It's up over at Martin's place. His blog came out of nowhere (don't they all) a few months back, and he's hit the ground running.
Just, please, when you get to my section, try not to use your imagination too well. Trust me.
More like this
Until yesterday, there was a span of about two weeks in which this blog laid dormant. I did that on purpose because I didn't want to give you all the blogging you crave. All three of you who may crave my blogging. And I'm guessing not one of those three even noticed the silence.
What if you live in a neighborhood where you've got a lot better chance of getting killed by a passing shooter than a melting glacier? Then you're going to get nowhere with the alarmist messaging commonly adopted by many environmental groups.
The newsmedia are being tested to see if a bald-faced lie in a McCain ad will pass without comment. So far they are acquitting themselves well.
Keith Kloor says that this "concisely expressed" his thinking on climate change:
This is off-topic, but I wanted some doctorly input to a discussion that I am having over at another blog.
This lady is hyperventillating about the "sinister" (her word) policy of the Oregon Public Health Plan.
They won't cover curative treatment for people who have a "less than 5% chance of surviving five or more years"
Instead, they cover palliative treatment, hospice, and Doctor-Assisted suicide.
This lady is setting it up as a moral judgement that the government is making a value judgement on 1,2,3, or 4 years of life.
To me "less than 5% chance of surviving five or more years" doesnt sound like curative treatment doesn't have a very good chance of buying you even one year of additional life. I think that she has an unrealistic view of what it means to have a less than 5% chance of surviving five or more years" means.
Heres the story:
http://conservablogs.com/haemet/2008/07/28/the-real-face-of-choice/
Hmmm..the question deserves it's own thread...im moving it.