Maybe not.
Category Archives: Science And Society
The EPA
…has four scandals going on its own right now. Another monster that has to be reined in.
National Space Policy
A “Values-Based Approach“? The question is — what are the values? I think he’s got it wrong:
Discovery is why a nation should go to space. It is what inspires all of humanity. It has been NASA’s only use of human spaceflight in the post-Apollo era that has returned value that is highly regarded by nearly all people in developed countries with free access to information. The synergy that once existed between human-assisted and robotic space exploration in the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) program is a blueprint for sustained deep space human-assisted exploration that can stoke the nation’s competitiveness in science, technology, and math toward realization of long-term financial and physical security.
That’s an opinion, not a fact. I would expect a scientist to think that science is the reason for human spaceflight, but most people don’t agree with him (or have even given it much thought). If it’s not for the purpose of developing and settling space, the amount of money we’re spending on it is unjustifiable.
Nutrition Junk Science
Gee, this guy acts a lot like some climate “scientists.”
Debating An Anti-Humanist
Bob Zubrin has a report. Sounds like a good time was had by all, except for Cafaro.
My Kind Of Life Extension
Have lots of s3x, especially if you’re a man. But I’ll bet it’s good advice for women, too.
Light And Scattered Posting
I’m heading out to Colorado in the morning for the NRSC. I’ll check in when I get settled in.
Ten Rules Of Evolution
…in science fiction. H. G. Wells was as ignorant of evolution as any creationist is.
Molecular Bonds
Imaging them at an atomic level.
When I took chemistry, I always wondered if the structural diagrams that chemists came up with were accurate depictions, or just a conceptual model. Now we know.
The Climate Campaign
How it plans to get its groove back:
Look for this to be the headline of the next IPCC report, due out in September. The report will walk back previous estimates of climate sensitivity, but will affirm that we’re still doomed unless we go ahead with the previous program of handing over power to bureaucrats to control our energy supply. You read it here on Power Line first.
The interesting part will be to see whether climate orthodoxy proposes a new, and theoretically more plausible, GHG emissions reduction target and timetable, like a 50 percent cut by the year 2060. I doubt it. Hatred of “fossil fuels” is the categorical imperative of modern environmentalism, and it long predates the arrival of global warming as an issue. The original complaint was that that hydrocarbons produced too much conventional air pollution, but once we solved that problem global warming became the fallback position. Nothing will deter environmentalists from this wisp—certainly not facts or progress. I’m betting they’ll stick with the previous 80 by 50 target. But if they come in with a different one, I’ll do the math to figure out what year in the past it will take the U.S. back to: I’ll bet it will still be something like 1925. Stay tuned.
It was never about science. It was always about control, and political power.