'The public concern is whether scientists agree that we are due for dangerous warming and other problematic climate change due to continued GHG emissions. The past is past. It is the future we should be concerned about. Several authors point out that the Anderegg et al is therefore not helpful to today's debate'
'It works thusly: the IPCC goes out among the credentialed and asks, 'Doest thou agree with me?' If the answer be 'Aye', the person is added to the Nice list; if it be 'Nay', the unfortunate is entered into the Persona Non Grata ledger. The IPCC then reports that there is a consensus among its membership, and that because this consensus is a consensus, its conclusions are beyond question'
"From a sustainability perspective, evaluating donations of bodies to science is not straightforward. While prolonging the ‘useful’ life of the body, donation to science still holds sustainability implications. Firstly, the body is embalmed, usually using formalin, a toxic substance. Secondly, the body is kept in refrigeration for up to four years, with a resulting energy footprint relating to electricity use. Finally, at the cessation of its use in anatomy labs, the body is then cremated in a conventional cremator or buried—meaning that its overall environmental impact is generally not less than that of a body disposed of immediately after death—and may, in fact, be higher."
Marc Morano: "Whether milk production increases or decreases, you can rest assured the experts will blame 'climate change!' If you pick both teams to win the Super Bowl, you can always safely say, you predicted the winner!"