Take a look here at a series by Canada's National Post. A series of scientists involved in global warming research are more or less demonstrating that there is more than one way to approach the evidence, and more significantly IMO, that those who advocate the "standard" interpretation of the evidence respond to their opponents not with evidence, but rather with ad hominem attacks, withholding of research grants, and deliberate falsification of the evidence.
I don't object to the idea that it would be smart to reduce fossil fuel use. I did, after all, live in LA for two summers, and I could tell when the smog days were simply by how well I could breathe. I do, however, object to the idea that government somehow has the right to tell us exactly how we can, and cannot, use energy.
3 Crowd-Pleasing Nacho Recipes That Aren’t the Usual Chips and Cheese
-
There are some foods that lend themselves especially well to snacking on
while watching football. You want foods that are shareable, easy to serve
and ea...
15 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment