideas. Any human process including “peer review” loses its effectiveness when human nature invades. Without an open mind, his theory sounds far-fetched.

    One area which is very hard to confirm by science is the supernatural. The reason is that the results are not repeatable but statistics show that something is going on. This is strangely like the IPCC which says that there is some percentage probability that the majority of warming is man made. Einstein did hedge but his theory was still initially rejected by peers. Of course, Einstein theory eventually was accepted because it was repeatable. Einstein’s theory may be found to be an approximation just like Issac Newton’s was.

    Like almost all but a few very self-aware people, I think all my opinions are quite well thought out. If you are one of those few self-aware people congratulations.

    Maybe you are 90 percent sure, I think the correct number is closer to 30 perecnt that you are correct. That 60 percent difference should not make us enemies nor me a denier.

  25. 75
    patrick says:

    “Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee – I’m in Los Angeles and it’s freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!” [–Donald Trump] 9:13 AM – 6 Dec 2013

    No that’s not a fake tweet.

    This is about protecting environmental data and websites in America from Trump et al. (On the advice of people who survived the Harper regime in Canada.)

    “First, we need to identify vulnerable programs and then seed their URLs to the webcrawler of the End of Term project, which will make copies of those webpages. Second, we are researching and evaluating the many data repositories that the EPA has online: some of this data we know will be backed up and protected by laws, some data will be archivable at the Internet Archive through their webcrawler, and yet other sources of data will need to identified as in need of saving at a library. Libraries, such as at the University of Pennsylvania, are arranging to become repositories of this kind of vulnerable data not easily preserved. We will be passing on what we build and research to our colleagues in other cities so that they can pick up where we have left off.”

  26. 76
    Romain says:

    Hank Robert,
    The link you provided compares apples and oranges. The resolution of the Dome C record they show is about 500 years. That does not tell a lot about century scale variations, which we need for comparison with present warming.
    Ice-age recovery is taken as an exemple of warming, but again the time scale is much different: 5000 years!

    From these research results, there are either the same apple vs orange, or references to the same Marcot et al I already talked about.

    same comparison with ice-age recovery: apples and oranges again.


    So back to square 1: the only relevant study I can find is Marcot et al. What else?

  27. 77
    Hank Roberts says:

    > science done?

    Unique IDs like DOI (for papers) and ORCID (for researchers)

  28. 78
    Hank Roberts says:

    > dislike of capitalism

    What part of “you broke it, you bought it” offends you?

  29. 79
    Hank Roberts says:

    Earth’s Carbon-Climate Feedbacks Varied in Past Warming Episodes

    Records from drill holes in the eastern equatorial Pacific indicate that Earth’s orbital eccentricity played an important role in controlling climate as the planet warmed.

    Source: Paleoceanography

    By Terri Cook 29 November 2016

    Embedded within the Earth’s long-term cooling trend over the past 65 million years are several climate spikes—swift transitions to “hothouse” conditions—that had profound consequences for life. These spikes could serve as analogues for the future of our warming planet.

    The cause of these spikes may in part be due to changes in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, an important greenhouse gas. But the complex feedbacks between the Earth’s climate and the carbon cycle have been hotly debated, and there is little scientific consensus on this issue.

    To help unravel the relationship between the carbon cycle and climate during an extended warm period, Kochhann et al. present a data set of stable isotope and carbonate records. These records, indicators of changing temperature and the growth or contraction of ice sheets, are from an Integrated Ocean Drilling Program drill site in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. The authors also correlate these results with data collected from other regional sites.

    Their new record spans the Miocene Climatic Optimum (MCO), the hothouse interval between about 17 and 15 million years ago. During the MCO, the average global temperature was up to 4°C warmer than today, and carbon dioxide concentrations hovered at about modern levels (400 parts per million).

  30. 80
  31. 81
    Hank Roberts says:

    and in particular the direct quote from Hayek there, on point:

    … there are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question…

  32. 82
    Ray Ladbury says:

    Dan DaSilva: “The theory of Special Relativity received very little peer review acceptance until years had passed.”

    Good lord, where do you get this crap. Not only did many leaders in the scientific community (Planck, Poincare, Lorentz…) embrace the theory early, it was certainly accepted via peer review for its publication in Annalen der Physik. Yes, there were competing theories, but that is not a rejection.

    The situation with climate change is different–there is no self-consistent theory of Earth’s climate that does not say that pumping gigatons of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere would raise the planet’s temperature.

    And if there were “statistical proof” of the supernatural, then it could be studied scientifically!

    If you are going to argue about science, then please learn some!

  33. 83
    zebra says:

    Hank Roberts,

    I think Romain is demonstrating basic troll behavior at this point– keeps asking the same question even when it has been answered.

    This gives CO2 with 16-year resolution, as an illustration of what is possible. If there were a rapid increase (equivalent to what is happening now) at some point in the last 10K years, we would surely see a signal, given the persistence of the gas in the atmosphere.

    Perhaps Romain and “supernatural Dan” DaSilva (#74) are commenting from the same seance?

  34. 84
    Thomas says:

    43 Dan DaSilva. Up your game. This isn’t a role play training session at Langley.

  35. 85
    Thomas says:

    I hadn’t heard of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt before, so I looked him up.

    Haidt “I consider the rapid loss of political diversity, over the last 20 years, to be the second-greatest existential threat to the field of social psychology,”

    I am not aware of any research studies or polling into the political diversity of social psychologists 20, 40 or 60 years ago, to be able to make an informed evidence based comparison with today’s studies/polling data. Are you? I wonder what data the “rapid loss” refers to.

    Besides it seems patently obvious (?) that empathy would be a core trait in a majority of people entering the psychology / social fields, yeah?

  36. 86
    Thomas says:

    74 Dan DaSilva says: “The theory of Special Relativity received very little peer review acceptance until years had passed.”

    Climate science re modern day agw/cc science received very little peer review acceptance until years had passed.

    “That is the problem, our minds can never be completely closed or completely open to new ideas.”

    Evidence? And if it exists, why would that be a problem anyway?

    “Any human process including “peer review” loses its effectiveness when human nature invades.”

    “Without an open mind, his theory sounds far-fetched.”

    I similar line gets trotted out about religious cults and conspiracy theories regularly.

    “One area which is very hard to confirm by science is the supernatural.”

    One area which is very easy to confirm by science is the current climate change driven by ongoing and increasing AGW.

    Speaking about Newton and Einstein, while charming, has no bearing on the veracity and accuracy of AGW/CC science.

    “Of course, Einstein theory eventually was accepted because it was repeatable.”

    Is that so?

    “That 60 percent difference should not make us enemies nor me a denier.”

    %’s about one’s opinions about how accurate their opinions are, are irrelevant to being a denier. Being a denier makes one a denier. It’s very basic logic.

    So if the science is wrong, and the observations faulty, and the data is in error, then by all means, do spell it out.

  37. 87
    Thomas says:

    missed one; “Any human process including “peer review” loses its effectiveness when human nature invades.”

    If it wasn’t for ‘human nature’ there would be no ‘peer-review’ to start with. There is no ‘human process’ that human nature does not ‘invade’ or rather, play a role.

    There is no value in making non-statements nor false statements.

  38. 88
    Thomas says:

    Sophistry is.

  39. 89
    Dan DaSilva says:

    #41 nigelj The moral arc of the last 100 years? That’s a joke right. We are so much better than the people of the 1930s, 1940s? Once you start that thinking that you are set for a repeat.

  40. 90
    Dan DaSilva says:

    41 nigel
    “I suggest read the book “The Moral Arc” by Michael Shermer that has substantial evidence that science has improved human moral behavior considerably, and that human morality has improved over the last 100 years. ”

    OK, this is where the real disagreement lies and “climate change” is just a by-product. If a majority of people believe the above quote we a screwed beyond the worst possible climate change. The “Moral Arc” marching till 100 millions of lives was snuffed out in the 20th century.

    The last 100,000 years of human evolution changed dramatically in the last 70 years? and science has done it?

  41. 91
    Dan DaSilva says:

    Lawrence Coleman
    “rampant capitalism” what about rampant governmentism?

  42. 92
    Dan DaSilva says:

    5 Donald H. Campbell
    “Far too many people believe that science and scientists should remain quiet on issues assumed to be out of their range of activity”

    Should read:
    Far too many scientists believe that non-scientist should remain quiet on science.

  43. 93
    Dan DaSilva says:

    Hank Roberts
    “What part of “”you broke it, you bought it”” offends you?”
    Probably part the where the poor people of this world will die for the elites opinions of pseudo-science.

  44. 94
    Thomas says:

    47 Hank Roberts says … you’re sounding a bit like Dr. Guillotine?

    Nah, that would be your interpretation (take away) hank, not mine. :-)

  45. 95
    Thomas says:

    Engineers are really nice people and quite practical usually. They are also the people (like economists and accountants) whose High School results precluded them from getting into university degree courses in Law, Medicine, Dentistry, Math and Science.

  46. 96
    Romain says:

    Zebra, 65:
    Only just a little bit clearer I am afraid.

    This paragraph in particular is not very clear to me:
    “So, given our understanding of the underlying physics– e.g. what might cause a similar energy increase in the past– and existing data, as others have said, about the stability of such variables over that period, it is the best scientific conclusion we can come up with.”

    So you are saying that we know all the variables that could lead to a rapid global temp increase AND that we know that these variables have been stable (century scale) in the past 10,000 years?

    Ok so the next question is: which studies back up this claim?

  47. 97
    Vendicar Decarian says:

    Scott at #6 wrote: “Please don’t tell me ‘the science is settled regarding CAGW’.”

    Yes. I agree. There is no need as we all know it is true.

  48. 98
    Dan DaSilva says:

    48 Mitch
    “Perhaps you can explain better how decarbonizing society is somehow anticapitalist.”
    Decarbonization is taking place naturally through capitalism. The forced decarbonization by the government does seem to go against the grain of capitalism.

    (side note: Why is it that only the Carbon in CO2 is bad? Oxygen is contributing twice as much. I like carbon just as much oxygen, although I must admit that my need for oxygen is reinforced every breath I take. I tend to think as oxidizers as the more violent elements while carbon just wants to make friends.)

  49. 99
    Dan DaSilva says:

    70 Steven Sullivan

    ‘Ah, Dan….’ Steve I am not sure to interpret that but I think I get the point.

    “As is *philosophy*.” , that is true when philosophy turns to ideology.

    Let us not take our self’s overly seriously. Lets us be Richard Pryor rather than Joesph Stalin, Jerry Steinfeld rather than Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein not Carl Marx.

    Let us realize we have been flawed organisms for 100,000 years and we are not going change that in the next 1000 years,

  50. 100
    TurkeyBreath says:

    1) “Without Freedom of Speech we would be in the swamp!”

    2) But for the 19th Amendment, Gillette Wyoming would long since have been turned into a ghost town.