My thoughts on natural disasters, climate change, risk, and economics.
[Monday-morning update]
Related thoughts from David Hagen, over at Climate, Etc.
My thoughts on natural disasters, climate change, risk, and economics.
[Monday-morning update]
Related thoughts from David Hagen, over at Climate, Etc.
A new investigation into how much it’s been “adjusted.”
Faster, please.
Elizabeth Price Foley is appalled at some recent court decisions, and the trend.
I’ve got mixed feelings on this. I agree that they shouldn’t be given full human rights, but I do think we should make distinctions as a function of intelligence, and perhaps even recognize some degree of moral agency (e.g., dolphins). It also raises the issue of how we would treat extraterrestrials as a function of those things.
First, Nina Teichholz, and now Scientific American dismantles the quack.
[Early-afternoon update]
Should we eat meat? Thoughts from (of all people) Bill Gates.
Judith Curry’s warning to Bjorn Stevens: “In my quest to objectively evaluate the IPCC’s attribution argument and stand up for research integrity post Climategate, I was not ‘pulled’ away from the establishment community by ‘deniers’; rather I was ‘pushed’ away by scientists who were IPCC ideologues and advocates. Watch out.”
#ProTip: Use of the phrase "climate denier" makes you look like a derriere fedora.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) April 22, 2015
States should rebel against them. This isn’t about the planet, it’s about power. Raw political power.
[Update a couple minutes later]
“We’ll observe Earth Day when the EPA obeys the law.”
Don’t hold your breath on that one.
This is refreshing. A scientist who thinks it may be there now, and has no problems with terraforming. Usually such people are concerned about the ethics.
My lawyers, on the limits of the First Amendment as applied to libel and slander.