Don't get me started on this. There's nothing especially gay about homosexuals. Is it politically incorrect to say 'homosexual' instead of 'gay'? If so, why? At least 'homosexual' is accurate. I don't mind being called heterosexual; 'straight' sounds silly.

Truly inspiring. She got it all exactly right. She has my gratitude for expressing my beliefs and defending my liberty.

All I want to know is, did Rob vote for Cheers?

Careful, you're beginning to sound like Thomas Friedman talking about the wonders of totalitarian China.

Not at all. Please read his conclusions again:

1. The South Coast Air Quality Management District report is really over-estimating the amount of smoke these fires throw off;
2. The North American atmosphere in the pre-Colombian era was a lot more polluted than has been previously appreciated; or
3. The hysteria about global warming has reached an absolute fever-pitch of insanity.

There is no evidence presented that the AQMD is overestimating the smoke from fires. There is data to suggest that the LA basin in the pre-columbian era was quite polluted (see #1 and #10). Finally, this has nothing to do with global warming hysteria (see #2).

The factual and logical lacunae are big enough to drive a (diesel) truck through.

You misunderstood my point. Imagine that diesel engines produce relatively small amounts of fine particulates. Next, imagine that open fires produce lots. Then it would be altogether possible that AQMD's figures are correct, even as their comparison is misleading. It's likely that open fires do indeed emit far greater quantities particulates that diesels since their combustion is very inefficient. It's quite reasonable to conjecture that a small number of open fires would be a more significant source than a large number of trucks. The facts would tell.

What Mr Hennessey failed to check is that the data creates a contradiction; he merely claimed it. He also conflated global warming with particulates. Yet he's quite self-satisfied that I think his larger point may be right. Facts are required to support conclusions.

AQMD is making the comparison but Mr Hennessey is the one trying to make the case that the comparison is wrong. He hasn't. His post reminds me of the wisdom of P.J. O'Rourke:

The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it.

That sword cuts both ways.

One more thing: fine particulate pollution has little to do with climate change. If anything, particulates cause cooling, not warming. The health concerns about particulates are far more direct and immediate. The concerns may be exaggerated, bit that's off topic for thus thread.

I think you haven't done your homework. The LA basin was indeed plagued by smog from campfires in the preindustrial era. More important, you have not shown that diesel engines emit large quantities of fine particulates to make your case that the AQMD's comparison is absurd. You are probably right in your main point, but you'd (rightly) be demolished in an argument with a Green. My twin suggestions: 1. Get your facts before opining. 2. Get better at math before calculating and making conclusions. All those big numbers mean nothing without context and understanding.

I've noticed this. Whenever I have personal knowledge of a news story, there are inevitably significant errors, sometimes to such a degree to imply the opposite of the truth. In the face of this, why do people treat these emissions as Word from On High? This has always puzzled me.

This is true, and ironic. About 15 years ago, there was a broadly publicized 'shortage' of physicists. I suppose many students were taken in by this and now we reap the whirlwind.

Political correctness (e.g., climate change) creates perverse incentives that corrupt. The scientific study of climate and man's possible effect had been going on for many decades before the Greens, with the complicity of the Left, seized the issue to advance an anti-capitalist agenda. Philip Stott (a Labourite btw) pointed this out long ago. In turn, this had a great influence on funding in atmospheric science and oceanography.

Scientists respond to incentives just as everyone else does. Make it profitable to advocate for a political agenda and some will.

Of course not. All things are in danger of corruption by politics and money. Scientists are people, subject to the same temptations and foibles as everyone else. Politics is the problem, not science.

Now consider the suggested fixes:

Shouldn't it be required, for example, that findings be independently replicated

Science is all about the replication of results. That's why there are scientific journals in which methods and results are published. Imperfect though it may be, it is far more honest and transparent than the political process.

[Shouldn't it be required] that data generated at public institutions be publicly shared

Generally, it is (see previous). Not only that, many journal articles produced with public funds are available for free.

[Shouldn't it be required] that data showing an absence of correlations and test results that disprove or call into question theories have places where they can be published

What do you think goes on in scientific journals?

Shouldn't it be required that pundits understand the scientific method and process before pontificating?

How about this slogan:

Vote with your brain, not with your vag.

The words "full frontal" and Hillary Clinton" should not be in the same sentence. It will give me nightmares for a week.

For some, May Day celebrates the coming socialist workers' utopia. For me, it means maypoles and pagan fertility rites. My vision is more fun.

Car navigation systems, especially with voice: nagivators. Can also be used for back-seat drivers.

My personal favorite is snotcicle. My kids love that one. Takes me back to my winters back East.