Two of them gearing up for use after success in mice.
Well, that seems like a bit of good news.
Two of them gearing up for use after success in mice.
Well, that seems like a bit of good news.
It may be happening:
The policy significance of this issue is clear: if we are headed to a mid-20th century solar minimum, or a Grand Solar Minimum for the next two centuries, this will offset greenhouse warming to some extent. The extent of the offset depends on whether climate sensitivity to CO2 is on the larger or smaller end of the range of estimates, and the magnitude of the solar impact. But the sign of the solar offset is becoming increasingly clear: towards cooling.
One of the reasons I’ve been skeptical about claims that carbon will be catastrophic is the willful insistence on ignoring the sun, and I can’t think of any reason to do it than because we don’t understand it, and therefore it can’t be included in the hysterical modeling, and it can’t fit the narrative. I continue to believe that what we don’t understand about climate is much greater than what we do.
[Update a few minutes later]
Is the dam bursting? Climate researchers who have previously denigrated solar activity as being insignificant are now warning of a new mini ice age.
I really have trouble taking any of this seriously.
Rediscovering them.
We’re not running out of anything on earth any time soon. That’s no reason not to open up off-planet resources, though.
Is it finally about to run off the tracks? Let’s hope.
How a graduate advisor undermined her student.
There are some serious problems with academia, and not just in the social sciences.
Twelve questions about climate that he refuses to answer.
Because this actually has very little to do with actual science.
A new definition of research misconduct:
My previous post illustrated numerous ethical conflicts that can arise for researchers. But when it comes to conflicts between your conscience and your colleagues, or the public and your colleagues, any perceived responsibility to your colleagues has to take a back seat.
But it seems that in academic science, responsibility to your colleagues and their opinions, their declarations of consensus, their reputations, is apparently regarded by many researchers as the paramount consideration, viz. the circling of the wagons that occurred in Climategate.
This concern about ‘responsibility’ to your colleagues seems only to extend to colleagues who happen to agree with you.
Academic science, and academia in general, is very, very sick.
…continues to preach junk science:
The American Heart Association recommends a heart-healthy dietary pattern emphasizing fruits, vegetables, whole grains and other nutritious foods and specifically that at least half of grain consumption should be whole grains. Whole grains provide many nutrients, such as fiber, B vitamins, and minerals, which are removed during the refining process.
No protein, no fat. This is the kind of diet that helped kill my father from his second heart attack decades ago, at age 55.
Treating people with them to prevent heart disease is a waste of time (and money). Not news to me, but it’s nice to see more people catching on. I’m still trying to get my brother to get off them.
This is great. I wish I’d done it.