I have been an active environmentalist for almost my entire life. At age 16 I testified before a Congressional hearing in support of a proposed wilderness area in Utah. I worked to get the Clean Air Act passed, and worked for two summers as a wilderness ranger in New Mexico. I do all of my local transport and shopping by bicycle, and buy almost exclusively organic and free range food.
The reason I blog is because catastrophic global warming is junk science, used by unscrupulous people for unscrupulous political and financial purposes. It keeps environmentalists from doing anything useful, and provides progressives an excuse to push toward totalitarianism.
The global warming scam needs to be stopped. It has spiraled completely out of control, and no longer has any pretense of science behind the lies.
I agree with all of them. Eating fat doesn’t make you fat, eating cholesterol doesn’t increase your cholesterol, stick with saturated fat (not just butter, but egg yolks, and animal fats), not seed oils, and stop counting calories. Just eat what’s good for you, and avoid what’s bad.
This is even more junk science than climate science (and as I’ve noted in the past, this kind of nonsense probably killed my father in the late seventies). As I’ve also noted in the past, science that has public consequences tends to become politicized.
With his new attorneys, Mark has filed a motion to deny Mann’s motion to dismiss:
Mann’s lawsuit is not advocacy. It therefore does not even cross the statutory threshold. His misguided attempt to invoke the Anti-SLAPP law’s provisions to discourage Steyn’s counterclaims would defeat the very purpose of that law. That is so because Steyn’s counterclaims -– unlike Mann’s lawsuit — do not seek to interfere with a right of advocacy. Since Mann’s libel suit does not constitute “advocacy,” Steyn need not show a likelihood of success on the merits to defeat Mann’s motion.
Mann’s attempt to enlist the Anti-SLAPP law as a weapon to silence Steyn’s criticisms is perverse. It is contrary to the fundamental salutary purpose of that statute. It wrongfully seeks the imposition of costs and attorneys’ fees against Steyn in retaliation for his asserting and defending his constitutional right to speak out on a matter of great public interest.
There have been several city-killer-class impacts since 2001. We were just lucky they didn’t hit cities. And Chelyabinsk really dodged a bullet last year. You should support the B612 Foundation. Don’t expect the government to do anything about this.
Not surprising — evolutionarily, we’re omnivores. Vegetarians have to rationalize that they’re eating healthier to justify their unwillingness to eat animals, but they’re not.
There is a lot of energy stored in the southern San Andreas, but I don’t worry about that one, as much, because it’s sixty miles away at its closest. I’m much more concerned about a seven on the Newport-Inglewood fault, which runs just few miles from our house.