What headlines would look like there.
Obviously, I disagree with the one on global warming. “Consensus” is not a scientific term. And even if it were, it’s not close to 90%.
What headlines would look like there.
Obviously, I disagree with the one on global warming. “Consensus” is not a scientific term. And even if it were, it’s not close to 90%.
Looks like Google is serious, if they’ve hired Cynthia Kenyon.
This, like opening space, is something that the government isn’t going to do, for the same reason. There are too many powerful interests invested in the status quo.
No, Mark, bacon and sausage don’t cause coronaries and strokes. #NutritionalIgnorance
Sorry, but in a free society, some tragedies just can’t be prevented.
I think that the FDA is a much greater danger to public health than DNA testing. It needs to be reined in.
Earlier this year in an interview with the Globe and Mail you described Canada’s development of the oil sands as the equivalent of treating the atmosphere like an “open sewer.” What do you have to say about the findings of Canadian climate scientist and lead UN IPCC author Andrew Weaver, and his colleague Neal Swart, published in the journal Nature, that even if Canada developed all the commercially viable oil in the oilsands, global temperatures would rise by an insignificant 0.03 degrees?
It’s frightening how close this pompous hypocritical math-challenged fool came to being president.
The government of Washington DC has joined the media organizations and ACLU in filing an amicus brief on our behalf, advocating for a speedy appeal of the refusal of our motions to dismiss. AFAIK, no one has done so on behalf of Mann.
The latest IPCC report exposes the faith-based initiative that is climate “science”:
In just about any realm of human study, being this dramatically wrong would cause the authors of the errors to be dismissed as unreliable, and perhaps as quacks. But in the world of environmental fearmongering, a spectacularly false prediction is no obstacle. There is no “wrong” in climate activism, there is only the message, which must be pushed continuously without regard for contrary evidence or honest scientific skepticism. Unsettling facts must not get in the way of “settled science.”
Fortunately, I think a lot of people are no longer falling for the scam.
It’s women who do it, for pretty obvious reasons.
It’s nice to see psychologists trying to do real science.
…at the Food Network.
All of the myths are here: fat is bad, meat ‘in moderation,” grains are good, etc. No, those ten foods are not “healthier than I think.” They’re much worse than you think.