EU Referendum: A climate change person

Thus, we have a report "researched" and written by a climate change advocate, and edited by another "researcher" on climate change, overseen by a campaigns manager for an organisation that is active in climate change activism. And it was going to report anything else, other than climate change was a problem?

More than ever, this underlines the unreliability of NGO reports – in particular from advocacy groups such as Oxfam, whose work is not worth the paper it is printed on.

EU Referendum: A satisfactory model of complete ignorance

And you will be pleased to learn that the theoretical part consisted of an analysis of the decision theoretical as well as evidential basis of imprecise probabilities in the light of climate change. In the applied part, it investigated how the presence of ambiguity, i.e., imprecise information, can alter the results of model-based analyses of climate protection strategies and policy instruments.

It seems they had their work cut out. Fortunately, the work – completed in May last year – only cost us €245,365.00 – excluding VAT of course. Mind you, I could have provided "a satisfactory model of complete ignorance," absolutely free of change.

When Humans Almost Went Extinct | The Resilient Earth

Our nails and teeth seem particularly unimpressive, unsuited for defense let alone hunting; try jumping on the back end of a buffalo and taking a bite with only the equipment nature has provided and you will see what I mean.  [no thanks; I'll take your word for it]

They're finally admitting the science isn't settled

[Lorne Gunter] There are plenty of ways in which these disclosures have been crucial, but the principal change has been the uncertainty creeping into the remarks of former True Believers. Some of those who for years have insisted the science is "settled," are now admitting we don't know all we need to before making trillion-dollar policy decisions.