I saw an interesting postulation on Twitter that the reason the dinosaurs could grow so large was that there was less gravity during the Mesozoic. My response:
All I know is that, if earth’s gravity was really less for the dinosaurs, it’s one less excuse for them to have not had a space program that could have prevented them being wiped out.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) July 4, 2018
An appeals court is compelling the University of Arizona to (finally) release them.
The sixth anniversary of the blog post that launched Michael Mann’s lawsuit against me and Mark Steyn is coming up next week.
An interesting paper at Judith Curry’s site (which is a go-to place for people following the climate follies).
Once again, for the record, I find literally incredible the notion that we have either the understanding of the physical interactions or the computer power to predict future climate with any useful confidence.
If this new paper is correct, we should be firing up our SUVs.
[Friday update]
Thirty years on, how do climate predictions hold up?
Not well. [paywall]
[Bumped]
A new paper assessing spaceflight mortality. Not sure how useful it is, given the admitted paucity of data.
[Update a few minutes later]
When a Mars simulation goes wrong. Yes, we have a lot to learn before we go to other planets, and even then, people will die, often in terrible ways. Part of the answer is that we have to be more ambitious about how many we send. Six simply isn’t enough.
…are falcon big. This is a cool video to give you a sense of scale.
An interesting interview of one of the most fascinating men of the 20th century. I saw him at ISDC, and he is holding up well mentally, though he’s been physically frail for decades.
[Wednesday-afternoon update]
Well, the comments have certainly drifted on this one.
Judith Curry lays out her luke-warmist case.
The (rare) voices of reason:
10. Can we put the polarization genie back in the bottle, on climate or anything else? I really don’t know. But I do wonder how those advocating further radicalization of climate advocacy imagine any of this ends.
11. Making ever more radical demands might be a fine strategy were there someone to negotiate with. But by the reckoning of most prominent climate hawks, there isn’t.
12. Nor does it appear that a more inclusive climate coalition is likely to bring larger congressional majorities. Any Democrat-only climate strategy has to be predicated on not only winning but holding purple/red districts over multiple elections.
13. These are precisely the districts that radicalized climate rhetoric alienates culturally and the green policy agenda punishes economically. Since the failure of cap and trade in 2010, climate activists have taken rhetoric to 11, and what it got them was Trump.
And it will continue to.
Yes, all of these are a sign that the belief is religious, not scientific or rational.