Suspicions that greatest leak caused catastrophic heat anomaly!

By Bruce Wilkinson

Executive Summary

This article argues that the largest man-made methane release in history, which occurred in the Arctic in September 2022, may be the primary cause of the unexpected heat anomaly experienced in 2023 and ongoing today. The author presents several reasons why the methane release is likely very significant, despite early reports downplaying the impact. The biggest potential reason has to do with the multiple multiplier effects that are potentially at play to enhance Arctic Amplification exponentially.


The biggest question facing climate scientists right now is what caused the huge heat anomaly of 2023. Without discovering the cause of the heat anomaly, climate models may not successfully predict 2024 and beyond. Considering the size of the anomaly, the cause must be something large, so why don’t scientists see it? Many hypothesisis have been put forward and subsequently ruled out, most for good scientific reasons. However, one clear suspect of the anomaly was never thoroughly examined by climate scientists. The reason that it wasn’t examined unfortunately might have less to do with the science than the political atmosphere surrounding it.

Advice often repeated is that sometimes a difficult problem needs a fresh pair of eyes. At the same time, most fields of study are insular and resist outsider perspectives, especially if it runs close to sensitive issues. This seems to be the conundrum I’ve stumbled upon in my attempt to speak with climate scientists and journalists grappling with the “2023 heat anomaly.” They seem stumped as to the cause of the anomaly but when I suggest an overlooked potential suspect, the response is usually silence or derision. The suggested cause I put forward therefore doesn’t even receive a mention in the recent article in “Nature” by Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

“For the past nine months, mean land and sea surface temperatures have overshot previous records each month by up to 0.2 °C — a huge margin at the planetary scale. A general warming trend is expected because of rising greenhouse-gas emissions, but this sudden heat spike greatly exceeds predictions made by statistical climate models that rely on past observations. Many reasons for this discrepancy have been proposed but, as yet, no combination of them has been able to reconcile our theories with what has happened,” writes Schmidt.

While he doesn’t specifically mention the reason I propose, Schmidt does list several other reasons that have been proposed. However he concluded that, “after taking all plausible explanations into account, the divergence between expected and observed annual mean temperatures in 2023 remains about 0.2 °C — roughly the gap between the previous and current annual record.”

Schmidt singled out one proposed reason for a little more attention. The proposed reason is that 2020 laws, implemented to reduce air pollution by mandating container ships start using low sulfur diesel, accidentally caused an increase in heating. The theory goes, that by reducing the particulates they also caused a reduction in cloud cover, which is causing the heat. Scientifically, Schmidt’s conclusions about this reason are essentially the same as the other potential reasons he listed. Why then would he spend more time writing about it rather than the other reasons he simply listed?

The attention paid to the “shipping fuel change” reasoning in Schmidt’s article, seems simply to be because popular influencers talked about it. This reason for the heat spike started after an article in Science, by Paul Voosen, on August 2, 2023. This was noticed and then shared on twitter by Hank Green, who has a popular twitter account on science and is host of the YouTube channel SciShow. Later, this became the topic of Radiolab’s “Smog Cloud Silver Lining” podcast that came out on September 22, 2023. In the episode the hosts interviewed Green about how the law reducing SO2 was a form of unintentional geo-engineering. Green said, “there’s gonna be a chance that it’s really bad for everyone, that you set off something that you didn’t intend to set off.

Green’s solution? The implementation of intentional geo-engineering, “to put sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere.

While Green is likely right about the need for some geo-engineered solutions in dealing with climate change, it seems the reason he promoted for the 2023 heat anomaly hasn’t proven itself under scientific scrutiny. Going back to the Nature article, Schmidt dismisses that the theory of reduced SO2 emissions from shipping is causing the increase. “Preliminary estimates of the impact of these rules show a negligible effect on global mean temperatures — a change of only a few hundredths of a degree.”

Let that example serve as an important reminder, that even though eventually science has mechanisms to correct against wrong theories, popularity still matters in science. Attention, time and resources have been driven towards the line of reasoning about reduced SO2 emissions causing the 2023 heat anomaly because it became popular on social media. This is not the scientific method in use towards answering important questions. By that same token, just because certain reasoning is NOT popular doesn’t mean it’s not without a strong scientific case.

When Radiolab’s episode came out blaming the law mandating use of low sulfur marine fuel for the heat anomaly, it just happened to be the week before the one year anniversary of what I believe is the actual cause. One would think that, being near the anniversary, maybe someone at Radiolab might of asked a question about whether the world’s largest manmade release of methane might have also had something to do with the heat spike? Unfortunately, the media wasn’t talking about it.

There seemed to be narrative containment going on. Despite the enormity of what happened, there were only rare updates in the media of any kind. This is the same media that will talk every day all day for months on the most ridiculous issues, yet on this it was talked about as little as possible. When the media downplays a huge international story, many begin to self censor. Not surprisingly, later scientific reports seemed to minimize and cast doubt in the scientific community on this potential cause.

Follow the logic.

I didn’t figure it out myself until I was looking at the sea surface temperature maps that a friend shared on social media created by Professor Eliot Jacobson. It made me curiously start to wonder about a connection that others might not want to make. 

This image of the North Atlantic sea surface temperature spike, plus articles I had been reading about the heat anomalies of the Arctic sea surface temperature, immediately sprung to my mind a potential cause. Perhaps the largest Arctic sea surface temperature spike might be caused by the largest manmade spill of methane in the history of the world. A spill that occurred in the Arctic on September 26, 2022, after an explosion destroyed two pipelines under the Baltic Sea releasing up to 500,000 tons of methane.

Doesn’t that SOUND on the face of it like the most obvious explanation? Well, there isn’t a single article that I can find that makes this connection, even if to just refute it. The Schmidt article didn’t make the connection. It has seemingly been cast aside as a suspect. Which led to other suspects being considered, such as the mandating of low-sulfur marine fuel use, yet none of these suspects have made sense.

Here’s an analogy. Imagine if a woman went missing, last seen with her violent ex-convict boyfriend. However, the police didn’t interview the boyfriend because they heard he was elsewhere the night she disappeared. Then you find out that the boyfriend was the son of the mayor. Wouldn’t you become a little suspicious? It might still be the case that the boyfriend wasn’t guilty, but it seems like they should still do a thorough investigation of him.

I’m not an investigator of climate science, but when the most obvious suspect isn’t even interrogated, it makes me feel like I need to step up. I did study some of the science of climate chaos and pursued climate activism at The Evergreen State College, but today I drive a school bus. Which would’ve shocked my younger self who created the Black Car Project back in 2007, pledging at the time to never own a car again. Despite my lack of depth in this field, it’s possible the climate scientists of the world need regular people to state aloud when the Emperor wears no clothes.

After little luck contacting various people via email, facebook, X and other forums to see if they would pursue this topic, I decided I needed to write something more substantial myself. I tried contacting scientific experts, great thinkers, politicians, political activists and more with just the curious notion, but very few responded. Bret Weinstein though encouraged me to dig further and assemble a case if there is one. And after polishing my arguments, I reached out to Evergreen’s Center for Climate Action & Sustainability who were also receptive. This made me hope that curious and unorthodox thinkers may find some value in what I’m writing.

From an enormous environmental disaster to obscurity.

I’ll refer to this world’s largest manmade methane release as the Nord release or the release. For a day or two after the Nord release, some alarm bells were ringing in the media about the potential environmental consequences. Quickly thereafter these alarms were minimized till eventually they seemed like they were turned off completely. When a few scientific reports did come out about the world’s largest manmade release of methane, they did a remarkable job of minimizing people’s original concerns.

This article from the Guardian, published a couple days after the incident on September 28, 2022, rings the alarm bells of potential calamity, with it’s headline “warning of ‘large climate risk’.” Further into the article, Jasmin Cooper, a research associate at Imperial College London’s department of chemical engineering, had this to say. “The climate risks from the methane leak are quite large. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, 30 times stronger than CO2 over 100 years and more than 80 times stronger over 20 years.”

This ends though with a final sentence that puts the impact in reductive terms. “In terms of the climate impact, 250,000 tonnes of methane was equivalent to the impact of 1.3m cars driven on the road for a year,” said Jean-Francois Gauthier, vice-president of measurements at the commercial methane-measuring satellite firm GHGSat.

Within days or a week, most mainstream media articles were reducing the alarm bells.

“That means even though the… leak is likely the single biggest emission event, it’s only equivalent to a day or two of regular methane emissions from the fossil fuel industry, Caltagirone says.” Referring to Manfredi Caltagirone, head of the International Methane Emissions Observatory with the United Nations Environment Programme, in an NPR article from October 4, 2022. Who also said, “It is important to put it in context of a larger problem that we have, that we need to fix.”

“It is also important to put the Nord Stream leak into perspective. The UNEP analysis suggests that the amount of methane leaked represents less than 0.1 per cent of the total annual human-made methane emissions.” According to an article by the United Nations Environment Programme from February 20, 2023, also saying, “It also amounts to the methane emissions the oil and gas industry releases on a single day, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).”

When folks put it that way, the Nord release really doesn’t sound like that big of a deal does it? It’s all about perspective. Step back a little farther and see the bigger picture. For example, the BP oil spill was estimated to be 210M gallons, which sounds like a lot but the oceans of the world hold 352 quintillion gallons of water! That means the BP oil spill, while being the largest in the world, was really not that big of a deal.

This early minimization of the Nord release’s impact is a major reason today that few seem to take it seriously. Understanding the real impact means examining the release in its proper context.

Largest release in most impactful circumstances.

Bringing the perception of the largest single manmade release in history back into its properly catastrophic circumstances may help climate scientists to properly calibrate their climate models. This is important, because, if I’m correct, this may mean that for the next decade, without substantial mitigation efforts, the heat anomaly of 2023 may be an annual occurrence. That could mean that the entire timeline of climate model predictions from before September 26, 2022, may happen significantly sooner. It also may mean that completely unforeseen climate changes may present itself.

The way news reports focused on minimizing the perceived effects of the largest manmade methane release was by placing it in the context of the entire globe and annual global emissions. This was a major mistake. The proper context for understanding this largest manmade release of methane is not a global context at all, it is a local one. This release happened in the Arctic.

This video shows that the methane release plume went north into the Arctic. The Arctic is 4% of the earth’s landmass. It has approximately 1/10,000th of the world’s human population and an even smaller amount of the world’s livestock as well. It is not where most factories and heavy industries are located either. I think therefore it’s safe to say that less than 1/10,000th of the world’s emissions happen in the Arctic. Very likely it’s actually much less, but let’s use that measurement to contextualize the minimization claims found in the media.

For example, on October 6, 2022, the European Space Agency wrote, “As large as it may be, the Nord… release pales in comparison with the 80 million tonnes emitted each year by the oil and gas industry. The latest release is roughly equivalent to one and a half days of global methane emissions.”

Alright, let’s first reassess these figures by delineating that the Arctic should be thought of as its own special region with a “sticky” atmosphere that stays over the pole. Since the Arctic is 4% of the earth we should assess that a better comparison is for 4% of the world’s manmade emissions. 4% of 80 million would be 3.2 million. So it might be more accurate to say that the release into the Arctic would be the equivalent of roughly 34 days of the Arctic’s share of manmade methane releases. Sounds like a bigger problem stated like this huh?

Now let’s try contextualizing that using our 1/10,000th population figure as a conservative guess on normal levels of emissions in the arctic (which may be off in the context of the oil & gas industry somewhat). If we correct for this context of the Arctic, that 80 million tons becomes instead 8,000 tons emitted per year in the Arctic. Which means that 300,000 tons released that day is roughly equivalent to what is released over 37.5 years in the Arctic.

Now let’s go back to the claim made in the Guardian article that the release of 250,000 tonnes of methane was equivalent to 1.3 million cars driven for a year and apply our same metric as above. But first let’s check the result. According to the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, they estimated it to be equivalent to 1.67 million cars driven for a year, that’s metric tonnes. If the human population in the Arctic is somewhere around 800,000 and let’s say half own a car they drive. That puts this as the equivalent of 4 years worth of vehicle emissions in the Arctic in one day.

Except, hold on, digging into the EPA’s greenhouse gas data, they’re calculating 1 ton of methane as having the equivalent global warming value of 28 tons of CO2. That may be true over 100 years, since methane breaks down faster. However, methane has 84 times more global warming value over 20 years. Considering the threat is now, 20 years seems the more important timeframe to consider. Which means we need to multiply the amount by 3. Which makes this one methane leak equivalent to 12 years of vehicle emissions in the Arctic, not 4.

Choose your numbers wisely.

By reframing the data, I’m not changing the facts, only changing the perception of those facts. From the earlier downplayed and minimized assessments to an assessment that appropriately wonders if this methane release fills the anomaly found in the 2023 climate models. Reassessing the importance of older data in light of it possibly explaining newer mysteries is simply a part of science.

The researchers Xiaolong CHEN and Tianjun ZHOU, of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, for example, wrote an article from November 4, 2022, that douses cold water on any climate change concerns about this particular methane release. “Based on the newest assessments in IPCC AR6 of the effective radiative forcing under doubled CO2, climate feedback, and ocean heat uptake efficiency, under the energy conservation framework, the global mean surface air temperature would in theory increase by 1.8×10−5 ℃.”

Their four page scientific paper crunches the numbers to judge that, by their estimation of the amount of methane released, the effect on the temperature over 20 years would be the negligible amount of 0.000018°C. The accuracy of their mathematical assessment, even if doubling for the actual amount released, like some early articles feared, is not a substantive concern. What would be more important to understand is what variables may be at play regarding this release that may serve to magnify it’s impact. To their immense credit, these researchers do leave the door open to re-evaluation by saying, “Although the resultant warming from this methane leak incident was minor, future carbon release from additional Earth system feedbacks, such as thawing permafrost, and its impact on the methane mitigation pathways of the Paris Agreement, warrants investigation.”

In the spirit of number crunching I decided to do some more of my own. Starting off I looked up the weight of the atmosphere, which apparently is 5.1480 × 10^18 kg. I then found the percentage of the atmosphere that is methane, which apparently is 0.000191%. Which led me to discover that the weight of methane in the atmosphere is 9.83268e+12 kg. Since the Arctic is 4% of the earth, then the amount of methane in the Arctic’s atmosphere must be roughly 393,307,200,000 kg. Then I converted it to tons, figuring out that there are roughly 433,546,975.228 tons of methane in the Arctic’s atmosphere. Which means that the 300,000 tons of methane released into the Arctic that day was an approximate increase of 0.069196653% methane in the arctic.

Taking my calculation a bit further I can also calculate the estimated warming effect. If the IPCC predicts that the temperature is going to increase by 1.5°C in the next 20 years and if methane is 20% of the warming, then that means that methane will increase the temperature by 0.3°C. If the arctic is 4%, that means the arctic will be responsible for 0.012°C. Therefore the pipeline spill of September 26, 2022 would be responsible for approximately 0.00000828°C by my alternative calculations.

The temperature increase I came up with comes surprisingly close to their calculations of 0.000018°C. My estimate coming in a little less than half the temperature increase they predicted from the methane release alone. But what does this mean? Or does it mean anything at all? Does this help or refute the hypothesis that the largest manmade methane release correlates to help explain the 2023 heat anomaly?

In trying to discuss the issue, it’s hard to get past their estimated warming effect being played as a first move and called checkmate. Upon actually reading the four page study, it becomes very clear that this is not in the least bit meant to be a comprehensive answer. There are too many important variables that haven’t been analyzed. Unfortunately, because of the narrative of discouragement, people aren’t willing to exam this further. The hypothesis I’m putting forward is that the other variables surrounding the Nord release really do matter.

If the world’s largest manmade methane release weren’t also wrapped up in the mystery of whodunnit, then perhaps the consequences would be more fully and deeply investigated rather than hushed.

Editorial decisions minimized concerns.

Many scientific news articles that came out within the first 48 hours of when the pipeline’s destruction occurred headlined that the methane release was “catastrophic for the climate,” as headlined by Al Jazeera. Plus the news usually made a point to refer to it, properly, as the largest manmade release of methane in history. However, not all major publications said much about the environmental effects. For example, the first NY Times article, by Stanley Reed, doesn’t mention anything until their forth subheadline, which was “The environmental impact appears alarming.”

There seems to be a significant difference between “appears alarming” and “catastrophic”. Also, the NY Times doesn’t mention it being the largest manmade release of methane. Which is something the NY Times has never stated in any of it’s articles, as far as I could see. A strange moment for the newspaper of record to chose not to record. Instead, Reed’s most substantive environmental claim quite reduces the rhetoric. Noting it as a third the emissions of a small country for a year. “The toll from the leaks could amount to the equivalent of 32 percent of Denmark’s annual emissions, Mr. Böttzauw said, adding, “There is a significant climate impact because methane is many times more damaging to the climate than CO2.””

A better comparison might be found in the mildly headlined Reuters article, “Nord Stream gas leaks raise climate fears, but impact hard to quantify”, which said the following, “Stefano Grassi, head of the European Union energy commissioner’s cabinet, said Tuesday that the leaks risked becoming “a climate and ecological disaster”.”

These are strong words from a relevant EU official. Yet, on the same day, Politico.EU publishes an article, “8 things to know about the environmental impact…,” that has the subheadline, “it’s a ‘wee bubble’ compared with what’s emitted globally every day.”

The “8 things to know” aimed to counter the alarm bells. Going down their list are many assurances to this not being as bad as it seems. Intentionally or not, the list assuages people of being overly worried. It consistently minimized the release’s size and impact by comparing it, whether fairly comparable or not, to much larger things. The worst part, because the whole article was serving to put a wet blanket on the whole discussion of the environmental impact, it also destroyed the only potentially useful thing to know at the time. This was their seventh point.

Number 7 should have been the articles first and only point. A suggested headline for such an article, “LIGHT IT ON FIRE NOW!” This is the very first thing that officials should have done. If they had lit that methane on fire I wonder if the heat anomaly would have occurred. The arguments the article listed against doing so seem extremely weak in hindsight. Clearly EU leaders were too cowardly to light it. Their decision to not do so, might come to be seen as one of the worst, most damning decisions made regarding this catastrophe. After the original decision, of course, by someone to destroy the pipeline in the first place.

Atmospheric science stuff.

This is the part I didn’t want to have to write because I’m not a meteorologist, I’m not a physicist and I’m not a chemist. Yet here I am, trying to explain to literally NASA, why I think their climate models don’t work. There is also a big chance at this point, considering how much I don’t know, I could very much be wrong. But I’m ok with being wrong. I’m only hoping that someone reads this and explains to me why. So here’s my simplistic understanding of some very complex weather systems.

First, Arctic air doesn’t do a lot of mixing with the air further south. The Arctic weather patterns, pressure zones, rotation of the earth, plus surrounding land masses all work generally to keep the cold air trapped where it is. Like how the northern and southern hemisphere’s atmosphere circulates opposite each other without much mixing with a band around the equator that circulates the middle. Then in Antarctica again it would be its own cold air zone staying mostly in its region. Therefore, it seems that the methane that was released would remain mostly in the Arctic.

My argument is hinged upon the notion that the spill of methane went into the Arctic and that this matters. It matters because the Arctic atmosphere is a smaller area, isolated from the weather to its south, more pristine and less polluted by humans. Therefore an atmospheric spill that may seem small in the broader world can have outsized effects in the Arctic.

While I thought this had to be true, that global warming emissions had to have an outsized effect when in the arctic, this didn’t seem to be readily acknowledged in my search of the subject. The closest I eventually found was the concept of “Arctic Amplification.” Arctic Amplification is a well established measurable effect in the Arctic, that the Arctic has been warming at four times the rate of the rest of the world. Why it has been warming at four times the rate is because of several identified mechanisms. This leads to questions about how the Nord release might be interacting with these mechanisms.

There is so much that I didn’t know about the Arctic when I started looking into this. Two other facts surprised me. One is that the Arctic has atmospheric methane concentrations that are 8–10% higher than in the Antarctic atmosphere. Another is that the interior Arctic Ocean is super saturated by methane already. These facts also add more questions about the interplay between the Nord release and the arctic.

Many more questions need answering.

There are many areas of study that are involved in properly evaluating the impact of the Nord release in the Arctic. An international team of scientists would be needed to do a proper job. Considering this was the world’s largest manmade methane release and that it happened in a known sensitive region, reasonable people might assume that such a team exists. Surprisingly, such a team does not. The political intrigue surrounding the cause of the Nord release has created a corresponding aura of silence and minimization regarding it in the media. This has made any environmental evaluations piecemeal and left many questions unasked and unanswered.

Since I am not a climate scientist myself, nor part of an international team of scientists, I cannot fully answer the environmental questions surrounding the Nord release. What I can do is ask questions and encourage others to ask questions as well. I can also point out when the questions are being ignored or when the answers provided are inadequate, contradictory, illogical, deceptive or an attack. Many of my questions should be simple to answer for a climate scientist. I’m asking them because I am not a climate scientist, like most others who may be concerned.

For example, I am trying to understand the way the Nord release went into the Arctic and if there is anything unusual about that because of temperature, sea level elevation and time of year. My understanding is the methane passed through cool Baltic sea water as it bubbled to its tumultuous release at sea level. Then it seems to have been blown NE, NW, W, then back to the N again where it seems to disperse above Norway. I’m not sure why it doesn’t seem to disperse until the Arctic. I understand that methane is lighter than air, so it should rise, but at what rate in the frigid Arctic as compared to the methane sinks around the equator? How much longer does methane starting cold at sea level over the Arctic linger? Is this a potential multiplier variable?

Also soil can be a methane sink, which is good for the areas where humans generally live and produce most of the methane. Unfortunately, the Arctic is mostly the sea, ice and frozen ground. What does this mean for the lasting effect of methane in the Arctic rather than a spill in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico or Iraq? Is this a potential multiplier variable?

Methane is often stated as being around 28 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2, although that is the average supposedly over 100 years. Over 20 years scientists consider it around 84 times stronger as a greenhouse gas. So how does this manifest itself? Does more methane cause higher effects? Are we accounting for the higher short term effect? Is this a potential multiplier?

Methane floats, but, in the Arctic how fast does it rise? Is it the same, slower or faster? Does methane that is closer to the sea or ice have a stronger effect on warming the sea surface or melting ice? Is this a potential multiplier variable?

Most people understand that water freezes at 0°C and boils at 100°C. In the Arctic the temperature averages -12 to -6° C with only about 3-4 months a year with the temperature above freezing. Does the concentration of methane in areas that are often near the freezing point cause more climate related issues than greenhouse gases concentrated where the temperature is more temperate for longer? Is this a potential multiplier variable?

As I am reading more about “Arctic Amplification” I’m finally understanding that climate scientists do realize that there is a measured multiplier effect already going on in the Arctic. I am dismayed that none of the articles I had read about the Nord release mentioned Arctic Amplification. I am also dismayed to find out that some climate models do not fully incorporate the effects of Arctic Amplification within them. I would like to know how the Nord release might play into the mechanisms that cause the Arctic Amplification. I would also like to know if this could compound Arctic Amplification.

These are a few of the questions I am struggling with understanding. The lack of answers makes me concerned.

Heading forward, clean up the spill.

The majority of methane breaks down supposedly in 9-12 years into CO2 & H2O, although I question whether this holds true in the Arctic. Until then, what are we going to do? The start of 2024 is already facing another enormous temperature spike. It seems less like an anomaly and more like the methane release. If this is true, that one manmade release may be causing further spikes for the next decade.

If I am correct, then properly weighing for the manmade methane spill in climate models should correct for the 2023 heat anomaly. If it solves for the anomaly then it can be predictive going forward. I wonder what that prediction says for this coming July or the next 10 years. It may say that we’re seriously screwed way more than we thought. We need to know.

If spikes like last summer are predicted for the next decade, we need to take emergency measures. The predictive value could show the direction of what is to come if we don’t act now! Framing it as a spill response, rather than as the unfortunately normalized global warming narrative, could make taking action easier.

We should treat the methane release like we treated the BP oil spill. I feel like we still could. I’m not a promoter of geo-engineering solutions, but, in some ways, the release of up to 500,000 tons of methane was an accidental geo-engineering incident already. A solution that we frame towards cleanup or mitigation of the spill isn’t the same as the geo-engineering ideas that typically make people, like myself, nervous. Geo-engineering solutions, as a transition requirement, were always going to be part of an inevitable way forward, considering our failure to address climate change in proactive ways.

I hope I am wrong.

I could be wrong. I hope so. Unfortunately, because the conversations I’ve had usually haven’t gone beyond the superficial towards addressing my counterpoints, I haven’t had anyone properly show how I am wrong. Also, the 2023 heat anomaly is still not understood. My hope for this article is that it spurs some more attention for that anomaly. Hopefully some heroes decide to make the additional effort to figure this out one way or another.

If it weren’t for the fact that this subject might be critically important, I wouldn’t be writing this. In my brain, it feels like the sort of issue that, not acknowledged, may cause the entire world harm. If I’m right, I believe it’s of dire importance that this gets taken seriously. If I’m wrong, well that’s science.

There is a taboo of talking about this Nord release. I feel the blame game doesn’t have much use in a time when we need serious men and women to save the world. Any great nation would be stepping up to the plate to be the world’s champion right now whether it was their responsibility or the responsibility of another.

Don’t be afraid of the future. Confront it in the best way possible. Courage and action in the face of doom and despair.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.