Or is it one Potemkin village after another?
It goes all the way back to the Russian revolution, when they called themselves “Bolsheviks,” when they weren’t a majority at all. Nor are they “liberal,” or “progressive.”
Or is it one Potemkin village after another?
It goes all the way back to the Russian revolution, when they called themselves “Bolsheviks,” when they weren’t a majority at all. Nor are they “liberal,” or “progressive.”
The only way I could have picked one is with a dartboard. #BasketballIsEvil #IRemainAnAmerican #HopeNoOneAsksMeIfEverOnThePanel
More junk food science (not junk-food science).
People who do these studies don’t seem to understand statistics, or know how to do studies.
Another nail in the socialist Doomsters’ coffin.
Lileks is unimpressed:
Time was a sculptor looked at a big slab of stone and saw the figure within he would liberate with hammer and chisel; time was, people gathered to see a monolith pass because it was a gift from Egypt, and stood for the power of another culture your culture had managed to subdue. Plus, it was cool; it was exotic. Time was, you valued something for what we could make of it, not the fact that you could just drag it somewhere else and say “now walk under it, and think things about big rocks.” Feh.
I have to confess, I couldn’t figure out what the big deal was, either, but if I had gone to watch, it would have been to see the vehicle, not the rock.
Pictures of East Germany, before and after the fall of the Wall.
…Steven Chu is a great scientist. But there’s nothing in his experience or education that would equip him for running a federal department, or to be a competent venture capitalist with other peoples’ money, and with billions of losses to the taxpayer and energy prices going through the roof, it shows. The notion that he deserves anything short of an F is laughable.
…and the career lies.
I think this bubble is starting to pop.
The Journal takes on the Jerry Sandusky of climate science:
…for all his caviling about “smear campaigns,” “conspiracy theorists” and “character assassination,” Mr. Mann is happy to employ similar tactics against his opponents. Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and a past program chair of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Applied Climatology, is introduced as “a prominent climate change contrarian at the University of Virginia primarily known for his advocacy for the fossil fuel industry.” (Nowhere does Mr. Mann explain why a scientist might be more easily corrupted by a check from, say, a coal company than by one from a politically controlled institution.)
Instead of molesting children, though, he molests the data and his critics. But unlike Sandusky, Penn State continues to whitewash it.
Gary Taubes comments on the pseudoscience behind it.