This is Tiburon, California.
— MatrixMysteries (@MatrixMysteries) February 2, 2026
Residents can be fined up to $500 for not separating their trash.
Then the city comes to collect it… and everything is dumped into one bin and sent to the landfill.
Compliance is mandatory. Logic is optional. pic.twitter.com/eNsGpqKVi5
Environment
On The Limitations Of Expertise
Guest Column by Sarah B.
[From your Host: This excellent essay arrived on an Open Forum, and as I sometimes do, has been elevated from Comment of the Day status to a Guest Column. I’ll even forgive Sarah for making me look bad in comparison to such thoughtful, eloquent and perceptive work.]
***
“The embarrassment is that chemistry was treated as a mere technicality rather than the foundation of the entire conclusion. The embarrassment is that skepticism—real skepticism, the disciplined refusal to accept claims without robust evidence—was framed as denial rather than diligence.”
This is, in my opinion, the money quote from The Brain, Microplastics, and the Collapse of Scientific Restraint.
This particular article discusses the extraordinary claim that our brains contain a huge amount of microplastics. The problem with this claim is that the study has a fatal methodological flaw. The study relies on spectroscopy and detecting signatures of chemicals to determine a sample’s composition. However, the fats in the brain break down into similar compounds as polyethylene, which means without further differentiation methods, there is no way to tell if the “microplastics” the study detected were actually just normal lipids found in the brain. The whole article is worth reading, as it does an excellent job of explaining the issue.
I recently saw a post on Facebook that decried the idea that experts could be challenged by some novice watching a few YouTube Videos and reading a few scientific papers. This led to a long discussion in the comments, which was unfortunately extremely one-sided. Most everyone agreed that trying to correct an expert in their field was utter hubris.
“Take something you are good at, like maybe changing transmissions. Imagine someone who has watched a few YouTube videos comes up and tells you that you are doing it all wrong. How would you respond?”
The main problem with this is that, in terms of changing a transmission, we can obviously see who is right and who is wrong. The car will run, or the car will not. Indeed, if you truly are an expert in changing transmissions, you can step up and, in simple terms, explain why your process is the correct one, what is wrong with the YouTube watcher’s process, and even perhaps teach your skeptic how to do it correctly.
With any field of expertise, we have to remember that experts are people too, and all humans have flaws. Experts can be tempted by money, power, prestige, and politics. There are also limitations that even experts struggle to overcome. For example, in many branches of research, there are serious problems (often ethical in nature) in creating a good control group.
Bite Me, “Doomsday Clock”!
If anyone or anything ever deserved an Ethics Alarms “Bite Me!,” it’s the ridiculous Doomsday Clock and the pompous, biased, fear-mongering scientists who set it.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has set the clock each year since 1947, and to say it does not have a sterling record, whatever standards one uses, would be an understatement. Well, I’ll take that back: they have a sterling record for being wrong. Still, once again the thing is in the news. “The ‘”‘Doomsday Clock'”‘ — a symbolic clock that supposedly represents how close humanity is to global catastrophe according to “experts” — “has moved closer to midnight,” ABC News tells us. “The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced Tuesday that the clock is now 85 seconds to midnight, with midnight representing the apocalypse.”
That’s the closest its ever been! AAAAIIIIIIIIII!!!
[Watch out now, you have to click on “2” below to keep reading…]
An Inquirer Asks, “How Can I Stop My Wife From Badgering Our Friends About Climate Change?” How About….
…showing her that her hysteria is based on lies, bad stats, politicized “science” and hooey?
I admit it, that headline sucked me in to reading “Social Q’s,” a Times advice column that puts wokeness over wisdom, causing me to put it on the EA blacklist.
“My wife has become an eco-warrior,” a married weenie writes. “She has strong feelings about the environment and other people’s carbon footprints. She challenges our friends repeatedly about their lifestyle choices. I agree with her in principle, but I can’t support her moral outrage. …Help!“
Predictably, the column’s proprietor, Phillip Galanes, begins by saying, “I would begin by praising her, rightfully, for her commitment to an important issue.” I’ll fix it for him: “an important issue that nobody really knows much about, especially indoctrinated progressives who are passionate about what their bubble-mates are passionate about regardless of facts.”
Much better.
One Non-Profit With Integrity, Another Without
First, on the ethical side…we have The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which picked up the metaphorical baton on non-partisan defense of freedom of speech after the ACLU threw their mission away and became just another lackey for the Democratic Party.
A federal district court today dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit against Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer stemming from her late and spectacularly wrong poll before the 2024 election showing Donald Trump losing reliably Republican Iowa to Kamala Harris. The lawsuit, brought by a subscriber to The Des Moines Register and structured as a class action asserted claims under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act was fraud and attempted election interference. It was a stupid lawsuit, so Selzer, represented pro bono by FIRE, which explained that commentary about a political election, including polls, are protected speech. The court agreed that “polls are a mere snapshot of a dynamic and changing electorate” and “the results of an opinion poll are not an actionable false representation merely because the anticipated results differ from what eventually occurred.” The court also held the plaintiff had “no factual allegations” to support his fraud claim, instead “invok[ing] mere buzzwords and speculation” to support his claims.
Ethics Hero: Bill Gates, Who Finally Figured Out That Climate Change Doom Is Hype
Bill Gates, nerd and “on the spectrum” sufferer that he is, also has the advantage of being sufficiently rich that he is insulated from Leftist fury when he defies wokist cant. Today the climate change scam collective is presumably freaking out because Gates has issued a memo saying, in effect, “Oopsie! What a stupid I am! I let a bunch of agenda-driven scientists and lying (or ignorant) activists convince me to waste billions of dollars on their dishonest hustle! Oh well, live and learn…”
Ethics Quiz: Fairness to AOC
Ethics Alarms only covers a fraction of the statements by prominent people that prompt the response, “What, if anything, were they thinking?” For example, I was torn today whether to mention Kamala Harris saying in a recent interview (with Axis journalist Kara Swisher, whom I have been calling out for her hackery for 30 years) on her book tour (What were they thinking to send Kamala out on a book tour?), that “some have said” that she was “the most qualified candidate ever to run for President.” Because Swisher is such a hack, she didn’t have the integrity to burst out laughing and tell Harris, “Oh, Kamala, you are so funny!” Yeah, and some have said, “I am the Lizard King!” and “Of course dogs can talk, they just don’t have anything to say!” Maybe, MAYBE, and I am giving her the benefit of the doubt here, Harris was only the second least qualified Presidential candidate of a major party in U.S. history. But I digress.
In last night’s predictably horrifying town hall meeting on CNN featuring American communist Bernie Sanders and Dunning-Kruger victim Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), AOC went for the Gold and may have said the stupidest thing that not only she has ever said in public but perhaps the stupidest thing any elected official has said in public, though Rep. Hank Johnson expressing a fear that so much U.S. military personnel and equipment on the island of Guam might cause it to “tip over” creates a daunting challenge.
Ranting in her usual pop-eyed hysterical style about how evil corporations were polluting the nation and that “rivers were on fire” because they were “pouring chemicals” into waterways and killing people, AOC was quick to name the first corporate villain to pop into what she audaciously calls her “mind.” Was it Monsanto, mayhap? Dow Chemical? Dupont? LyondellBasell Industries, the largest U.S. chemical company? Oh no. The Congresswoman, regarded by many pundits as the rising leader of the Democratic Party, has bigger game in her sights, and she immediately, without hesitation, named the vile polluter.
“Deloitte.”
Yes, the accounting firm. I’ve been trying to think of a company that she could have named that would be less guilty of pollution. The Boston Red Sox? I dunno, the team flies a lot. Hey, but anyone can make a mistake. Right? It was just a “speako.” It isn’t really evidence that Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about half the time, is it?
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:
Is it unfair to hold such an obvious brain fart against AOC?
Comment of the Day: “About That Climate Change ‘Consensus’”….
It’s about time recent EA comment auteur Holly A. was recognized with a Comment of the Day, and she actually had two strong candidates back-to-back. I chose the second. Both involved the same issue: garbage “climate change” advocacy and activism unhinged to actual facts. In the first comment, Holly impressively examined both the professors and the paper that sparked my post. I responded with gratitude, but noted that the technical details of the paper were not my concern. I wrote in part,
The ethics bottom line remains the same. There is not any “consensus.” The data is inconclusive. The hysteria is manipulated and politically motivated. Spending large amounts of treasure to alleviate a problem that is not well-understood is irresponsible. The news media has no interest in informing the public, and the people and politicians talking most loudly about climate change literally don’t know what they are talking about.
Fair?
Here is Holly A.’s response, the Comment of the Day on the post, “About That Climate Change ‘Consensus’”….
***
I would say mostly fair.
About That Climate Change “Consensus”….
MIT’s Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus, and Princeton’s William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, have published a paper titled Physics Demonstrates That Increasing Greenhouse Gases Cannot Cause Dangerous Warming , Extreme Weather or Any Harm.
Wait! How can that be?! We are told by climate change hysterics in government, universities, news organizations and international organizations—and Robert Kennedy, Jr,!—that there is no question that we are doomed if we don’t immediately curtail carbon-based fuels, stop flying, stop using gas-powered cars, stop fighting world government, stop having babies, stop using plastic ARRRRGH! AND we have been assured that this is the consensus of the scientific community, and not to grovel to these apocalyptic prognostications is to “reject science.”
Now, all of this has always been a pack of lies, speculation and hyperbole, but our betters (that is, progressives, artists, academics and Hollywood) have been allowed to pound this junk into the heads of the logically challenged and scientifically ignorant for decades, often harvesting votes and lucre all the while. I don’t know whether the latest paper is wrong just as you don’t know that the scientific opinions behind the “We’re all going to die!” papers are right. However, enacting draconian measures on faith, guesswork and speculation is irresponsible, or in technical terms, really, really stupid.
Integrity Test For Climate Change Hysterics
Well waddya know! The U.S. is on the verge of setting records for all-time low temperatures in May. That’s funny. I thought humanity was doomed because the world is burning up.
Of course, I don’t think one unseasonally cold month has any more significance than one unseasonably cold day, but that’s not how the climate change cabal has been playing their game. No, every time the temperature seems especially high anywhere in the USA, the activists, most of whom know as much about climate science as I know about fixing a carburetor, start screaming, pointing, and crying out, “See? SEE?” They do the same thing with seasonal wildfires, hurricanes, floods and, at least on The View, earthquakes and eclipses. They get away with it too, because the unscrupulous politicians they elect and the dim-bulb progressive pundits and reporters who work for those politicians always endorse and rationalize the climate change hysterics’ propaganda, even after every prediction, every projection, every deadline to save humanity proves to be hooey.
Ethics Alarms 