Hard hitting global and local news
Tweet 1. League of Conservation Voters endorses Clinton , their earliest endorsement in 30 years. A no-brainer compared to the Republicans, but much less so compared to her party rivals. My impression of LCV is that it’s a quite political organization – and speaking as a former politician, I’m not saying that as an insult
Eli Rabett Eli Rabett Eli Rabett is a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny, a chair election from retirement, at a wanna be research university that has a lot to be proud of but has swallowed the Kool-Aid. The students are naive but great and the administrators vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional. His colleagues are smart, but they have a curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves.
Credit xkcd Eli’s attention in the comments has been drawn to a rather superficial analysis of the situation the world finds itself in by Steve Koonin whom the bunnies have met before. Koonin appears not to have taken Andy Lacis’ advice to spend time to understanding the physics of climate change better and that small changes in the wrong place are what brings prosperity to undertakers. As Lacis said about Koonin’s belittling the effect of small changes in global temperature
Tweet I want to follow up on Eli’s comment below that "There is a place between blogs, arXiv and Science for really speculative papers, but the authors need to strongly defend themselves." Yes, and Hansen’s paper is properly occupying that place, assuming it can stay defended. But then, think about a speculative paper that went for the mirror-opposite side of the spectrum, saying "what if we’ve been wrong about everything about climate change and here’s a negative feedback mechanism previously undiscovered that will safely limit things." Let’s further assume this turns out not to be a Galileus paper but a Bozo paper , as seems likely. The normal consequences of publishing something that’s wrong is bent, by denialism
Tweet That’s my interpretation of Clinton’s carefully limited support for the death penalty .
Tweet Science is understanding data, not data. Science requires data, and it requires models to understand the data. The best models will be based on well established principles of physics, chemistry and biology.
