…a lot more often than we’ve previously believed. I’m not sure, but I think that one of the reasons Ed Lu wrote the foreword to my book is that he shares my concern that our risk aversion will prevent us from mitigating the real risks.
Damn you, global warming. DAMN YOU!
Judith Curry disagrees with Kerry Emanuel on now to evaluate climate risk.
This looks like an interesting article, if I ever get around to reading it.
Is anticrastination doing something immediately?
We shouldn’t worry, we should just accept that this will happen and we should adapt to it and regard it as a business opportunity.
Its arrogant to assume that climate will remain static.
The whole language of climate change is designed to confuse the public and policy makers
Bob Carter says the IPCC has accomplished the inversion of the null hypothesis, where the onus is now on disproving dangerous anthropogenic climate change
We should focus on protecting people from natural hazards, and not worrying about what is causing them
It makes sense to encourage alternative energy and see what happens.
Bob Carter closed with this: no scientist can tell you whether it will be warmer or cooler in 2020, so we should prepare for both.
Yes. We don’t know much more than we do know.
And as she notes, the people speaking sensibly are independent or retired, not those receiving government funding.
“…were [Mann] to prevail in the upcoming Mann vs Steyn trial of the century at the DC Superior Court, it would be the biggest setback for the First Amendment in the half-century since New York Times vs Sullivan.”
A brief history of the case to date, from Mark Steyn.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Virginia upheld the university, Mann, and secrecy.
[Update a while later]
“Don’t start deleting those emails just yet, Mikey“:
One thing the order does is give the green light to the University of Virginia to crank up the incinerator for the biggest destruction of research material in a critical area of public policy – not to mention what my old colleague at the Telegraph in London, Christopher Booker, called the other day “the worst scientific scandal of our generation”. Before they grab the matches and gasoline, however, please note that my lawyers have requested a lot of the same material for Mann’s defamation suit against me. I’ll have more to say about this later today.
Unsurprisingly, we don’t know as much about vegetative states as many think they do. Unfortunately, as with cryonics, a lot of the medical profession take the easy way out, ethically speaking.
Mark writes about the judge’s latest order:
…some climate alarmist was in a bit of hurry with his rewriting and those “seven other organizations” became “seven organizations”. But, whether seven or nine, they have all “proved Mann innocent”. In fact, there has only been one investigation of Michael E Mann – the one that was the subject of my original “defamatory” post; the joke investigation by Penn State set up by a now disgraced college president currently facing 30 years in the slammer for obstruction of justice. That’s the only investigation. Yet somewhere along the way Mann grasped that, as with his non-existent Nobel Prize, if he simply declared himself “investigated” and “exonerated” by multiple bodies on both sides of the Atlantic, most of the people in his Climate Bubble would never bother checking.
I have some thoughts over at PJMedia.
The judge has stayed discovery for everyone, including Mann against Steyn, because he doesn’t think there should be two separate discovery processes despite the fact that Mark has severed his legal relationship with the other defendants. The stay is in place until the appeals court makes a ruling either dismissing or allowing the trial(s) to move forward.
What a mess.
It’s generally not because we’re hungry.
I can generally go all day without eating, and often do. There’s a lot of evidence that fasting has some of the benefits of caloric restriction, in terms of life extension.
I’d note, though, that the article seems to subscribe to the caloric theory of weight gain and loss. It doesn’t say what “high-density” foods are, energetically speaking, but not all are created equal. Eating fat doesn’t make you fat.
Mark Steyn has an update on his court case:
On Saturday, I noted that Mann had yet to join me in filing an objection to National Review’s Motion to Stay Discovery. He did so today:
Defendant Mark Steyn opted not to appeal the denial of the motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Rather, Mr. Steyn has filed an answer and counterclaims and has expressed his intention to move forward with discovery, regardless of the fact that his co-defendants have opted to appeal.
Indeed, I have. So what’s Dr Mann’s position? Well, it’s a two-part response.
On the one hand, he’s in favor of his proceeding with discovery against me:
The fact that Mr. Steyn has not appealed the denial of the motions to dismiss counsels further against a discovery stay. Mr. Steyn, like Dr. Mann, has made clear his desire to have this Court resolve this lawsuit and to move forward with discovery immediately. As such, there is no reason for this Court to delay discovery further.
On the other hand, he’s totally opposed to my proceeding with discovery against him:
While Dr. Mann agrees with Mr. Steyn that discovery should move forward on Dr. Mann’s claims, discovery cannot move forward on Mr. Steyn’s counterclaims.
Oh, my. You do surprise me.
I am shocked, too, of course.
[Update a while later]
You know, in rereading, and thinking about it, that lead is quite fascinating in it’s apparent implications:
Keith Baugues is not a scientist, but that didn’t stop him on a recent wintry day from expressing skepticism about global warming — something that is broadly accepted in the scientific community.
Let’s leave aside for a moment the issue of whether or not Baugues actually is a scientist. Should we infer from this that only scientists are allowed to express skepticism about global warming? Or that “true” scientists aren’t skeptics, and therefore no one can be? Or what?
Even NPR is starting to figure it out.
But note, that, as with climate “science,” dissenters have trouble getting published when they have actual science in opposition to the “settled” science in nutrition:
“Fat was really the villain,” says Walter Willett, who is chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. And, by default, people “had to load up on carbohydrates.”
But, by the mid-1990s, Willett says, there were already signs that the high-carb, low-fat approach might not lead to fewer heart attacks and strokes. He had a long-term study underway that was aimed at evaluating the effects of diet and lifestyle on health.
“We were finding that if people seemed to replace saturated fat — the kind of fat found in cheese, eggs, meat, butter — with carbohydrate, there was no reduction in heart disease,” Willett says.
Willett submitted his data to a top medical journal, but he says the editors would not publish his findings. His paper was turned down.
“There was a lot of resistance to anything that would question the low-fat guidelines,” Willett says, especially the guidelines on saturated fat.
Willett’s paper was eventually published by a British medical journal, the BMJ, in 1996.
And that was almost twenty years ago, and the junk-science FDA guidelines that probably killed my father in the seventies remain pretty much in place.
New sensor data indicates that they’re from three to ten times more common than previously thought:
“The fact that none of these asteroid impacts shown in the video was detected in advance is proof that the only thing preventing a catastrophe from a ‘city-killer’-sized asteroid is blind luck.”
…The Sentinel Infrared Space Telescope Mission is currently due for launch in mid-2018, with an estimated mission cost of $400 million.
But we spend billions in trying to reduce the amount of plant food in the atmosphere.
The syndrome seems to be spreading:
Let’s call it “the debate is over” syndrome, referring to a term used most often in relationship with climate change but also by President Barack Obama last week in reference to what remains his contentious, and theoretically reformable, health care plan. Ironically, this shift to certainty now comes increasingly from what passes for the Left in America.
These are the same people who historically have identified themselves with open-mindedness and the defense of free speech, while conservatives, with some justification, were associated more often with such traits as criminalizing unpopular views – as seen in the 1950s McCarthy era – and embracing canonical bans on all sorts of personal behavior, a tendency still more evident than necessary among some socially minded conservatives.
But when it comes to authoritarian expression of “true” beliefs, it’s the progressive Left that increasingly seeks to impose orthodoxy. In this rising intellectual order, those who dissent on everything from climate change, the causes of poverty and the definition of marriage, to opposition to abortion are increasingly marginalized and, in some cases, as in the Steyn trial, legally attacked.
When people say “the debate is over,” it generally really means they’re losing the debate.
[Update a few minutes later]
[Update a couple minutes later]
Yes, the culture was has been raging for a long time, except people didn’t notice it because it seemed to take place on the edges or in fringe settings. All the Eich affair did was make it obvious.
Ironically many people, even in the homosexual community, don’t want this culture war and are dismayed by the Eich witchunt. They don’t want it not only because … but I’ll get to that in a moment … especially since the Eich affair is not about gay marriage, except incidentally, any more than the Summers affair was about racism or feminism; or that Steyn’s suit has anything to do with warmism or denialism or the gunowners map was about school safety; or still less that the 2013 IRS persecution of Tea Party groups was to do with Citizen’s United.
The removal of Eich is about fascism. It’s about one group of people forcing everyone else to bow to their hat on a pole; it s about book burning, compelling obeisance to, as Jame Surowiecki put it, “a universal ideology” in a manner so bald that even those who might gain politically in the short term from it are horrified by its crudity.
They’ve sown the wind.
It continues, but the marks aren’t falling for it any more.
There were no “threats” against Frontiers In Psychology. They retracted the paper because it was crap.
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn what scientists have to say about human spaceflight policy. It drives me crazy that we continue to operate under the delusion that NASA sends humans into space for the purpose of science, and that scientists have anything useful to say about the subject. Someone should write a book about that. Oh, wait.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s a better report on the topic.
“Why I do this”:
I have been an active environmentalist for almost my entire life. At age 16 I testified before a Congressional hearing in support of a proposed wilderness area in Utah. I worked to get the Clean Air Act passed, and worked for two summers as a wilderness ranger in New Mexico. I do all of my local transport and shopping by bicycle, and buy almost exclusively organic and free range food.
The reason I blog is because catastrophic global warming is junk science, used by unscrupulous people for unscrupulous political and financial purposes. It keeps environmentalists from doing anything useful, and provides progressives an excuse to push toward totalitarianism.
The global warming scam needs to be stopped. It has spiraled completely out of control, and no longer has any pretense of science behind the lies.
Pretty much, yeah.
The top five worst.
I agree with all of them. Eating fat doesn’t make you fat, eating cholesterol doesn’t increase your cholesterol, stick with saturated fat (not just butter, but egg yolks, and animal fats), not seed oils, and stop counting calories. Just eat what’s good for you, and avoid what’s bad.
This is even more junk science than climate science (and as I’ve noted in the past, this kind of nonsense probably killed my father in the late seventies). As I’ve also noted in the past, science that has public consequences tends to become politicized.
My late aunt (by marriage, not a blood relative) suffered from this. I’m sure that it partially contributed to her eventual loss of the will to live.
With his new attorneys, Mark has filed a motion to deny Mann’s motion to dismiss:
Mann’s lawsuit is not advocacy. It therefore does not even cross the statutory threshold. His misguided attempt to invoke the Anti-SLAPP law’s provisions to discourage Steyn’s counterclaims would defeat the very purpose of that law. That is so because Steyn’s counterclaims -– unlike Mann’s lawsuit — do not seek to interfere with a right of advocacy. Since Mann’s libel suit does not constitute “advocacy,” Steyn need not show a likelihood of success on the merits to defeat Mann’s motion.
Mann’s attempt to enlist the Anti-SLAPP law as a weapon to silence Steyn’s criticisms is perverse. It is contrary to the fundamental salutary purpose of that statute. It wrongfully seeks the imposition of costs and attorneys’ fees against Steyn in retaliation for his asserting and defending his constitutional right to speak out on a matter of great public interest.
Not surprising — evolutionarily, we’re omnivores. Vegetarians have to rationalize that they’re eating healthier to justify their unwillingness to eat animals, but they’re not.
Regrets about sleeping through it.
Are we overdue?
There is a lot of energy stored in the southern San Andreas, but I don’t worry about that one, as much, because it’s sixty miles away at its closest. I’m much more concerned about a seven on the Newport-Inglewood fault, which runs just few miles from our house.