Why they can’t save the planet.
[Update a while later]
Requirements for a scalable approach to decarbonization.
Why they can’t save the planet.
[Update a while later]
Requirements for a scalable approach to decarbonization.
The request for en banc review of the DC appellate decision, after over two years, has been denied.
[Update a while later]
This lawsuit is now so old that, if it was a child, it would now be in first grade. For those unfamiliar with the background, Jonathan Adler described it last year.
When do they become super?
It’s now been two years since we requested an en banc rehearing of our case before the D.C. Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, twenty-four news organizations have filed amici on our behalf. I actually knew about this a few weeks ago, but decided to link this when Anthony’s site noted it.
[Afternoon update]
Here is the original report, which has several misquotes and misattributions (e.g., it misspells “warm mongers” and attributes some of my words to Mark Steyn).
I wonder how much the additional twenty kilometers will be worth in the market? Jonathan McDowell makes a pretty good case that the line actually should be eighty kilometers. Von Karman never declared it to be a hundred.
Strange, because I don’t personally know anyone who’s been affected (that I know of).
An interesting piece by Michelle Hanlon. This is a corollary with space property right. If some places are off limits, it implies that most others are not.
A cell-killing strategy to do it has passed its first human test.
I’m taking quercetin (when I remember to take my supplements at all — I wish taking pills was less of a chore).
Woah!
Carbon dioxide helps things grow? Who would've thought?!
Big if true! https://t.co/wajoPG1G67
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) February 15, 2019