Our guest blogger is Robert Brulle, professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University.

The New York Times’ climate science coverage in the 1970s reflected the lack of consensus among scientists.

In “Climate Science in a Tornado,” George F. Will has completely misrepresented the historical New York Times coverage of the “global cooling” issue. Despite Will’s claim that the New York Times was a “megaphone for the alarmed” during “1970s predictions about the near certainty of calamitous global cooling,” its coverage was actually nuanced and prescient.

On December 21, 1969, the New York Times ran a UPI wire story, “Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution,” which reported that scientists discussed the possible threat of manmade global warming at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, with calls for greater monitoring of the climate:

J.O. Fletcher, a physical scientist for the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., said that “man had only a few decades to solve the problem of global warming caused by pollution.” Global warming could cause further melting of the polar ice caps and affect the earth’s climate.

On December 29, 1974, the New York Times ran the story, “Forecast for Forecasting: Cloudy.” This article is a long discussion of the state of climate forecasting, and has an extensive discussion of the process of global cooling due to aerosols, and the contrary impact of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and the great difficulty in developing valid and reliable climate forecasting models. The lead paragraph:

In the long term, climate is cooling off — or is it warming up? As for tomorrow’s weather, even the world’s biggest computer can’t say for sure what it will be.

On May 21, 1975, the New York Times ran the story, “Scientists Ask Why the Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead.” This article begins with a clear statement of uncertainty:

The world’s climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.

On August 14, 1975, the New York Times ran, “Warming Trend Seen in Climate.” In this article, the New York Times discusses two scientific articles that focus on the overall climate patterns. It covers the debate over global cooling due to aerosols and global warming due to CO2 increases:

Dr. [Wally] Broecker’s argument is that the present cooling trend in the north will be reversed as more and more carbon dioxide is introduced into the atmosphere by the burning of fuels.

In the decades since, of course, scientists have come to the consensus that our continued burning of fossil fuels are tied to the warming of the planet. It is not the New York Times that is dishonest in its coverage, it is George F. Will.

Please email and phone Andrew Alexander at 202-334-7582 or at ombudsman@washpost.com.

The Washington Post ombudsman is the paper’s “internal critic and represents readers.” Yet Andrew Alexander has basically decided to take on the role of defender of Will and the Post and his own mistakes. He has seriously undermined both his credibility and his independence, while at the same time making himself part of the story — serious mistakes for an ombudsman.

You can read Alexander’s column here. You can read a good line by line response by Siegal here.

I have three main issues. First, for Alexander, the entire controversy is about “the reference to the Arctic Climate Research Center.” In short, he got suckered by Will’s second column in which Will now infamously made his most egregious lie and the Post editors let him get away with it:

The [February 15] column contained many factual assertions but only one has been challenged. The challenge is mistaken.

As readers know, the first column contained multiple falsehoods that were challenged point by point here, elsewhere, and even in a joint letter to the Post from several leading environmentalists.

And the second column was egregiously allowed to reassert that all of those other falsehoods were “factual assertions,” plus make some new falsehoods, as I detailed at length here: In a blunder reminiscent of Janet Cooke scandal, the Washington Post lets George Will reassert all his climate falsehoods plus some new ones.

[This is not to let Will off for his abuse of the Arctic ice source, which Alexander entirely missed the point on. See, for instance, the NYT's Revkin here and below.]

Read more

The Obama Administration’s early leadership on global warming seems to have stirred up the climate skeptics, cynics and deniers again. Now they’re trying to discredit not only climate science, but the climate scientists President Obama has appointed to advise him.

But none of the squabbling in the media matters. Once the science debate moves outside our laboratories, classrooms, science journals and that part of the blogosphere that knows what it’s talking about, it becomes not about science but about entertainment.

For those of us who are not scientists, action is what’s important. We need not let the science debate put us off. Why? Because climate change is an issue where you don’t have to agree on the problem to agree on the solutions.

There are other reasons not to be distracted from bold and timely action.

Read more

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is the first member of Congress to weigh in on George F. Will’s egregiously mendacious “global cooling” columns. In a Huffington Post column, Kerry delivers a withering critique of one of his “favorite intellectual sparring partners,” stepping up to the plate on behalf of science and scientists everywhere, including Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and White House Science Adviser John Holdren:

Dragging up long-discredited myths about some non-existent scientific consensus about global cooling from the 1970s does no one any good. Except perhaps a bankrupt flat earth crowd. I hate to review the record and see that someone as smart as George Will has been doing exactly that as far back as 1992. And it’s especially troubling when the very sources that Will cites in his February 15th column draw the exact opposite conclusions and paint very different pictures than Will provides, as the good folks at ThinkProgress and Media Matters for America have demonstrated so thoroughly.

Stephen Chu “is no Cassandra,” Kerry explains. “If his predictions about the effects of our climate crisis are scary, it’s because our climate is scary.” To be fair to Cassandra, her predictions of the fall of Troy were right — what would make Dr. Chu different is if the American people listen to him, instead of the George Wills of the world. Which is why Senator Kerry took up Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt’s challenge and calls on Will for a public battle of the minds:

I know George Will well, I respect his intellect and his powers of persuasion — but I’d happily debate him any day on this question so critical to our survival.

News from the front: Accompanying Pelosi’s and Reid’s announcement that the Capitol Power Plant will switch to natural gas, more coal plants around the country are on the chopping block due to lawsuits and power companies’ getting wise.

Behind enemy lines, however, the industry-funded front group ACCCE (American Coalition for Clean Coal Euphemisms?) is regrouping and recruiting new allies.

In Tulsa Oklahoma, a proposal to build a second coal-fired generation plant was abandoned last week.

The decision came directly from the project developer (global power giant AES), without litigation, but AES spokesmen were murky about the exact reasons for their decision to pull out, saying only:

Read more

George Will lashes out at New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin for “meretricious journalism” in a column today that attempts to justify his significant factual errors but “can’t help making new ones.” But in an interview with Columbia Journalism Review, Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt defended George Will, saying he is simply “drawing inferences from data that most scientists reject,” and calling critics “irresponsible.”

In fact, Science Progress Chris Mooney explains, “George Will made factual errors rather than debatable inferences.” In sum, Will has not only lied about scientific research, he has also falsely attributed his own opinions to the following named sources: New York Times, Science, Science News, the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, and the “Arctic Climate Research Center” (sic). Before Hiatt’s outburst, Oregonian commentary editor Galen Burnett told the Wonk Room in a telephone interview:

I was a little troubled by the response from the Washington Post editors which was basically dismissive of people’s challenge of the column. That’s the more troubling aspect to me. I would expect more of the Post.

Union of Concerned Scientists spokesman Aaron Huertas told the Wonk Room:

Clearly something wrong is going on with their factchecking process, because what Will said was clearly incorrect.

We’ll continue to attempt to get word from Hiatt — who has ignored several telephone calls and emails — to see if he considers the Oregonian and the Union of Concerned Scientists “irresponsible” critics.

The factual errors in George Will’s “Dark Green Doomsayers” [2/15/09] (DGD) and “Climate Science in A Tornado” [2/27/09] (CST): Read more

Speaking before a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, President Barack Obama declared that his plan to restore America’s economic prosperity “begins with energy.” The details of his proposed budgetary outline reveal what Obama meant. George W. Bush’s energy policy was based on tax breaks for polluters and making everyone else pay the costs of pollution. Obama’s decision to make polluters pay instead is a breath of fresh air:

Restoration of Superfund. In 2002, Bush shafted Superfund, the successful program to clean up the most toxic sites in America, by eliminating the tax on industrial polluters “that once generated about $1 billion a year.” President Obama’s budget reinstates Superfund taxes in 2011, restoring $17 billion over ten years to the depleted program.

Polluters Pay To Fight Climate Change And Make Work Pay. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, instituted a voluntary program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2002 (they rose). President Obama calls for a mandatory cap on carbon emissions starting in 2012, expected to raise $645.7 billion over ten years. Instead of sending those revenues back to the polluters, $15 billion a year will go to clean energy technologies, with the rest funding the Making Work Pay tax credit to reduce payroll taxes for every working American.

Ending Tax Breaks For Fossil Fuel Industry. Big Oil had no better friends in the White House than Bush and Cheney, both oil men. Oil, natural gas, and coal companies enjoyed record profits even as the rest of America suffered from skyrocketing energy prices. Yet Bush protected numerous incentives and tax breaks for companies that drill and mine our shared resources. President Obama’s budget eliminates $31.75 billion in oil and gas company giveaways and increases the return from natural resources on federal lands by $2.9 billion over ten years.

In a column at the Center for American Progress, director of climate strategy Dan Weiss analyzes the budget and finds: “President Obama’s proposed energy budget is a ray of sunshine after an eight-year blackout. Congress must now make this clean energy future a reality.”

When I first read the E&E News PM story (subs. req’d), “Boxer eyeing bold move to thwart GOP filibuster on emissions bill,” I was skeptical of the strategy described:

The chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee is considering a bold budget move aimed at passing global warming legislation in the Senate without having to deal with an expected Republican filibuster.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that she is researching the use of the budget reconciliation process as an avenue for passing cap-and-trade legislation now considered a key agenda item for President Obama.

“We’re certainly exploring it as a possibility,” Boxer said of budget reconciliation, a bill that cannot be filibustered and therefore does not require meeting the 60-vote threshold that has consistently been a key hurdle to passage of global warming legislation.

After all, the climate bill will be among the consequential pieces of legislation ever considered by Congress given that failure to solve the climate problem will grievously harm the health and well-being the next 50 generations of Americans (see NOAA stunner: Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe). Shouldn’t that issue be debated extensively?

But then I read William Kristol’s Thusday op-ed, which argued Republicans need to “find reasons to obstruct and delay” Obama’s agenda. I guess that’s why they I call it the conservative movement stagnation.

Conservatives have no strategy for averting catastrophe. Indeed, they have chosen to tie the fate of their entire movement stagnation to humanity’s self-destruction (see “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped“). It is now taken for granted that one must get 60 votes for every piece of legislation because t is taken for granted that conservatives will filibuster anything Democrats tried to do, including trying to pass legislation aimed at preventing the unimaginable horror of 5.5° to 7°C warming and 850 ppm.

I still think Obama and his team must actively work to explain to the public the urgent need for action and the availability of myiad affordable solutions (see “Obama can get a better climate bill in 2010“). But I think Boxer’s strategy may be worth considering. Here are more details:

Read more

[Please Digg this post by clicking here. Updates are at the end. The NYT's Andy Revkin has a very good debunking of Will with detailed comments from leading cryosphere experts, "Experts: Big Flaw in Will's Ice Assertions." Sadly, Andy continues his refusal to correct the harm he did to Gore by equating him with Will. In a day or two, I will attempt to untarnish Gore's reputation to make clear that he did nothing whatsoever wrong -- intentionally or unintentionally -- as opposed to Will who has done multiple things wrong intentionally.]

“When a reputable newspaper lies, it poisons the community; every newspaper story becomes suspect,” declared a New York Times editorial. “Great publications magnify the voice of any single writer. Thus, when their editors or publishers want or need to know a source for what they print, they have to know it and be able to assure the community or the courts that they do. Where this is not now the rule, let this sad affair at least have the good effect of making it the rule.” That editorial was published on April 17, 1981 about the transgressions of a Washington Post reporter named Janet Cooke [who fabricated a story, which the Post later submitted for a Pulitzer Prize "despite the growing signs of problems" with the story's veracity].

Incomprehensibly, the Washington Post — after being roundly criticized for having senior editors and fact-checkers (and then their ombudsman!) sign off on (and then defend) George Will’s error-riddled global warming column — has allowed George Will to reassert in a new column (here) that every single one of his falsehoods was factual. [For a point-by-point debunking of the original February 15 piece, see CP and Wonk Room and this joint letter to WP].

And in what seems to be Alice-in-Wonderland journalism, a senior editor at the Washington Post now asserts it is perfectly reasonable for a non-scientist Post writer to reinterpret a prestigious source’s scientific data to support his or her conclusion — after those sources have repeatedly stated that their data is consistent with the exact opposite conclusion and without telling readers of that disagreement. And not only did Will do that multiple times in his first piece — the Post still let him do it again after he was called on it by multiple writers (see Washington Monthly and CP).

Much as I would like to spend my time writing about the strategies needed to prevent business-as-usual warming of 5°C to 7°C, both of my parents were award-winning professional journalists, and I think this story is simply too important not to focus a maximum spotlight on.

I will go through Will’s new and old falsehoods at length here because, as I noted above, the NYT editorialized on the Post’s infamous Janet Cooke scandal, “When a reputable newspaper lies, it poisons the community; every newspaper story becomes suspect.” Just as with the Janet Cooke scandal, this is about a major Washington Post writer fabricating and misusing soucres.

Media Matters saw Will’s column in advance and debunked it here, showing how Will doubled down on his previous global warming distortions and cited a document on sea ice trends as evidence against human-caused global warming when that “document actually states that the sea ice data are consistent with the outcomes projected by climate-change models.” And Will cited the U.N. World Meteorological Organization [WMO] — with no source citation — saying “there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade,” when, as Media Matters showed, as recently as January 7, Agence France-Presse quoted WMO secretary general Michel Jarraud as saying, “The major trend is unmistakably one of warming.” I have similar quotes from WMO in my original post.

The abuse of sources in Will’s columns — signed off on and defended by the Post’s editors (and ombudsman) should be a cautionary tale equal to the Janet Cooke story. One can only assume, sadly, that given the controversy, Will’s new piece was as at least as fact-checked as the original, which, according to the Washington Post ombudsman was “checked by people he [Will] personally employs, as well as two editors at the Washington Post Writers Group, which syndicates Will; our op-ed page editor; and two copy editors” (see here).

And yet the fact-checkers let through a lie so egregious that it would seem to utterly vitiate the credibility of the Post all by itself. Will was allowed to publish the following statement:

Read more

Responding pre-emptively to plans of a massive act of civil disobedience at the coal-fired U.S. Capitol Power Plant, the leaders of Congress today called for an end to its use of coal. In a letter to the Architect of the Capitol, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) describe the plant as “a shadow that hangs over the success” of the architect’s efforts to green the Capitol:

The Capitol Power Plant (CPP) continues to be the number one source of air pollution and carbon emissions in the District of Columbia and the focal point for criticism from local community and national environmental and public health groups.

Reid and Pelosi note that “there are not projected to be any economical or feasible technologies to reduce coal-burning emissions soon.” (In other words, coal is dirty.) They ask the architect to switch the plant fully to natural gas “by the end of the year”:

Therefore it is our desire that your approach focus on retrofitting at least one of the coal boilers as early as this summer, and the remaining boiler by the end of the year.

The switch will allow the plant “to dramatically reduce carbon and criteria pollutant emissions, eliminating more than 95 percent of sulfur oxides and at least 50 percent of carbon monoxide,” as well as the costs of “cleaning up the fly ash and waste.”

Gristmill’s Kate Sheppard reports “that doesn’t mean the big protest on Monday is off, according to organizers,” because “there are still hundreds of other power plants burning coal around the country.”

One thing is clear from President Obama’s new budget. He is delivering on the promise of his first month and continues his unprecedented effort to reverse decades of unsustainable national policy forced down the throat of the American public by conservatives (see “31 days that made — and may remake — history“).

His $3.5 trillion budget blueprint has a big boost in clean energy, projects the bulk of cap-and-trade revenue will go to cut taxes on the middle class (duh), and eliminates $31.5 billion in “oil and gas company preferences” over a decade. Greenwire lays out the details in a series of articles (subs. req’d, excerpted below):

Specifically, Obama said his plan would invest $15 billion a year for the next decade to develop renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and to build more fuel-efficient vehicles. “It’s an investment that will put people back to work, make our nation more secure, and help us meet our obligation as good stewards of the Earth we all inhabit,” Obama said.

Hand-in-hand with energy spending, Obama said he intends to push for implementation of a market-based cap on greenhouse gas emissions that the administration says will drive investment toward renewable energy and provide funding for the renewable energy initiatives.

Conservatives will not give up their self-destructively unsustainable ways easily, though (see “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped“). House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said: ” ‘Cap-and-trade’ is code for increasing taxes, killing American jobs, and raising energy costs for consumers.”

Here are the details on Obama’s budget-related cap-and-trade plans:

Read more

[Please Digg this post by clicking here.]

No doubt spurred on by the impending civil disobedience, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) posted a statement and a letter on her blog (here):

Today, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent the following letter to the Acting Architect of the Capitol, Stephen T. Ayers, asking that the Capitol Power Plant (CPP) use 100 percent natural gas for its operations. They write, “the switch to natural gas will allow the CPP to dramatically reduce carbon and criteria pollutant emissions, eliminating more than 95 percent of sulfur oxides and at least 50 percent of carbon monoxide… We strongly encourage you to move forward aggressively with us on a comprehensive set of policies for the entire Capitol complex and the entire Legislative Branch to quickly reduce emissions and petroleum consumption through energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean alternative fuels.”

UPDATE: Bill McKibben, who helped organize the impending civil disobedience at the CPP emails me “just to say, this civil disobedience stuff kind of works. How many coal plants are there?”

Here is the letter:

Read more

The anti-clean-coal Reality Campaign is a coalition of some very serious groups and smart people. They have the same goal as all climate realists — stopping new dirty coal plants. But I just don’t think they have figured out an effective way to attack clean coal clap trap yet.

I criticized the first mocking ad of the Reality Campaign for many reasons, including a lack of obvious message (see here). I criticized their second mocking ad for many reasons, including a lack of obvious message and their continued use of mockery (see Does the “Reality Campaign” need new Mad Men?).

Now they have a third ad, which again relies on mockery (!), but at least they have gotten the best in the film business at irony to direct it (though not to write it) — the Coen brother (whom I love, see my interpretation of No Country for Old Men as a parable about global warming). Here is the ad:

I’ll share my view and then I’d love to hear yours.

Read more

Given that climate legislation will touch every sector of the economy — and ultimately generate hundreds of billions of dollars from the sale of emissions allowances — it is no surprise that everyone is bringing on hired guns.

But Washington DC is turning into the Wild West, into Deadwood, as an important new Center for Public Integrity analysis (here) of Senate lobbying disclosure forms makes clear:

More than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence federal policy on climate change in the past year, as the issue gathered momentum and came to a vote on Capitol Hill. That’s an increase of more than 300 percent in the number of lobbyists on climate change in just five years, and means that Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress. It also means that 15 percent of all Washington lobbyists spent at least some of their time on global warming in 2008.

Here is a breakdown by sector (click to enlarge):

And many of these 2340 lobbyists are quite senior and influential:

Read more

Some evidence suggests e-readers (like the Amazon Kindle below) are better than both print and online reading when it comes to environmental impact. This article is reprinted from the Center for American Progress’s “It’s Easy Being Green” series.

With the proliferation of e-book readers and online news, it seems an appropriate time to ask: What’s greenest way to read?

Read more

Inarguably, “Coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet” as our top climate scientist, James Hansen, has explained.

Hansen will be joining more than 2,500 people who have registered to participate in “the largest act of peaceful civil disobedience on global warming in the country’s history” — this Monday, March 2 at the Capitol Power Plant. The Plant is owned by Congress and burns coal to heat and cool numerous buildings on Capitol Hill. Details can be found at the Capitol Climate Action Coalition website, where you’ll find this video from Hansen urging participation:

If you still need persuading, read the open letter from two of America’s leading men of letters, Wendell Berry and Bill McKibben (see McKibben and Berry call for civil disobedience at DC coal plant: “Bear witness to an evil”).

I will repeat my thoughts on civil disobedience against coal below — and I am quite interested in hearing your thoughts.

Read more

The Senate climate legislation process seems to have hit a speed bump the same day the House process did. Greenwire (subs. req’d) reports:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that Congress could meet President Obama’s call for passing sweeping energy legislation this year — including a climate cap-and-trade measure — though it might take three bills to do it.

The Nevada Democrat outlined what he sees as a three-pronged strategy for meeting the goals Obama laid out in his speech to Congress last night and said the Senate could pass all the bills by the end of the year.

First comes a clean energy bill, then a transmission bill, then a cap-and-trade. I suppose it is theoretically possible the Senate could pass all three by the end of the year (plus a budget and healthcare and everything else).

But I do think this vindicates my earlier prediction that Obama would not get a bill on his desk this year, since the Senate bill would still have to be reconciled with the House bill and then passed by both houses — and I don’t think that’s terribly easy. But again, I think that is probably a good thing because “Obama can get a better climate bill in 2010.”

Now I do take exception to Greenwire‘s interpretation of what Obama said about timing:

Read more

E&E News PM (subs. req’d) reports:

The House Ways and Means Committee plans to mark up global warming emissions legislation by Memorial Day, setting up a possible turf fight among powerful Democratic committee leaders over one of President Obama’s signature agenda items.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he wants to move a climate bill within the next three months and has asked committee members to begin sorting through at least four different legislative proposals that would place a price on greenhouse gas emissions that scientists attribute to global warming.

Rangel’s committee members also are sifting through any jurisdictional issues associated with their climate bills to determine what crossover they may have with the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Rangel’s tax-writing panel is likely to claim jurisdiction over climate legislation that generates revenues for the Treasury, a challenge of sorts for Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) as he produces his own comprehensive energy and climate measure.

Now if this slows things down a bit, I think that is probably a good thing because “Obama can get a better climate bill in 2010.”

We know that while Sen. Reid (D-NV) says he’d like to see a global warming bill on Senate floor “hopefully late this summer,” the Senate bill is also going to go through multiple committees (see “Sen. Boxer makes clear U.S. won’t pass a climate bill this year“). And the Senate bill will probably be quite different from the House bill. So again I just don’t see how Obama gets a bill on his desk this year, which, again, is not necessarily bad.

Here is the rest of the story:
Read more

The Center for Public Integrity has found that “more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence federal policy on climate change in the past year,” estimating total expenditures of $90 million. Their comprehensive investigation of climate lobbying discovered that nearly 2,000 of the lobbyists represent corporate interests.

CPI found that the top climate lobbying shop was the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a coal-industry front group that spent $10.5 million lobbying Congress:

No group exemplifies the sophistication of the current debate more than the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity — a new lobbying organization unveiled just weeks before the vote last June on the Warner-Lieberman bill. Representing 48 mining firms, coal-hauling railroads and coal-burning power companies, ACCCE spent $10.5 million lobbying Capitol Hill on climate in 2008 — more than any other organization solely dedicated to the issue. In addition to the group’s president, Steven Miller, a one-time aide to former Democratic Kentucky Gov. Brereton Jones, and vice president Joe Lucas, who was an aide to former Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary, ACCCE has at least 15 outside lobbyists, including former White House Counsel Quinn. The big effort is not surprising, since electricity is the largest single source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the most carbon-intensive fuel, coal, provides half the nation’s power. But ACCCE’s position is that it supports a mandatory federal program to curb the emissions its own members produce — as long as the policy meets ACCCE’s set of principles for keeping electricity affordable, domestically produced, and reliable. And that means encouraging, in ACCCE’s words, “robust utilization of coal.”

Check out the “The Climate Change Lobby” site, including a searchable database of lobbyists and a sampling of top players.

The story and the scientist behind the remarkable video is here.