…its water quality would be fine.
Government is just a word for things we do together, like charging city residents for toxic water that will cause permanent brain damage to their kids.
[Update a few minutes later]
Flint residents can’t sue the government. Unlike if the water company had been private like (say) General Motors. Isn’t that convenient?
Dale Skran critiques a strawmannish article from a few days ago, so I don’t have to.
A roundup of links and discussion of the latest in scientific “transparency.”
In my opinion, science that has any policy implications (I’m looking at you, climate and nutrition) has gone completely off the rails.
They are figuratively all Joe Biden now.
All this angers Americans with experience in our military and intelligence services who understand what Ms. Clinton and her staff did—and that they would be held to far harsher standards for attempting anything similar. They know that brave Americans have given their lives protecting Top Secret Codeword information. They know that in every American embassy around the world, our diplomatic outposts that worked for Hillary Clinton, Marine guards have standing orders to fight to the death to protect the classified information that’s inside those embassies. That Hillary Clinton gave similar information away, by choice, is something she needs to explain if she expects to be our next Commander-in-Chief.
She has no explanation, at least not one that doesn’t make it look even worse.
[Update a few minutes later]
“Her disregard wasn’t casual. It was a conscious and involved scheme to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, and possibly also Obama Administration scrutiny of her actions. She put the nation as a whole at risk, along with individual lives of intelligence sources, for political reasons: to avoid accountability.”
As she’s been doing, and gotten away with, for decades. Why wouldn’t she assume that she’d continue to not be held to account?
[Update a while later]
The FBI director would like to indict both Clinton and Abedin.
Analysis: Likely.
A call for an impartial scientific review of government guidelines.
They’re currently worse than useless.
The vast waste of money continues.
…the bum who wants your money.
He does seem to lack marketable skills. Quite a despicable character, really, but that’s pretty common with Marxists.
[Update a couple minutes later]
This seems related, somehow: Camille Paglia psychoanalyzes Hillary Clinton, and its not a pretty picture.
I haven’t read the whole thing, but there’s a new white paper out about it.
Another example of their bogosity:
It occurs to me to wonder whether this error in the GISS-E2-R ocean mixing parameterisation, which gave rise to AMOC instability in the Pliocene simulation, might possibly account for the model’s behaviour in LU run 1. It looks to me as if something goes seriously wrong with the AMOC in the middle of the 20th century in that run, with no subsequent recovery evident.
But let’s make wealth-destroying policy based on this!
[Update on January 28th]
Insights from Karl Popper to break the gridlock in the climate debate.
It’s sad how so many people who (ironically) accuse me of being a “climate denier” or a “science denier” are so profoundly ignorant of how science actually works.
[Bumped]
[Update a while later]
An analysis from Judith Curry and Nic Lewis on the latest climate crap from Mann et al:
As I see it, this paper is a giant exercise in circular reasoning:
- Assume that the global surface temperature estimates are accurate; ignore the differences with the satellite atmospheric temperatures
- Assume that the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble can be used to accurately portray probabilities
- Assume that the CMIP5 models adequately simulate internal variability
- Assume that external forcing data is sufficiently certain
- Assume that the climate models are correct in explaining essentially 100% of the recent warming from CO2
In order for Mann et al.’s analysis to work, you have to buy each of these 5 assumptions; each of these is questionable to varying degrees.
You don’t say.