I'd like to see someone who knows more than I do about global warming critique this revelation that one of the key pieces of evidence for global warming was rigged. Has anyone responded to this yet? Last I knew some of the conclusions that this evidence was supposed to refute seemed really plausible (e.g. that global warming has been slightly increased recently but has been on the increase for a long time and that there's little we can do about it). This evidence was supposed to refute that (though that was also based on evidence). Now the refutation seems suspect. Does anyone know more about this?
Science: October 2004 Archives
Joe Carter examines a number of myths about the dangers of dirty bombs and suitcase nukes (with some comments also about nuclear power plants at the end). I didn't know most of this stuff. His sources look to me to be about as reliable as you get. His conclusion: these tactics really are aimed at evoking paranoia and wouldn't really do anywhere near as much damage as you would think from the way people talk about it. It would be bad if a terrorist exploded a dirty bomb in the middle of Manhattan, but most people's attitudes toward it are far beyond what the threat really is. Someone a mile away would have a stronger radiation threat from getting an X-ray, but I think he's right that most people's fears stem from thinking the whole city would be uninhabitable with everyone anywhere near the city dying of cancer within a year.