Just for the record, the statement that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" was first made in public by Bill Clinton, dating back at least to his 1996 Presidential campaign.

Hillary has subsequently used the line but Elizabeth Edward's reference to "that speech on abortion a few years ago" is probably a reference to a speech that Hillary gave on January 24, 2005, where she commented that: "I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women." She later remarked that: "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

For the full text of the speech, with all due nuance, see her web site: http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2005125A05.html

Joan Walsh, the 2005 Hillary Clinton speech does actually use the phrase "safe, legal and rare". My point was more pedantic: this line was not new ground and is not why the speech is remembered (though how much new ground was broken by the speech is a matter for debate).

Cary Tennis and all those suggesting you do this don't have a clue. When they find out, your undergraduate students will eat you alive. Your colleagues will treat you as a joke. Whatever position one might take on the ultimate morality of all this, you can forget about an academic career if you do it --- except maybe in some backwater where none of the academics have much credibility.

Excellent, thoughtful article by Laura Miller. Thank you. (Oh, and I enjoyed lateagain's perceptive comments too.)

Joseph Romm makes a lot of good points in his article. However, I must disagree with his views on the role of consensus in science.

His position, if I may summarise, is that what matters for determining scientific questions is the weight of evidence, as found in publications in refereed scientific journals.

Fine, but how is a layperson to judge what the weight of evidence actually is? While it may be reasonable to expect a climate scientist to be familiar with the weight of evidence in the published literature (from reading enough of it), it is fantastic nonsense to expect that the typical citizen will be. The typical citizen needs to take someone's word for it.

If some scientists say that the evidence for human-caused climate change is clear and some say that it is non-existent, who is the layperson to believe? If the importance of consensus is rejected, then the answer is: whoever they want.

There is good reason for a layperson to accept as provisionally true what a large majority of qualified scientists believe on a scientific question. The reason is that, broadly speaking, the scientists form their beliefs based on the evidence. Laypeople cannot, as a practical matter, directly form their beliefs based on the evidence; they can only do it indirectly by accepting the views of those whose beliefs are evidence-based.

If laypeople adopted the rule of thumb that they will provisionally accept as true any scientific proposition endorsed by the large majority of qualified scientists (defined as those actively publishing in the area in refereed journals), then that would be a spectacular advance in the scientific rationality of our age.

The longer this goes on, the worse Clinton looks. To me, she comes across as insincere and nasty. One minute she is talking about what an honour it is to be sharing the stage with Obama, then she is saying shame on him. She will assume any attitude that she thinks will play with the audience, and only manages to convince the audience that she cannot be believed or trusted. As Maureen Dowd recently wrote:

"After saying she found her 'voice' in New Hampshire, she has turned into Sybil. We’ve had Experienced Hillary, Soft Hillary, Hard Hillary, Misty Hillary, Sarcastic Hillary, Joined-at-the-Hip-to-Bill Hillary, Her-Own-Person-Who-Just-Happens-to-Be-Married-to-a-Former-President Hillary, It’s-My-Turn Hillary, Cuddly Hillary, Let’s-Get-Down-in-the-Dirt-and-Fight-Like-Dogs Hillary."

Clinton wants to break the party rules by seating Michigan and Florida delegates. If she succeeded in getting the nomination by this route, then she would split the party, alienate the black vote, and guarantee that the Republicans win in November. But her ambition blinds her to the realities; she can't see beyond her own self interest.

The longer the debate goes on, the more nonsense we hear from her and her campaign --- about plagiarism, Farrakkan, Obama not supporting abortion rights and so on. I think she is in a hole and has been digging herself in deeper for the last 2 months. Time to call a halt.