Hey look what I made! It’s a (very short) hyperlapse of Wausau’s Dudley Tower. It’s a little rough, but for a first try I don’t think it’s too bad.
Via The Telegraph:
The BBC Trust on Thursday published a progress report into the corporation’s science coverage which was criticised in 2012 for giving too much air-time to critics who oppose non-contentious issues.
The report found that there was still an ‘over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality’ which sought to give the ‘other side’ of the argument, even if that viewpoint was widely dismissed…
…The Trust said that man-made climate change was one area where too much weight had been given to unqualified critics.
Over at Slate, Phil Plait explains:
In other [non-science] subjects, it’s possible for honest people with different values to come down on different sides of a debate. But when it comes to science, especially firmly established and consensually agreed-upon science, putting on some crackpot who disagrees is not “fair and balanced.”
News shows don’t put on a flat-earther whenever they show a map. They don’t get an opposing opinion from a young-Earth creationist when a new dinosaur fossil is found. They don’t interview an astrologer when a new exoplanet is discovered. So why put on a climate change denier when we’re talking about our planet heating up?
Does two make a trend?
No, but last fall, the Los Angeles Times told its readers that it would no longer publish letters that deny — or argue against — human activity as a contributor to climate change.
In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Be confident: When you slam into a coast, do it like you mean it. Don’t end your sentences with question marks — if you tell your boss you’re going to erode a coastline, say, “I’m going to erode this coastline, PERIOD.