"Scientists form group to support science-friendly candidates." Guess who they do not like? (hint: they apply moral criteria to policy...) NYT
Are there Ivorybills in the Fla. panhandle? Maybe.
Lawyer Advt. Hall of Fame: "Call me if you hate your spouse like poison." Haha. Guy has a Youtube too. At Overlawyered
The EU upholds Hitler's ban on home schooling. I told ya that the EU is a fascist organization.
Mayor Bloomberg wants to be everybody's Jewish mother. "Don't eat that." "Don't smoke." "It's raining - put on your rubbers." Absolutely obnoxious, intrusive, and infantilizing of adult citizens. Where does he think we are - England? I agree with Dr. Helen.
Are doctors equal? They get paid the same. DB's Rants
Education is not subject to market pressures. Why not? Because they couldn't handle it. RWN
Sen. Inhofe is fed up with the reception to his entirely reasonable global warming speech. Link to his original speech, and text of his comments on the reaction to his speech above. A quote:
I have been engaged in this debate for several years and believe there is a growing backlash of Americans rejecting what they see as climate scare tactics. And as a result, global warming alarmists are becoming increasingly desperate.
Perhaps that explains why the very next day after I spoke on the floor, ABC News’s Bill Blakemore on Good Morning America prominently featured James Hansen touting future scary climate scenarios that could / might / possibly happen. ABC’s “modest” title for the segment was “Will the Earth Become Too Hot? Are Our Children in Danger?”
The segment used all the well worn tactics from the alarmist guidebook -- warning of heat waves, wildfires, droughts, melting glaciers, mass extinctions unless mankind put itself on a starvation energy diet and taxed emissions.
But that’s no surprise – Blakemore was already on the record declaring “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” about manmade catastrophic global warming.
( http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=2374968 )
You have to be a pretty poor investigator to believe that. Why would 60 prominent scientists this last spring have written Canadian Prime Minister Harper that “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” ( http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 )
On Tuesday’s program, the ABC News anchor referred to Blakemore as “passionate” about global warming. “Passionate” is one word to describe that kind of reporting, but words like objectivity or balance are not.
I believe it’s these kinds of stories which explain why the American public is growing increasingly skeptical of the hype. Despite the enormous 2006 media campaign to instill fear into the public, the number of people who believe that weather naturally changes -- is increasing.
And
This past Monday, I took to this floor for the eighth time to discuss global warming. My speech focused on the myths surrounding global warming and how our national news media has embarrassed itself with a 100-year documented legacy of coverage on what turned out to be trendy climate science theories.
Over the last century, the media has flip-flopped between global cooling and warming scares. At the turn of the 20th century, the media peddled an upcoming ice age -- and they said the world was coming to an end. Then in the 1930s, the alarm was raised about disaster from global warming -- and they said the world was coming to an end. Then in the 70’s, an alarm for another ice age was raised -- and they said the world was coming to an end. And now, today we are back to fears of catastrophic global warming -- and again they are saying the world is coming to an end.
Today I would like to share the fascinating events that have unfolded since my floor speech on Monday.
Read the whole story (link above) and find out.
"Experts" oppose use of DDT to attack malaria, here. (h/t, Junk Science)
Smart bloggers are always talking about Karl Popper. Who was he? Wiki. I only knew him from his concept of falsifiability - a criterion for a scientific claim (ie, it includes criteria by which it may be modified or disproven).
