She has not the slightest idea what she’s talking about.
That’s true of most subjects, I think,
She has not the slightest idea what she’s talking about.
That’s true of most subjects, I think,
…doesn’t understand the first thing about free speech.
Sadly, it doesn’t distinguish him from most university administrators. Or the people supporting Michael Mann in his lawsuit against me.
How not to “crush and bury them.”
As he notes, this is really about the Left’s resentment of anything that requires actual effort. The people who can least afford (in more than one sense of the word) to eat out is poor people. But it’s a bad deal for everyone, in terms of both fiscal and physical health.
Let’s do it for the children. Better yet, let’s eliminate it.
Click on it. You know you want to.
And yes, before anyone complains, there are many inaccuracies. It’s entertaining nonetheless.
That proof that it shortens life is irrefutable.
Well, guess I won’t die of that.
As I noted on Twitter:
Anyone who continues to push "97%" nonsense is either pig ignorant or a lying demagogue. No other options. http://t.co/BVKTYuC3Tw
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 5, 2014
Judith Curry explains:
I think we need to declare the idea of a 97% consensus among climate scientists on the issue of climate change attribution to be dead. Verheggen’s 82-90% number is more defensible, but I’ve argued that this analysis needs to be refined.
Climate science needs to be evaluated by people outside the climate community, and this is one reason why I found Kahan’s analysis to be interesting of people who scored high on the science intelligence test. And why the perspectives of scientists and engineers from other fields are important.
As I’ve argued in my paper No consensus on consensus, a manufactured consensus serves no scientific purpose and can in fact torque the science in unfortunate ways.
And José Duarte is appropriately brutal: