Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Via Greenie Watch
|That's the question posed by the ABC's Mark Colvin on Twitter in response to this article in The Guardian.|
This was always my misgiving about Wikileaks: in it's scatter-gun approach there would be collateral damage, and the man trying to stand up to Robert Mugabe may be part of this.
Yes, it all seemed such a jolly jape to so many on the Left when they simplistically and foolishly assumed that Wikileaks was just an embarrassment to the United States and, well gee, that must be a good thing right?
Well, do you think? Does anyone honestly think that China is a more desirable hegamon?Or are people as infantiley stupid as Helen Clarke, the former prime minister of New Zealand and the Labour Party there who thought it was a good idea to encourage the lovely and sensitive Chinese in the Pacific as opposed to those horrible and oppressive Americans?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
|From the Food & Health Skeptic:|
Okay, while this is pretty much the result I'd have expected, (most so-called herbal remedies have either no real effect or only a very small one), and I think accords with some other studies, I do have a few caveats.
It's a small sample of people and, most crucially, it involves self reporting. Always be wary of studies that involve people reporting how they feel, though depends on whether they were given a definite list of symptoms to report on (which seems to be the case), not just the vague "how do you feel?" kind of questions (which tend to be subjective and work in favour of unconventional remedies).
|Taken from Greenie Watch:|
Monday, December 20, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Sadly, as Nova observes, McKnight is emblematic of the overall decline of academic standards and intellectual rigour within Australian universities, especially within faculties and schools devoted to the liberal arts and social studies.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
As Mr. Henderson puts it, the Deutsche Bank report on climate skeptics has been rendered worthless as a guide to the science and for investors. It also betrays a larger issue, which is a corporate role on the part of Deutsche Bank that makes Exxon look like a Boy Scout. –Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, 14 December 2010
It would thus appear that its Climate Change Advisors, who are no more than “the climate-change investment division of Deutsche Asset Management,” took a strong position on behalf of Deutsche Bank on a controversial political matter. If so, it would be interesting to know whether and to what extent this action, which appears as questionable in itself, was authorized and approved at higher levels within the bank. –David Henderson, Financial Post, 14 December 2010
At a certain point it becomes disconcerting that Deutsche Bank, which is among other things one of the few international banks qualified to act as a primary dealer for the New York Federal Reserve, and is thereby subject to particularly stringent requirements about accuracy of commentary it publishes on economic and policy issues, is going to such efforts to excuse publication of misleading information. --Ross McKitrick, Guelph University, November 2010
1) David Henderson: Deutsche Bank's Corporate Irresponsibility - Financial Post, 14 December 2010
2) Terence Corcoran: Deutsche’s Climate - Financial Post, 14 December 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
|This is big, and it is worrying. I "believe" in science or, more to the point, the scientific method.|
Even something like this is probably part of the self-correcting nature of science. It's just that self-correction as we've traditionally understood it doesn't seem to have worked very well.
As the article makes clear, this is not about scientific fraud. It's about the fact that scientists are human beings and are prone like anyone else to see what they want to see.
Dr Ray from Greenie Watch (has links to article etc) comments:
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Somewhat different issue, but I've said this before: the whole problem of the peak oil theorists was that they were making predictions about a resource that we have never really had a good estimate of. I think it is pretty clear that there was always more oil than we thought, possibly much more.
There is an oil field in the United States that should have run dry several times already based on successive estimates of how much was left made since the 19th Century!
It's still producing and showing no signs yet of running out and it's not an isolated case. Fully two thirds of all possible oil-bearing strata have not been surveyed with modern geological methods according to an article in Scientific American published within the last year.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
From Watts Up With That?
From Mr Bolt:
As perfect an example of green economics - where you always get less for more - as you'll find.
Rosie Redfield runs "a microbiology research lab in the Life Sciences Centre at the University of British Columbia."
My main concern up to now with this story was that it was yet another example, so increasingly prevalent these days, of researchers and institutions over-hyping their discoveries so as to attract media attention (and no doubt more funding). And of course the blogosphere and twitterverse had been crackling for days with speculation (fed by NASA) about some amazing discovery with exobiological ramifications.
Follow the link for the full post.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
And they wonder why we don't take them seriously anymore.
Friday, December 3, 2010
I suppose it's good that the Fin Review's Laura Tingle doesn't even bother trying to hide her anti-Coalition bias?
THE last time Australia had much of a political debate on labour market participation, the Coalition was in one of its more cheerful phases of beating up on blacks and disabled pensioners. That was back before it discovered the untapped political potential of boatpeople.