Lew’s Guru and the Science of a Beautiful You

A number of us have been writing letters of complaint to the publishers of Lewandowsky’s two papers insulting climate sceptics, and to the University of Western Australia, with a view to getting the papers withdrawn. I have a feeling our complaints will be unsuccessful. Here’s why.

The authors of the second paper, “Recursive Fury”, are two professors of cognitive psychology and two authors of blogs specialising in countering the views of climate sceptics (the subject of the paper). One blog author, John Cook of Skeptical Science, was awarded an adjunct professorship by the School of Psychology at the University of Western Australia as a result of his involvement in this paper.

The authors thank Alexandra Freund, who, (like second author Klaus Oberauer)  is a professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Zurich, for her comments on an earlier version of the paper.

[Professor Freund is “interested in process of developmental regulation across the lifespan. The central assumption guiding her research is “that individuals actively shape the direction and level of their development through selecting, pursuing, and maintaining goals in interaction with social or environmental opportunity structures.” Her publications include: “Changing eating behaviour vs. losing weight: The role of goal focus for weight loss in overweight women”  and “Psychological consequences of longevity: The increasing importance of self-regulation in old age”].

As I pointed out at


when the paper was first published at frontiersin.org the first two comments, within one minute of each other, were from Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and Professor Michael Ashley, who then had a good laugh together over the fact that their near simultaneous posting must be the result of a conspiracy. So that’s six professors involved in the story before we even start looking at the paper.

 *               *              *

“Recursive Fury” has an extensive bibliography, including many sources which are not actually quoted anywhere in the paper. These include papers on: the speeches of Ayatollah Khomeini;  the Egyptian uprising; schizophrenia; institutional mistrust among multiethnic men who have sex with men; conspiracy beliefs among men who have sex with men; homophobia among men who have sex with men; antisemitism; and sexual (dys)function and the quality of sexual life in patients with colorectal cancer.

One author who is cited extensively is V. Swami. Three of his papers are mentioned in the bibliography, and they are referred to  a total of six times in the paper.

For example, Swami, V. (2012). on “Social psychological origins of conspiracy theories: the case of the Jewish conspiracy theory in Malaysia” is the source quoted for the statement in the paper that conspiracist ideation is associated with right-wing political leanings.

Here are some of the things Swami has to say about conspiracy theories and the people who hold them:

“… because the critique of power offered by conspiracy theories is often simplistic, they are susceptible to racist and exclusionary narratives, which in turn create discord and public mistrust…”

“… many scholars came to view conspiracy theorists as paranoid and delusional; that is, conspiracy theories were viewed as the products of extreme paranoia, delusional thinking, and narcissism. This individual or collective pathology was thought to effectively stunt any form of socio-political action by conspiracy theorists, which in turn heightened their paranoia.”

“Recent work has provided some support for the idea that conspiracy theorists have particular personality profiles marked by paranoia and delusional thinking. For example, two studies have reported that belief in conspiracy theories is positively associated with schizotypal tendencies, that is, the tendency to be suspicious, paranoid, and experience magical thinking and unusual beliefs..” 

All these statements are supported by reference to peer-reviewed literature, some of it by Dr. Swami himself.

Swami’s paper reports that “in the Malaysian context, belief in the Jewish conspiracy theory may only be weakly associated with belief in other conspiracy theories. Rather, belief in this conspiracist, anti-Semitic narrative appears to serve ideological demands and needs that may be more pronounced in the Malaysian context.” while

“belief in general conspiracy theories was significantly associated with right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, albeit weakly.”

So the source which Lewandowsky quotes as establishing “that conspiracist ideation is associated with right-wing political leanings” in fact establishes a weak association between anti-Semitism and other conspiracy theories, which are themselves weakly associated with right-wing authoritarianism – “at least in the Malaysian context”.

One might wonder why Lewandowsky et al thought a study of anti-semitism among Malaysian ethnic Malays to be relevant to a study of conspiracy ideation among climate sceptics, particularly as it provided only weak support for the point they make.

Lewandowsky’s paper, “Recursive Fury” was edited and peer-reviewed  by Dr. Viren Swami.

Dr. Swami is a prolific and enthusiastic author. When he’s not writing about conspiracy theories, he’s writing about beauty. He is the Attraction Expert at


 the Science of a Beautiful You, where he writes on:

“Do Appearances Matter?”, “How to Find Love: A Plan”,  “Why The Workplace is a Hot Spot for Romance”, and “Getting Up Close and Personal”.

He is also author or co-author of 213 peer-reviewed articles on aesthetics, body image, and tattoos, among other subjects, including: “Context matters: investigating the impact of contextual information on aesthetic appreciation of paintings by Max Ernst and Pablo Picasso”, “Men’s oppressive beliefs predict their breast size preferences in women” and “The influence of practitioner nationality, experience, and sex in shaping patient preferences for dentists”. He’s been turning out one scientific paper every two weeks, on average, since 2005. And he still finds time to edit and peer-review the papers of colleagues who who cite him.

Most of these papers are behind paywalls, but I managed to find this one from 2007: “Perception of Female Buttocks and Breast Size in Profile” by Furnham and Swami.

The summary says:

“Results showed significant main effects of breast size (with an overall preference for small breasts) but not of buttock size. Gender of the participants did not have a significant effect on the variables, although there was a significant interaction of breast and buttock size. The findings suggest that variables such as breast size are minor cues of female physical attractiveness”.

It seems that the psychology of the appreciation of the human form is plagued by the same secrecy as palaeclimatology when it comes to publishing the data necessary to the interpretation of results – in this case the stimulus material used in the experiment. Neither  “Perception of Female Buttocks and Breast Size in Profile” nor Kleinke & Staneski (1980). “First impressions of female bust size” nor Koff  & Benevage (1998)  “Breast size perception and satisfaction” satisfy this basic need. In the interest of scientific openness, I shall appoint myself the Steve McIntyre of voyeurology and demand to see the data.

This is vital, since each new study in this area contradicts the previous one. Furnham and  Swami report a preference for small breasts, while Kleine and Staneski, using written stimuli, found that men prefer medium-sized breasts. (Could this possibly be due to the wording of the descriptions – the so-called Goldilocks-Porridge Effect?) However, when the same experimenters used colour photographs, they found that women with smaller breasts were rated as competent, ambitious, intelligent, moral and modest. while women with large breasts were judged to have the opposite characteristics (i.e. they were cack-handed, dumb slags, basically). It is clearly difficult to judge these results without seeing the visual evidence for oneself.

The Furnham & Swami study aimed to judge the dual influence of breasts and buttocks, so naturally “used modified versions of Wiggins, Wiggins, and Conger’s (1968) nude female silhouettes in profile, which combine three breast categories (small, medium, large) and three buttocks sizes (small, medium, large) to produce a total of 9 different combinations of stimuli. This manipulation allowed us to test the effect of changing buttocks and breast size on female physical attractiveness.”

[Wiggins, Wiggins, and Conger (1968), since you ask, discovered that large breast preference was associated with a “Playboy” image, while preference for large buttocks was related to an “anal character” syndrome].

In the absence of the stimulus material, let’s look at the responses, which came from a “total of 114 British undergraduate students (71 females)”, which I calculate, means just  43 males to judge the manipulation of 9 combinations of breast and buttock sizes.

Here’s all we know of the stimuli:

“The stimuli consisted of 9 nude female silhouettes, prepared by Wiggins et al. (1968) in such a manner that the size of breasts and buttocks could be varied systematically. Three levels of breast size (small, medium, large) and three levels of buttocks size (small, medium, large) were employed for this study. No other alterations were made within each category, and all other sex-specific information (e.g., the hairstyle) was kept constant. Breast and buttocks were manipulated through the computer modification of the selected attribute.”

Of all the ways there are of manipulating breasts and buttocks, computer modification is surely the least satisfying. Could the liking for small breasts possibly be due to a preference for non-photoshopped photos? In the discussion it is proposed that perhaps a “reason for the current findings may be the nature of the stimuli used. It is of note that figures depicting silhouettes with large breasts were somewhat unrealistic in comparison with small-breasted figures”.

I can see the headlines now: “Students prefer women with realistic breasts, study shows”. 

I’ll have to leave the analysis of the results to those less statistically challenged than I. Maybe someone could explain this:

“Mauchley’s test of sphericity yielded a significant interaction of breast and buttocks size (x2 = 65.73, p < 0.001). Due to the violation of the sphericity assumption, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied to the degrees of freedom”.

*           *           *

Our complaints to the editors of the two Lewandowsky papers made a number of disparate points, but they all come down to the judgement that the papers do not come up to the standards expected of a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Frankly, looking at what goes on in the world of peer-reviewed social science, I don’t think we have a leg to stand on.

About Geoff Chambers

Retired illustrator (children's magazines, religious education textbooks, an Encyclopaedia of Christianity, gay contact and female fitness magazines, pornographic strip cartoons etc.) Retired lecturer in English and History of Art in a French University; ardent blogger on climate hysteria, banned five times from the Guardian and twice from the Conversation. Now blogging at Cliscep.com
This entry was posted in Stephan Lewandowsky, Weirdos and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Lew’s Guru and the Science of a Beautiful You

  1. steveta_uk says:

    Surely the degrees of freedom of breasts and buttocks depends on the type of underwear being worn? Was this reported in the study?

  2. Don B says:

    “Of all the ways there are of manipulating breasts and buttocks, computer modification is surely the least satisfying.”

    Lew’s papers deserve no more seriousness than you have displayed. (“Displayed” here is in the normal sense, rather than being any reference to male-female display rituals!) Unfortunately, there are propogandists who salivate over nonsense such as his.

  3. JunkPsychology says:

    I’ve been trying to trace the history of the notion of “conspiracist ideation” that Lewandowsky relies on.

    In Ted Goertzel’s study from 1994, the claim was made that there is a general tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. But Goertzel proposed several follow-up studies to test the claim—and these, so far as I can determine, have not been done. The fly in the ointment has always been: which conspiracy theories you include in the overall set, when you try to measure such a tendency?

    Swami had to exclude the belief in a Jewish conspiracy, at least with a Malaysian sample. Lewandowsky, Oberauer, and Gignac apparently had to leave off the item about WMD being a pretext for starting the Iraq war.

    As far as I can tell, it’s Swami who first made the supposed tendency to believe in conspiracy theories into a type of psychopathology.

    By the way, I’d be concerned about any psychology research group that was cranking out 25 published empirical articles a year maybe getting a little slack in the quality control department…

  4. alexjc38 says:

    The recent discovery of Swami and Tovee that sexist men prefer women with large breasts also needs to be assessed in the light of other important findings, for example that hungry (and impoverished) men (and also men from resource-poor global regions) prefer larger women (Swami and Tovee, 2005) – who, it might be deduced, would also have larger breasts – and in addition that men under stress prefer larger women (Tovee and Swami, 2012).

    Funding is urgently required for further research exploring the ramifications of all this knowledge; for instance, to determine how sexist men’s attraction to large-breasted women might change before and after dinner, or in what circumstances the mate preferences of stressed and hungry but non-sexist males might resemble those of their more sexist counterparts, and also how that might change for the better if they ate, for example, a bacon sandwich.

    From their 2005 research, Swami and Tovee conclude that “[t]emporary affective states can produce individual variation in mate preferences that mirrors patterns of cultural differences”. They also speculate about the generalisability of the findings: “If hungry men judge heavier women as more attractive than satiated men, might they also judge other heavy objects as generally more aesthetically pleasing?” This question opens up yet more fascinating and potentially lucrative avenues for research; would starving men be more attracted than satiated men to a weighty object that resembled a woman, for example a heavy lampshade in the shape of Diana Dors? Would they also find themselves attracted to a heavy object that did not resemble a woman, e.g, an anvil?

    There are probably a few readers who might wonder whether these researchers are colluding with one another, simply in order to generate publicity and funding opportunities for themselves by means of this never-ending torrent of facile but relentlessly media-friendly studies. But then such readers would of course be suffering from conspiratorial ideation (Swami, 2012) which would automatically discredit anything they might say or think!


  5. Alex
    Your speculations open up a vista of possibilities which could keep an army of social scientists occupied for decades. Your citation from Swami and Tovee:
    “If hungry men judge heavier women as more attractive than satiated men, might they also judge other heavy objects as generally more aesthetically pleasing?”
    immediately made me think of the bronze statue by Barbara Hepworth recently stolen from a public park. It is generally assumed that it was stolen to be melted down for scrap, but another possibility presents itself: perhaps the thieves were simply expressing the fact that they found the massive work by Hepworth more sexually attractive than Dame Barbara herself?
    Note that if weight is the significant factor, the heavy lampshade in your example would not necessarily have to be in the shape of Diana Dors. A heavy lampshade in the shape of Ed Miliband would do the trick. What’s more, Ed is considerably younger than both Barbara Hepworth and Diana Dors, and if hunger is the operative factor, then sell-by date would obviously count as a significant variable.

  6. JunkScience
    I too traced “conspiracist ideation” back to Swami, but with 4000 hits on Google, it may take a while to identify the first mention.
    My only acquaintance with Goertzel is via his 2010 article in EMBO Reports, a publication of the European Molecular Biology Organization. I’ve just found a source for his 1994 study at
    and will read it with interest.
    It’s clear that the study of conspiracist theory is bedevilled with political bias. Conspiracy theories may be true, false, or of unknown truth value; they may be held predominantly by the left or the right, depending on the politics of the supposed perpetrators; and they may be accepted as historically true on very flimsy evidence. Almost everybody (including me) believes that the 1933 Reichstag Fire was the result of a Nazi conspiracy, though conclusive evidence is lacking.
    None of these complicating factors are taken account of in any of the studies that I have seen. It’s not a conspiracy – simply an indication that the researchers involved are incompetent.

  7. hro001 says:

    Geoff, two (unrelated but sort of relevant) items came to mind as I read your delightful post.

    First, a poll I came across the other day conducted by a US group that calls itself Public Policy Polling. On Apr. 2, they published the results of a poll they had conducted:

    Conspiracy Theory Poll Results

    On our national poll this week we took the opportunity to poll 20 widespread and/or infamous conspiracy theories. Many of these theories are well known to the public, others perhaps to just the darker corners of the internet. […]

    Of particular interest vis a vis Lewandowsky’s magnificent obsession were the following from their results:

    Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, or not?
    Do…………………………………………………………. 37%
    Do not …………………………………………………….51%
    Not sure……………………………………………………12%

    [which, in the two-column format of the page, was right next to:]

    Q7 Do you believe the moon landing was faked, or not?
    Do…………………………………………………………. 7%
    Do not……………………………………………………. 84%
    Not sure…………………………………………………… 9%

    I wondered how Lew would square his purported results with the above 😉

    And the tone of your commentary (not to mention the “content” of that on which you were commenting) reminded me of a “paper” I had received back in 1995 that – with the permission of the author – I had webified. It was among my first experiences of the post-modernist poppycock virus that seems to have infected “scholarship” in the social sciences (and, of course, “climate science”)

    Notwithstanding the “topic”, IMHO, one does not have to be Jewish to appreciate the author’s wit and underlying mockery:

    Latke vs Hamentash: A Materialist-Feminist Analysis

  8. Barry Woods says:

    If they cannot see the ethical problems with conflicted antagonistic hostile, authors, then I’m sure Marc Morano, and Senator Inholfe will, Or anybody else I care to contact. (David Rose, etc,etc Andrew Bolt, etc)

    To my mind, what Cook/Lew are USING psychology to do, is orders of magnitude worse than anything M Mann, P JOnes, etc, has done withing climate science

    I’m going to give UWA a chance.

    if they fail

    well, I have my interests to protect, my name being identified in a conspiracy paper, and feel under absolutely no obligation to protect, UWA, Lew, Cook, Skeptical Science, Frontiers, Psychological Science Al Gore or anybody else interests.

    Lew lied to me personally, that makes it personal

    the phrase they might like to look up is ‘loose cannon’, who does not give a damm,if they try to defend this indefensible mess.

    the National Statement on ethics is clear.

    The deceptions and falsehoods in these 2 papers are also very clear.

  9. Vinny Burgoo says:

    Here are some of the illustrations from Wiggins, Wiggins and Conger (2nd page):


    The take-home messages from that article are:

    (a) Strivers and drinkers prefer larger ladies but toffs and plodders like ’em slender.

    (b) Teetotallers like ’em small up top and behind but with chunky legs.

    (c) Accountants like big buttocks but not chunky legs.

    (d) Those who were breast-fed like small buttocks.

    (e) Engineers like small breasts.

    (f) Plebs and tightwads like big breasts.

    (g) The world needs a book called ‘The Buttocks Girl and the Nondescript’.*

    Methodological query: The women in the side-view silhouettes seem to be wearing invisible shoes with moderately raised heels and the larger lady is looking either into the page or towards the reader. (Scope for a new scientific survey. I reckon Silhouette C is looking into the page. I’ve had a drink and I’m not an accountant or an engineer but when my job title included ‘engineer’ my work included accountancy.) What does this mean? And might it have affected the results? Perhaps teetotallers only like small-breasted, flat-buttocked, fat-thighed girls who are about to pick a book off a high shelf. Perhaps tightwads only like large breasts that are about to bounce. Tricky stuff, this scientific somatology.

    *Synopsis: Small-breasted, flat-bottomed and indefatigably thick-thighed, Natica Gluteus is a feisty psychologist who feels that something is missing from her life. Then her anthropologist uncle dies and she discovers a collection of stuffed buttocks in his attic. Most bear labels in her uncle’s incisive hand but two do not – and it is to these unprovenanced buttocks that Natica is increasingly drawn, much to the annoyance of her fiancé and guardian, the generous and slightly posh teetotal engineer Dauncy O’Pternogood. Why, she wonders, does she stand up and scratch herself every time she thinks about these buttocks? Whence these buttocks? Whither hers? And what had Dauncy and her uncle been up to all those years ago when they worked together on a mysterious project called ‘Niece Buttocks’?

  10. alexjc38 says:

    @ Vinny, I think that book, were it written, would be a shoo-in to win several of the Western world’s most prestigious and pretentious literary awards, and can just imagine some of the breathless and pseuds’ corner-ish reviews there would be, if it did.

    The Modern Mechanix article from 1970 is fascinating. “This research has been supported in part by a National Institute of Mental Health Grant”. Did that money end up contributing to any sort of positive outcome for mental health, I wonder?

  11. JunkPsychology:
    “As far as I can tell, it’s Swami who first made the supposed tendency to believe in conspiracy theories into a type of psychopathology.”
    I’d be surprised if that’s true. Conspiracy theorising has been effectively psychopathologised since 9/11. Until then, conspiracy theories about, for instance, the assassinations of the two Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King; the Lockerbie bombing; the non-release of the Tehran hostages, and a number of other recent events were at least permissible subjects of speculation. 9/11 put an end to all that, and led to a situation where left-wing academics like Lewandowsky, but also, in England, supposedly radical investigative journalists like Monbiot and Pilger set themselves up as defenders of the official state position.
    No journalist, in any mainstream journal, has ever challenged the 9/11 “troofers” with a factual demolition. As long as this situation prevails, the theory that Cheyney conspired to kill 2000 Americans remains a possibility. And Lewandowsky’s assertion that I am paranoiac remains libellous.

  12. Vinny Burgoo
    Many thanks for your selfless research in the interest of science. I‘m afraid my computer abilities are not up to excerpting the silhouettes which represent big medium and small buttocks / breasts. I hope the relevant page will appear after this comment, but nothing is sure.
    As a professional illustrator, I have a certain acquaintance with the female anatomy, as represented on sites such as
    and I think it’s reasonable to say that the silhouettes presented in Wiggins, Wiggins and Conger are extremely limited in their range, with breasts and buttocks varying from skinny to pert, and no further. Since the subjects of the study were young students (the majority female) perhaps it was considered unwise to expose them to the full range of possibilities of the female form. Or maybe the artist just wasn’t up to the job. Anyway, in the 21st century, with all the possibilities of the internet, such limitations no longer prevail.

  13. JunkPsychology says:


    I meant that Swami was the first in the academic psychological literature to refer to a tendency to believe in conspiracy theories as “conspiracist ideation.” That is, to employ this pseudopsychopathological term in the pages of a psych journal.

    Journalists are generally out in front of academic psychologists in employing such forms of derogation. Certainly this has been true of calling CAGW skeptics “deniers” or “denialists.”

    Meanwhile, I don’t think 9/11 truthing has played all that crucial a role. In the 1990s, belief in the black helicopters was, outside of northern Idaho, widely considered both nutty and a conspiracy theory. So, outside of black nationalist circles, was the notion that HIV had been manufactured in a government lab and let loose in order to kill African-Americans.

    Having read farther back into the psychological literature on conspiracy theorizing, I’ve got to say it all looks like pretty thin stuff. Here are Abalakina-Paap et al. (1999), who stopped a little short of pseudopsychopathologizing, but were already going full-bore with a supposed general tendency to believe in conspiracy theories:

    “Many conspiracy theories offer simplified explanations of complex events that may appeal to people who prefer cognitive simplicity over complexity…. Believing that the mass media are dominated by liberals simplifies the complexity of interpreting media messages.” (p. 639)

    This kind of stuff is hard to make up.

    I’d found Goertzel (1994) more serious in aim and less ridiculous than most of the other articles, but whoever talked Goertzel into doing “Conspiracy theories in science” (EMBO Reports, 2010), which blathers about philosophy of science while wandering around slamming one figure or group after another—and reporting no new empirical research whatsoever—induced him to ruin his reputation once and for all.

    This sentence from Goertzel (2010), whose self-relevance he utterly failed to recognize, may end up on his tombstone:

    “Social scientists have forfeited much of their potential influence because they are too often perceived as advocates for a cause rather than as objective researchers.” (p. 496)

    Training in psychology doesn’t give its recipients a license to unilaterally define all non-psychologists. The “conspiracist” literature is a series of attempted unilateral definitions of various outgroups already disliked by one or another bunch of psychologists. Hence its low value as research.

  14. Junkpsychology
    ..and it’s not just the conspiracist literature. One thread of Lewndowsky’s sources led from a paper on the denialism practiced by the tobacco industry by a couple of public health experts back to a blog run by the Hoofnagel brothers. As with Goertzel publishing his philosophical musings of a sociologist in a microbiology mag, it’s just an in-group mutual admiration society (as we polite old-fashioned types call it) by experts to be quoted by other experts (never mind what they’re experts on).

    It’s clearly impossible to summarise what is known about conspiracy theories within the limits of the introductory section of a peer reviewed paper, so they cite sources where the summary may be found, except that it may not, but who will check, for who cares? What matters is that Lewandowsky was in Huffington Post last summer and in the New Yorker last week. The false idea is launched, and whether it’s done with a nod and a wink and a secret handshake or not matters little.
    But we won’t let up.

  15. He’s back on the press beat, being quoted on false flag conspiracy theories about the Boston bombing:
    The proliferation and sheer power of such ideas come as no surprise to Stephan Lewandowsky, a professor of psychology who has made a study of the conspiracy-obsessed.
    “Whenever there is a seemingly random tragic event, people seek to explain it in a way that reduces their fear,” Lewandowsky tells me from Bristol University in the United Kingdom, where he is on sabbatical from his academic chair as a cognitive scientist at the University of Western Australia… Lewandowsky, whose study of conspiracy-minded climate-change deniers was recently featured in The New Yorker, continues: “…I think they’re watching themselves being ignored, and that’s the one thing they hate. So they just crank up the volume and spread their falsehoods and nonsense.”

  16. Pingback: Stephan Lewandowsky ‘flees’ Australia in wake of investigations | Watts Up With That?

  17. GingerZilla says:

    “Whenever there is a seemingly random tragic event, people seek to explain it in a way that reduces their fear”

    Because a belief that the government is killing it’s own people to gain total control of the populace reduces fear? Being a self confessed (comedy) conspiracy theorist I can avow that because the moon landing was faked (they’ve been mining gorgonzola there for centuries and filmed in a studio to avoid revealing cheese industry secrets) I feel really safe.

    Alternately making people believe that random tragic weather events are caused by a trace gas will ramp up fear in rational normal people but that’s for a greater good and needed to counter the Koch bros as well as watch the conspiracy ideators in the denier movement who by virtue of not believing in the official story of catastrophic climate chaos/change/weird weather and seeing it as a conspiracy feel warm, squishy and safe.

    If I can link this with breasts and buttocks I may have a paper Lew may wish to cite! 😉

  18. Pingback: Lew’s Third Table | Geoffchambers's Blog

  19. Pingback: Frontears of mediocrity: Lewandowsky & Mann on the march | The View From Here

  20. Pingback: The Great Climate Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy Theory | Climate Scepticism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s