…doesn’t affect drinking water.
I wonder what the self-denominated “Party of Science” that insists on blocking it anyway has to say?
…doesn’t affect drinking water.
I wonder what the self-denominated “Party of Science” that insists on blocking it anyway has to say?
Thoughts on the strange political bedfellows of bioethics, from Ron Bailey:
These progressive bioconservatives fear that the rich and powerful will use technology, especially biotech, to outcompete and oppress the poor and weak. In their view, human dignity depends on human equality. It turns out that “the party of science” really is just the old-fashioned “party of equality,” science be damned (unless its findings conform to egalitarian ideology). Left-wing biocons seem to believe that protecting human dignity requires the rich and poor to remain equally diseased, disabled, and dead.
It’s always amazing to me to see the people who claim to be the “party of science” so fundamentally in denial of human nature. But of course, if they recognized it, their entire ideology falls apart. But this conflict is one more reason we need to expand off planet.
Mark Steyn’s thoughts on the birth-control distraction.
Ben Domenech explains.
Thoughts on Hollywood political correctness, from Bill Whittle.
…is looking faker by the minute.
I think that Megan is being a little too optimistic here:
Unfortunately, I’d imagine that this is still a sizeable set of people, and it will be hard to identify the author. I suspect that it will be easier to do if the climate-bloggers–who may well know this person as a commenter or correspondent–get involved in trying to find out who muddied the story by perpetrating a fraud on their sites.
Certainly, if I were in their shoes, I’d want to expose this person, so that they could refocus on the legitimate documents, and put to rest doubts about their integrity in this matter. But I’m not going to hold my breath.
This chart is cruel, but true. It’s what happens when you think that The Daily Show is a news show.
You’re going to jail. Maybe.
All these laws, in which it is almost impossible to get through a day without breaking one, and all this legal uncertainty is (as Ayn Rand and others have pointed out) a huge threat to liberty.
Glenn Reynolds offers a useful course syllabus, which is unlikely to be used, given the nature of academia.
…with a fake memo? Looks like it to me.
Funny, the climate skeptics have never had to resort to things like this — they had plenty of real proof of unscientific behavior. These people sound desperate.