If someone is A) skeptical about climate-change alarmist claims and B) favorable to the use of fossil fuels, why do the media and others automatically assume that B is the cause of A rather than the other way around? This is a form of bigotry: no one can doubt alarmist claims without being either corrupt or anti-science.
Recent
Timeline, Buck's article, my thoughts.
One of the current trending intrigues asks how a mother, Lindsay Clancy, should be handled. She has admitted to the murder of her three children. Despite the usual cavalcade of conspiracy theorists and online detectives insisting she may be a patsy, or set up. The...
Iceland successfully defended its territorial waters and defeated the British Royal Navy through non-military tactics across three (some say four) major conflicts known as the Cod Wars between 1958 and 1976. If Iceland were to do this today, the wreck of the Royal...
