That Mitchell look

By Phil Plait | July 19, 2010 2:21 pm

David Mitchell is one half of the brilliant British comedy team that makes the show "That Mitchell and Webb Look", which commonly has skeptical themes to its humor. Mitchell has a series of short videos posted on The Guardian, and he made one about global warming that, like everything he does, is fantastic. They don’t allow embedding — hey Guardian, it’s the 21st Century now! — so I’ll just link to it and let you have a look.

Tip o’ the thermometer to Arthur Taylor.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Antiscience, Humor, Skepticism

Comments (51)

  1. Apropos of nothing, David Mitchell also looks like Elena Kagan. Or rather, Ms. Kagan is David Mitchell in drag. I can’t unsee that.

  2. John

    It’s “Look” not “Loo” – which puts quite a different slant on the show. Great series and that’s Number Wang.

  3. Jeremy Henderson

    It’s That Mitchell and Webb Look.

    That Mitchell and Webb Loo would be a very, very different kind of show.

  4. Theron

    As always, David Mitchell is brilliant. This rant (the 2nd half of the clip) is among my favorite bits from him. It makes a little more sense in you know that Mike Read is a BBC TV presenter and radio host.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYoPfXZUOA4&feature=related

  5. Leigh Johnson

    I know it’s a BritCom, but I’m pretty sure the title of Mitchell and Webb’s show doesn’t reference a “Loo”……

    :)

  6. Tod Wicks

    LOL! In your first sentence, “That Mitchell and Webb Loo” had me hooting with laughter as I imagined TV cameras following everyone into the bathroom to check out their loo. Nice one Phil!

  7. dre

    I think “That Mitchell and Webb Loo” is a totally different show from what you meant, “That Mitchell and Webb Look”. Probably also hilarious, though. Excellent link and I’m still laughing about the homeopathy skit they did that pops up late at night from time to time.

  8. Nullius in Verba

    A very good video clip. Mitchell is a talented comedian.

  9. BJN

    Gardez l’eau, or room 100?

  10. Arthur Taylor

    Thanks for sharing that sir, much obliged! But it would be remiss of me to not point out that “loo” in UK English means what I think you chaps call “the bathroom”, which is a great idea for a show to my weird mind, but they might not take the pitch too well..

  11. Hamish

    Does it seem like a lot of people who don’t believe climate change is man-made (or happening at all) are the type of people who are skeptical of just about everything else (ie – homeopathy, astrology etc)? I’ve picked up on this vibe from the “anti-climate-changers” that I’ve happened upon in my travels.

    Great video btw. Couldn’t agree more.

  12. Damon

    There you go deniers, he laid it out nice and simple for your delicate sensibilities.

  13. Evil Mammoth

    Mitchell and Webb are great. It’s good to know intelligent, witty sketch comedy is still hanging on by the skin of its teeth.

    @dre Love that homeopathy sketch.

  14. Nullius in Verba

    #5,

    AGW sceptics are not a uniform group. All the ones I know are strongly sceptical about homeopathy, astrology, etc. but I’m sure there are some who are not, just as there are AGW believers who are not. That sort of stereotyping is not helpful to understanding the phenomenon.

    Incidentally, the vast majority of sceptics do believe climate change is happening, (and that it has always happened). The majority (although not all) also believe that CO2 contributes a warming effect. The argument is mainly over how much, and how big the natural variations are. The debate goes beyond any simple definitions.

  15. The difference between climate change ‘skepticism’ and homeopathy, astrology skepticism (apart from the fact that climate change is happening, while homeopathy and astrology are bunk) is that disbelieving h&a is good for you in pretty well all circumstances.

    If, however, you are a reasonably well-off middle-aged Westerner, you can choose to disbelieve in climate change, and it will benefit you (cheaper gas, feel superior to environmentalists, fly as much as you like) for your natural lifetime. It’s only brown people and your grandchildren who will suffer, and who cares about them?

    As someone said, what has posterity ever done for us?

  16. Nullius in Verba

    #8,

    On the contrary, it is mainly the “brown people”, as you put it, that many AGW sceptics are most concerned about. On the very cusp of finally raising the bulk of mankind out of poverty, hard labour, and early death – thanks to cheap fossil energy – we are about to snatch the ladder away and lock that energy in the ground. We can afford alternatives, although we’ll suffer for it. They can’t. And after we cut our own economies to the bone, we’ll have nothing left to help them with, either.

    Our great grandchildren, too, are a great concern of ours. Economic growth means that our grandchildren will be richer and more technologically capable than us in the same degree that we are better off than the people of 1900. If we stop economic growth, they will be vastly poorer. They will also have fewer resources and capabilities with which to cope with whatever problems they face – climate, or anything else.

    Check out how the IPCC describe the SRES A1 scenarios – often described as “business as usual”: “The A1 storyline is a case of rapid and successful economic development, in which regional average income per capita converge – current distinctions between “poor” and “rich” countries eventually dissolve.” That’s what we would be giving up.

  17. ZEE

    There is a youtube channel for all his soapboxes at http://www.youtube.com/user/davidmitchellsoapbox.

  18. Josh Andrews
  19. Grand Lunar

    I feel so un-cultured.

    For a moment, I thought the post referred to the MST3K episode!

    Obviously the first time I’ve seen this.
    And I loved it!
    Perhaps instead of burning fossil fuels in our 4X4s, we use bio-fuels instead?
    Fill her up with peanut oil!

  20. Autumn

    Nullis,
    That sentence you quote is characteristic of a family of possibilities, and is contingent on shifts in technology and energy usage. It includes some scenarios that the report calls troubling because the increase of green-house-gasses make the positives unlikely to happen.

  21. Mark

    All the videos are up at David Mitchell’s Soapbox’s youtube channel, which may be easier and friendlier than trying to watch it through the Guardian website. davidmitchellsoapbox

  22. QuietDesperation

    It’s only brown people and your grandchildren who will suffer, and who cares about them?

    Wow. Couldn’t wait to play that race card, eh?

    Go fish.

  23. bigjohn756

    Oh, dear, no pudding? I guess I’d better get busy and tidy my room.

  24. Ailuropoda

    I like the statement someone on the Guardian page made: “Regardless of whether Climate Change is real or not, we should still practice good stewardship of the planet and good husbandry of its resources. This, of course, is a very unpopular notion among those who have a good lifestyle and don’t want to lose it.”

  25. X. Wolp

    Let us not forget http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh76DVhj0-Y which describes most denial.. I mean “skeptics” perfectly

  26. Pointybirds

    Speaking of Mitchell and Webb, don’t forget the excellent Peep Show that they star in; well recommended.

  27. Theron

    Nullius, anti-environmentalists have always predicted that good environmental stewardship would destroy the economy and history has always proved them wrong. What prosperity are the Bangladeshis and the Maldivians going to be enjoying? Or to talk about disasters that have already happened, I bet the fishermen of what used to be the Sea of Aral and is now more the Large Puddle of Aral would like their livelihoods back.

  28. Awesome video.
    Climate deniers are suckers; not skeptics.

  29. Brian

    @20: That would be a very different “That Mitchell Look” … presumably something along the lines of duuuuuuuh …

  30. Love David Mitchell. Can’t believe I didn’t know about this. Now have to watch THEM ALL CONSECUTIVELY.

  31. Nullius in Verba

    #28,

    Good comment.

    “Nullius, anti-environmentalists have always predicted that good environmental stewardship would destroy the economy and history has always proved them wrong.”

    I predict the opposite. What does that make me?

    What prosperity are the Bangladeshis and the Maldivians going to be enjoying?

    The basic idea of the scheme is to make Bangladesh as rich as Holland.

    And they’re both going to be fine anyway, because of the way geography works. One’s on a river delta, and the other’s a coral island.

    “Or to talk about disasters that have already happened, I bet the fishermen of what used to be the Sea of Aral and is now more the Large Puddle of Aral would like their livelihoods back.”

    The Aral sea was a trade-off between cotton farming and fishing. Which is more valuable to the economy? Will you now throw the farmers out of work to save the fishermen? However, that one is repairable.

    It’s worth noting that seas have dried up before, perfectly naturally. It’s where salt pans and salt mines come from. Are those disasters? Should we work to correct them? Change happens, and life is adaptable. And the more prosperous we are, the more adaptable we get.

  32. MikeinLondon

    #33 No One said “The basic idea of the scheme is to make Bangladesh as rich as Holland.”

    Which scheme is this? The SRES “Scenarios are images of the future, or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts.”

    The scenario you point out is NOT a prediction of what is going to happen if we ignore AGW.

    Ignoring AGW and betting all our futures on the idea that economic development will bring about a land of worldwide equality, on technological marvels that can stop the effects of 250 years of excess CO2 emissions is, to say the least, naive.

  33. Morcheeb Sanjay

    Mitchell comes across as a patronising middle class bore, even if what he’s saying is essentially correct. I’d rather have seen Frankie Boyle taking the piss out of climate deniers; it would have been more fun.

  34. Maldoror

    Morcheeb, that is indeed his spiel, and it makes him hilarious to all us patronising middle class bores.

    My favourite soapbox: rape and pillage.

  35. Pi-needles

    @33. Nullius in Verba & 28. Theron

    The Aral Sea disappearing is one of the most remarkable environmental disasters ever and is something that blows my mind. We had a whole inland sea disappear because of human action.

    A WHOLE FLIPPIN’ INLAND SEA!!

    That’s really pretty durn amazing and horrifying when you think of it. Yet it seems fairly little known or reported. :-(

    I guess it doesn’t get much public attention because its in Russia (Kazakhstan & Uzbekistan more accurately now & the USSR at the time.) & not, say, one of the Great Lakes which are of equivalent sort of size. If Lake Michigan or Huron (& actually those are smaller than the old Aral Sea) dried up in a few decades would our response be so “meh” as it has been to the Aral Sea’s loss? :-(

    As for this videoclip by David Mitchell – I reckon its spot on right & well put. :-)

  36. Pi-needles

    PS. But its still not as good as Peter Sinclair’s ‘Climate denial Crock of the Week’ videoclips – their playlist here:

    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=029130BFDC78FA33

    & my personal fave ‘Mars attacks’ one here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM&feature=player_embedded

    & the BA’s write up & discussion of them here:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/02/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/

    IMHO. ;-)

    Any “Climate Skeptics” :roll: would be well advised to go through all these and rethink their position before posting their balony here because these debunk all their claims very well.

  37. Arthur Taylor

    Man, it’s really good to see he (and Webb) are so well thought of, loo or look, regardless! Warms me little cockles. Uh, something else that doesn’t translate too well. Never mind.

  38. Scott B

    I can’t hear the audio at work, so I’ll have to view it at home. For some reason I doubt there’s a detailed economic and sociological discussion on the benefits and detriments to moving away from fossil fuels on a global scale in a timely enough fashion to have much of an impact on the warming. Such a subject can’t be tackled in a little over 3 minutes. The science may tell us our best estimates for the future climate under certain scenarios. It can’t tell us the right policies though.

    “Nullius, anti-environmentalists have always predicted that good environmental stewardship would destroy the economy and history has always proved them wrong.”

    In every single case, better environmental policy was only implemented when there were cost effective alternatives. As one example, efforts to phase out CFC’s failed repeatedly until DuPont developed a low cost chemical substitute that did not deplete the ozone. Conveniently right before their patent for Freon ran out. We do not have cost effective alternatives to fossil fuels in most areas of the world. Nuclear might be a decent medium term solution for new power plants, but most greens have an irrational fear of it and is only a solution for non-transportation related energy.

  39. vel

    wow, the willful ignorance and greed in nullius is amazing:

    “The basic idea of the scheme is to make Bangladesh as rich as Holland.

    And they’re both going to be fine anyway, because of the way geography works. One’s on a river delta, and the other’s a coral island.”

    just wow. Let’s see, coral islands can be covered with water and river deltas over flooded land aren’t too useful. As Bugs Bunny says, what a marroon, what an ignoramus.

  40. Messier Tidy Upper

    @33. Nullius in Verba Says:

    The basic idea of the scheme is to make Bangladesh as rich as Holland. And they’re both going to be fine anyway, because of the way geography works. One’s on a river delta, and the other’s a coral island.

    So which one is the coral island – Bangladesh or Holland?
    Er .. Neither actually. :roll:

    Bangladesh is on a river delta – its Wikipedia page notes :

    Bangladesh is in the low-lying Ganges–Brahmaputra River Delta or Ganges Delta. This delta is formed by the confluence of the Ganges (local name Padma or Pôdda), Brahmaputra (Jamuna or Jomuna), and Meghna rivers and their respective tributaries. The Ganges unites with the Jamuna (main channel of the Brahmaputra) and later joins the Meghna to eventually empty into the Bay of Bengal. … [Snip!] .. Most parts of Bangladesh are less than 12 m (39.4 ft) above the sea level, and it is believed that about 50% of the land would be flooded if the sea level were to rise by 1 m (3.28 ft).

    (Emphasis added.)

    Oh & it also notes there that Bangladesh is the world’s seventh most populous nation.

    Hmmm…

    Then we have Holland (actually the Netherlands of which North& South Hollad are provinces) which is *also*, mostly, a river delta. Its Wikipedia page notes :

    The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country, with about 20% of its area and 21% of its population located below sea level,[7] with 50% of its land lying less than one metre above sea level. … [Snip!] … Much of the Netherlands is formed by the estuary of three important European rivers, which together with their distributaries form the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta. Most of the country is very flat, with the exception of foothills in the far southeast and several low-hill ranges in the central parts.

    The Netherlands is the worlds “legal” capital and is the 61st most populous nation on the planet and the 11th in European terms.

    Hmm .. again.

    PS. That took me all of ten minutes or so to research and confirm on Wikipedia.

  41. Nullius in Verba

    #40, vel,

    “just wow. Let’s see, coral islands can be covered with water and river deltas over flooded land aren’t too useful.”

    Did you ever do geography at school? One of the things they do pretty early on is how rivers work. A river erodes rock and soil which it caries down to the sea, and as it reaches sea level there is no longer a gradient to drive its motion, it spreads out across a broad front, and it slows/stops. At which point it drops its sediment, creating new land. That’s why river deltas are so flat, and so close to sea level – the shape of the land is controlled by the sea level.

    Bangladesh has significant subsidence both because it is on the Indian tectonic plate being driven down under the Himalayas, and because delta silt is being slowly compacted. Even without sea level change, if it was not continually being maintained it would eventually sink. Despite this, the continual deposition from the rivers means that Bangladesh is actually growing in size.

    Sea levels have risen significantly over the past 20,000 years. Look up “meltwater pulse 1a” to see what I mean. It’s extremely unlikely for so much land to be so close to what is essentially a fairly arbitrary sea level in geological terms by chance. All that flat land is geologically new, no older than the current sea level.

    Same goes for corals. Actually, it was Charles Darwin who figured this out on his voyages to the Galapagos. Coral islands are low and flat because coral growth is limited by the sea level. Corals are capable of growing much faster than the sea level rises, keeping pace with the surface. Some islands will shrink and some will grow but overall they’ll do more or less what they’ve always done.

    Anybody who was the least bit sceptical, and had some very basic scientific knowledge about the way land changes with erosion and deposition, could easily have realised that there was something odd about these claims. Calculations that simply count up how many people live within so many metres of sea level are generally bogus.

    But even people who pride themselves on their scepticism always apply it selectively. It’s entirely human. That’s why it is important to ensure that even concepts that you think are obvious or well-established are regularly challenged. It keeps confidence in them strong.

    Admitting ignorance is the first step on the path to learning. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    #41, Messier,

    “So which one is the coral island – Bangladesh or Holland?” The Maldives. :-)

    According to the IPCC, “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea level rise and river flooding because 55 percent of its territory is below sea level.”

    Right?

  42. Messier Tidy Upper

    Ah but you didn’t mention the *Maldives* there did you? You just mentioned Holland (actually the Netherlands) & Bangladesh. ;-)

    As for your argument about coral atolls and fluvial (river) eusturies being able to keep pace with sea level change that’s only true if the sea level change is fairly slow – if we increase the rate at which sea level rises then we are very likely to find the natural balancing processes (ie. sediment deposition & coral growth) are no longer able to keep up and thus fail and these deltas and atolls get flooded and overwhelmed. Especially when combined with more frequent and severe storms which are another predicted outcome of (Catastrophic?) Anthropogenic Global Warming. :-(

    Oh and there’s likely more frequent and severe coral bleaching due to warmer ocean temperatures and issues with possible changes in the acidity of the seawater to take into account as well. Plus ecological shifts with potential outbreaks of pests and diseases that were formerly less of a problem. Combine these and we do have cause for concern here. :-(

  43. Nullius in Verba

    “Ah but you didn’t mention the *Maldives* there did you?”

    No, but the question I was answering did.

    As for the rest, I don’t have time to go into the details now, but I’ll simply point out that corals as a species have survived the past sea level rises, higher temperatures, and vastly higher CO2 levels that we can see in the geological record. How?

    AGW sceptics believe in climate change. AGW believers seem to believe in a virtually static climate state that is only just now changing.

    I can’t make you apply scepticism if you don’t want to, but how sure are you that all those disaster predictions are sound? How much of this argument with me is because you’ve checked it out and know, and how much because you need me to be wrong?

  44. Sion

    If, like me, you have drunk the Jobsian Kool-aid, you will be pleased to know that there is a David Mitchell’s Soapbox app (free) and they can also, if that is your thing, be downloaded from the itunes store.

    If this counts as advertising for Apple I shall await my shill’s reward of a laptop eagerly.

  45. Messier Tidy Upper

    @45. Nullius in Verba Says:

    “Ah but you didn’t mention the *Maldives* there did you?”
    No, but the question I was answering did.

    Well you could’ve made that clearer to begin with. :roll:

    AGW sceptics believe in climate change. AGW believers seem to believe in a virtually static climate state that is only just now changing.

    Not true. Its the fact that humans are causing this change at a dangerously rapid pace and causing these problems that we’re worried about. I am well aware of past climate variations throughout geological history over aeons of shifting continents and slowly evolving lifeforms – but it’s the current climate change caused by human activity that’s the issue here.

    I can’t make you apply scepticism if you don’t want to, but how sure are you that all those disaster predictions are sound? How much of this argument with me is because you’ve checked it out and know, and how much because you need me to be wrong?

    I have absolutely have checked his issue out over many years – I was a former skeptic myself who has gradually accepted the unpleasant reality here. I urge you to look at the “Crock of the Week” videoclips posted by (#38) Pi-needles here and at previous discussions on this blog and eslewhere online (eg. Real Science) where there is ample evidence provided by many places and scientists all refuting the so-called “climate skeptics” claims. I don’t want AGW to be true – I’d be much happier if it wasn’t – but it is & we just have to accept the mountain range of evidence for it. :-(

  46. Nullius in Verba

    Messier,

    When you say “humans are causing this change at a dangerously rapid pace” and “it’s the current climate change caused by human activity that’s the issue here” do you mean the change right now, or the change projected for the next hundred years?

    Let me run some numbers past you. This is not supposed to be a case for or against, more a check to see if we’re even talking about the same thing.

    The basic greenhouse effect with a change in CO2 alone is calculated in models to produce about 1.1 C increase per doubling of CO2. The effect is approximately logarithmic, so each subsequent doubling produces another 1.1 C. A 40% rise in CO2 would give half that (since 1.4×1.4 = 2) which would be 0.55 C or thereabouts. Over the period of the 20th century, the CO2 level rose from 280 ppm to 380 ppm which is a 40% rise. Thus we expect about 0.6 C, which is more or less what has been observed. If CO2 rises exponentially (and I should say that a quadratic rise fits the data better) then we might expect another 40% over the 21st century, which is again about 0.55 C. Given the low signal to noise ratio, it’s questionable whether we could even detect that on a global scale, let alone a local one.

    So, pretty obviously, this is not what the AGW people are saying. They are not talking about the physics of CO2, and longwave absorption, they are talking about the physics that turns 0.6 C into planetary doom. Precisely what is that physics, and what is the empirical evidence for it?

    This effect has to have a number of properties.
    1. It must multiply the 1.1 C/2xCO2 into something scary.
    2. During the 20th century, it has to have been masked by other effects that prevent us seeing any sign of it.
    3. These masking effects have to stop their masking during the coming century.

    So of course we have climate feedbacks proposed for 1. and we have the aerosols and oceans’ heat capacity for 2.

    Regarding feedbacks, we have a low level of scientific understanding here, particularly of the effects of clouds. The water vapour feedback implies an increase of the moist adiabatic lapse rate in the tropics, which shows up in the model results as an upper-troposphere “hot spot”. One on which the models stand in contradiction to observation. The contradiction is not fatal to to the feedback theory, but it counts against it. There is some recent evidence on cloud feedbacks suggesting they might be strongly negative.

    Regarding aerosols we also have a low level of understanding, and very limited measurements. While measurements exist going a long way back, smoke pollution is localised, short-lived, and not well-mixed, so we can’t get accurate global figures. However, if aerosols had such a major effect, one would expect the anomalous cooling to occur where the pollution is, and for cleaner air to be warming rapidly. Is this so?

    And ocean heat capacity is more complicated than the simple explanation most commonly seen suggests. If you have ever gone swimming in it in both summer and winter, you will know that it can change temperature considerably in a matter of months. But we are supposed to believe that it will take decades to heat it even a degree? No, this is a far more complex and speculative bit of physics than simple heat capacity – to do with deep-layer mixing. We don’t have the measurements to say, and what measurements we do have are not entirely supportive. The energy budget cannot be balanced, yet.

    And there is a distinct possibility (and some pretty hot statistics to back it up) suggesting that the observed trend might be a stochastic trend – a random effect of the autocorrelation structure of the temperature time series. If true, this would mean that even the 0. 6 C seen might be spurious, and any warming so far statistically undetectable.

    I’m always keen to meet knowledgeable people who have checked it out for themselves, who believe differently to me, and are willing to tell me why they believe. It’s the best way to learn. So, what answers did you find to the above?

    I’ve seen crock of the week before, and it’s mostly straw men, emotional appeals, argument from authority, and deception. I just looked at the latest one out of curiosity, about the US military, and it was distinctly unimpressive. I picked up several errors and non sequiturs without even trying.

    If you want, I can play the same game and use Ted Turner’s prediction of widespread cannibalism by 2040 as representative of AGW science – it’s what a lot of people see on TV, and I didn’t hear any great outcry from pro-AGW scientists against it – but I’m not interested in that sort of polemic.

    I’m sort of surprised that you could have thought ‘crock’ would convince me – or indeed any sceptic. (In the generalised sense.) It’s certainly far from the best argument in favour of AGW. Do you have anything better?

  47. Robert Carnegie

    As far as I remember, Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle has commented on global warming, sea level etc., “We get to sit on top of our mountains and watch English people drown.” He also rhapsodised about growing and consuming pineapples and coconuts in balmy sunny Scotland-to-be – or at least about them being available other than in tinned fruit salad – instead of, I suppose, pine cones and beech nuts.

    This morning it rained quite a lot, so there’s a ways to go. But I think England is also sinking below the sea for geological reasons anyway – indirectly climate: Scotland (mostly) isn’t covered by deep and heavy glaciers any more that were weighing us down, for a “surely no one lived here in that” version of “us”, and so is still rising upwards, with the side effect of sucking England down. It’s slow but we’ll get ‘em in the end.

    Fancy doing the Edinburgh Festival and Fringe at all?

  48. Thorny

    @48, Nullius in Verba:

    You omit from your approach the fact that there is a baseline CO_2 level, so getting from 280 to 380 ppm means increasing human contribution from something under 50 ppm to 150 ppm in the best case I can imagine. If the growth stayed exponential, you’d see over 450 ppm anthropogenic CO_2 by the end of the next century, which means roughly a doubling (not +40%) of the total CO_2 amount and the corresponding global temperature rise of over 1°C.

    PS: According to the Keeling curve, you have 316 ppm and slope 0.71 ppm/yr in 1960, and 378 ppm with slope 2.14 ppm/yr in 2005. Under the assumption of exponential growth, that indicates a threefold growth in 45 years (ninefold increase in a century) and a baseline of 285 ppm. That would mean another ~200 ppm in the next 50 years, and over 2°C increase over the next century.

  49. Nullius in Verba

    Thorny,

    Yes, you’re right.

    Thank you. That’s very helpful.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »