Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 49,199
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#37640 Aug 7, 2013
Bloomberg BNA: Climate change remains a material risk for a majority of investors and, in many cases, it is increasingly influencing their investment activities, according to a report released Aug. 5 by a coalition of global investor groups.

About 81 percent of asset owners and 68 percent of asset managers said they view climate change as a material risk across their entire investment portfolio in the third annual Global Investor Survey on Climate Change. Most of the remaining respondents identified climate risks only for certain asset classes, such as real estate and infrastructure.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-06/inve...
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#37641 Aug 7, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it is not about whether or not we will do something about it but WHEN and how bad it will get because we delayed so long.
Why is there any doubt at all that we can do something about it? Have some of us bought into brainless_g's stupid contention?

Truth is, we are doing something now. Every solar panel and every wind generator is doing something about climate change. Even the recession reduced emissions, though it did it uncomfortably for most of us.

I agree that the question is how bad it will be and how soon we'll begin to do more. Delay will only be more expensive.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#37642 Aug 7, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Agreed.
P.S. Welcome back!
And a GREAT climate change conference with Al Gore, Maggie Fox, and Mario Molina!

There were about 1500 attendees from 70 countries. We were given written materials, a flash drive, and a website and charged with completing 10 climate change actions in a year, including presentations to various groups, lobbying, letters to the editor, blogging, and participating on boards like this.

The next conference will be in San Fran next year. If you want to be considered for an invitation, go to the Climate Reality website and join the discussion.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37644 Aug 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And a GREAT climate change conference with Al Gore, Maggie Fox, and Mario Molina!
There were about 1500 attendees from 70 countries. We were given written materials, a flash drive, and a website and charged with completing 10 climate change actions in a year, including presentations to various groups, lobbying, letters to the editor, blogging, and participating on boards like this.
The next conference will be in San Fran next year. If you want to be considered for an invitation, go to the Climate Reality website and join the discussion.
Thanks much.

Congratulations for the promise well-done.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37645 Aug 7, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Good to see that you do not carry bias over into everything.
I have read a lot on Murdoch and it's plain to see he would sell his own mother for the right price. He gave up his birth country citizenship for the sake of business, he divorced his first wife for business. Married an Asian exec to break into the vital Asian market for his empire and now is divorcing again for who knows.
Hardly a beacon of fine moral ethics, he also resisted the onslaught of digital media until forced to realise even he couldn't stop that. Although he denies playing his hand in editorial positions with his newspapers, it's not just by coincidence they all speak with one voice.
It would be nice if you could do the same and see that the problems we have go far beyond Murdoch. The problems we face come from the international level with people gaining control of our economies and money, draining us and all nations to consolidate our money to the banks and the money manipulators.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37646 Aug 7, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Kristy, there are some professions we all like to think is beyond corruption. Doctors being one of them, but of course occasionally there will be some bad eggs (eg. Michael Jackson's Doc) that break the mould but they are far in the minority. Scientists would be another of those professions that would rate alongside doctors. For instance what possible motive would a "world wide" conspiracy of science have to just make up this climate science. It makes no logical sense to even think along these lines yet this is a msg that some send out.
The only money to be made from climate science is the development of alternative energy sources and that is just business like the discovery of the elec light bulb. It put a huge dent in the candle & oil lamp business. So it's all part of the human evolution, but it seems some ppl can't move on.
You are wrong in that the only money to be made from climate science is from development of alternative energy sources. Part of "fixing" climate change is to funnel money from developed nations to developing nations and the money to be made is through the money manipulators and banks. Through the World Bank and the IMF, they loan out money to poor nations who have high default rates, but yet these loans are government backed, thus creating the same moral hazards we had here in the US. The banks came out of our crash 3 trillion dollars richer than before the crash.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#37648 Aug 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong in that the only money to be made from climate science is from development of alternative energy sources. Part of "fixing" climate change is to funnel money from developed nations to developing nations and the money to be made is through the money manipulators and banks. Through the World Bank and the IMF, they loan out money to poor nations who have high default rates, but yet these loans are government backed, thus creating the same moral hazards we had here in the US. The banks came out of our crash 3 trillion dollars richer than before the crash.
Yes kristy, that is a concise description of one aspect of the financial motivation in embracing CAGW Orthodoxy.
As for the scientific community... It IS about money AND also about reputation.

kristy, may I responded to a comment you did not address regarding the term "conspiracy".

The term "conspiracy" was invoked in regards to climate scientists.

There are some people who are of the opinion that we are not witness to such, rather we are simply seeing a conserted effort for survival.

An alagory if I may:

A ship full of drunken Rhode scholars sinks in the middle of the Thames, Southwest of Norwich England within sight of The University of East Anglia. The very survival of these erudite gentleman depends on reaching the lifeboats. Now the soggy sots are shouting and doing whatever it takes to save their sorry arses.

So, are these blokes involved in a conspiracy? The correct answer is: Of corse not.

As with the drunkards in the river, A FEW notable climate scientists are simply trying to save their lives in the form of careers, reputations, and financial security not to mention a possible future indentured residency in the Tower of London.
The rest of this community is vested with plausible denial when the truth is ultimately revealed about this secret science known as CAGW

Hope that helps clear up one of the 'straw man' talking points of the Catastrophic Climate Crisis propaganda machine.

Cheers,"
koolaid
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#37649 Aug 7, 2013
Please forgive the typos
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37650 Aug 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>How Not to Convince Republicans to Address Climate Change
Jonathan H. Adler • August 3, 2013 10:24 am
It’s fair to say that only one political party today considers climate change to be a problem worth addressing. As readers know, I wish it were otherwise and believe there is a conservative case for addressing climate change. I welcome others to this cause. This NYT op-ed,“A Republican Case for Climate Action,” is not the sort of thing that will help. The article is by four former EPA Administrators who served in Republican Administrations: William Ruckelshaus, Lee Thomas, William Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman. Neither the message nor the messengers are likely to have much influence with a Republican audience. It’s a case study of how not to try and influence people with differing political priorities.
Let’s start with the authors. Yes, all four served Republican Presidents, but none are known as Republican leaders or are particularly influential in Republican circles. Indeed, it’s not clear they should all even be identified as Republicans. Whitman may still give money to liberal Republicans, but her co-authors are regular contributors to Democratic campaigns. Reilly, for instance, may have given a primary contribution to Mitt Romney in 2011, but according to OpenSecrets.org the remainder of his recent political contributions have all gone to Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren (who, one should recall, was running against one of the more liberal GOP Senators). Thomas and Ruckelshaus appear to give to both sides. However one wishes to characterize these four, it would not be as “respected GOP leaders” and they are not likely to carry much weight in politically active GOP circles....
http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/03/how-not-to-c...
Merely impugning their credentials as Republicans, while typical of modern Republican "critics" such as ultra-Right Volokh, doesn't actually answer the points they raised about the necessity of addressing global warming.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37651 Aug 7, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
So I'm "wrong" but you can't say how or why. That's pretty much in keeping with the rest of your posts, Kristy.
Fox is biased quite deliberately, and I disapprove of the ideology behind them and of their owner, the vile Rupert Murdoch. I consider them a danger to America. MSNBC and other networks all have their various corporate biases and such, but they don't matter as much to me. I don't see anyone twisting the news or blurring the line between news and commentary the way Fox does.
Not sure what "international regulations" I'm "promoting" which go through the IMF and World Bank. Could you give me your version of this, please?
I posted this earlier, but I am re-posting as it did not go through. I am leaving out some of the links to this, as I think that is why it did not go through earlier.

You said:“Although you offer (as usual) no support for your claimed percentages, I suspect they're backward.”

By showing you the Pew Research paper, I supported my claim; therefore, you suspected wrong. Where is your proof that I was wrong?

In regards to international regulations you are promoting which go through the IMF and World Bank:

Kyoto Protocol leads to the Adaptation Fund: The Adaptation Fund was established to finance adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol and the trustee of this fund is the World Bank.

Which leads to auctions: Today,(May 2011) the World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, rated Aaa/AAA), as Trustee for the Adaptation Fund, completed an auction of 200,000 tons of certified emission reductions (CERs) today at a price per ton of EUR 12.52.

(Just wondering how much money the World Bank makes through these exchanges and over-the-counter transactions?)

Which leads to projects like this that have screwed Africa over and over again:

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-releas ...

In the meantime, the IMF is already working with the World Bank in doing exactly the above, just not in the name of climate change, but in the name of poverty, but the World Bank and George Soros want the IMF to have more power over climate change and Obama would like to increase funding to the IMF, but congress is against it. Just wondering if one of Obama’s executive orders will be to increase funding to the IMF?

World Bank President Jim Yong Kim on Tuesday (April 2013) said “If we do not act to curb climate change immediately, we will leave our children and grandchildren an unrecognizable planet. It is the poor, those least responsible for climate change and least able to afford adaptation, who would suffer the most.” His comments are part of an emerging push by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to focus on climate change — something that IMF managing director Christine Lagarde on Tuesday said puts global financial stability “clearly at stake.”

George Soros and the IMF: Mr Soros is calling on the 192 governments at the summit(Copenhagen) to listen to his proposals. Mr Soros believes that developed countries should hand over their “special drawing rights”– international foreign currency assets distributed by the IMF – as loans to help poorer nations tackle climate change. Developing countries would pay interest and eventually the whole loan, but in the event of a default, the sum would be backed by the IMF’s gold reserves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-c ...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#37652 Aug 7, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Well, brain, if you're going to accuse people of preaching garbage because they're semi-Democrats, you and your surrogate have started the science discussion off on a political foot. If there were any "real" Republicans, these people would probably be paid a lot of attention. Cut to the chase. Don't be a pig in a poke. You just can't stand what they are saying.
Continued from the citation above:

Then there’s the substance of the argument, little of which is responsive to Republican concerns about the size of government or cost and intrusiveness of federal regulation. The four suggest that a carbon tax would be a relatively efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage technological innovation. They’re right about this. They then suggest that a carbon tax is politically infeasible — a reasonable, if debatable, proposition. But rather than make the case for some sort of alternative to the current Administration’s policies, they suggest Republican leaders should endorse the EPA’s imposition of greenhouse gas controls under the Clean Air Act. Really? There are few, if any, climate experts who believe the Clean Air Act is well-suited to GHG emission control. This is one reason both the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats sought new climate legislation. The CAA is capable of imposing substantial costs on emitters, but cannot come close to achieving meaningful reductions (for reasons I detail here). Some may believe it’s better than nothing, but those folks are rare in Republican circles. If Republicans are ever gong to be convinced to endorse climate policies, they won’t be in the form of costly command-and-control emission regulations — regulations capable of imposing substantial pain for little gain.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37653 Aug 7, 2013
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes kristy, that is a concise description of one aspect of the financial motivation in embracing CAGW Orthodoxy.
As for the scientific community... It IS about money AND also about reputation.
kristy, may I responded to a comment you did not address regarding the term "conspiracy".
The term "conspiracy" was invoked in regards to climate scientists.
There are some people who are of the opinion that we are not witness to such, rather we are simply seeing a conserted effort for survival.
An alagory if I may:
A ship full of drunken Rhode scholars sinks in the middle of the Thames, Southwest of Norwich England within sight of The University of East Anglia. The very survival of these erudite gentleman depends on reaching the lifeboats. Now the soggy sots are shouting and doing whatever it takes to save their sorry arses.
So, are these blokes involved in a conspiracy? The correct answer is: Of corse not.
As with the drunkards in the river, A FEW notable climate scientists are simply trying to save their lives in the form of careers, reputations, and financial security not to mention a possible future indentured residency in the Tower of London.
The rest of this community is vested with plausible denial when the truth is ultimately revealed about this secret science known as CAGW
Hope that helps clear up one of the 'straw man' talking points of the Catastrophic Climate Crisis propaganda machine.
Cheers,"
koolaid
Very true. Most climate science is funded by governments around the world. NASA used to be the foremost entity on space exploration and now most of the funding goes to climate change. The Federal Reserve was voted in by congress in 1913. The politicians knew it was way to spend endless sums of money without resorting to taxes and without any oversight. The IMF and World Bank are the Federal Reserve of the World. They can loan out endless sums of money for any crisis with very little oversight if any and the loans are guaranteed. Governments can get this money for any crisis, climate change included, knowing that if they default, the loan will either be forgiven or restructured and the loan process can start again, over and over. So the only winner in this situation are the politicians and the banks. The people take the brunt of the losses either through inflation or the periodic raising of taxes. And the real kicker about this system the banks have created, is that they keep us fighting over taxes. The whole system is set up to never be paid off. They don't want anything paid off, because the way they make their money is through interest. I just read where our total debt just went up to 71 trillion. Don't you think the politicians are using us when the pit us against each other about the need to increase taxes? Do we really think that can ever be paid off? When other posters complain about immorality, to me this is the most immoral process we are embedded in. Through fractional banking, banks are loaning money they never had, charging interest on money they never had, and then making a profit off of money they never had.
worried

Seattle, WA

#37654 Aug 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Very true. Most climate science is funded by governments around the world. NASA used to be the foremost entity on space exploration and now most of the funding goes to climate change. The Federal Reserve was voted in by congress in 1913. The politicians knew it was way to spend endless sums of money without resorting to taxes and without any oversight. The IMF and World Bank are the Federal Reserve of the World. They can loan out endless sums of money for any crisis with very little oversight if any and the loans are guaranteed. Governments can get this money for any crisis, climate change included, knowing that if they default, the loan will either be forgiven or restructured and the loan process can start again, over and over. So the only winner in this situation are the politicians and the banks. The people take the brunt of the losses either through inflation or the periodic raising of taxes. And the real kicker about this system the banks have created, is that they keep us fighting over taxes. The whole system is set up to never be paid off. They don't want anything paid off, because the way they make their money is through interest. I just read where our total debt just went up to 71 trillion. Don't you think the politicians are using us when the pit us against each other about the need to increase taxes? Do we really think that can ever be paid off? When other posters complain about immorality, to me this is the most immoral process we are embedded in. Through fractional banking, banks are loaning money they never had, charging interest on money they never had, and then making a profit off of money they never had.
you are ever so right 'kristy', if only I could get a government grant I would study that. imagine, free money, and I would only have to produce the answers they wanted. pieces of cake/with cream on top. the reversal of the suns poles will look like a non event. of course that would becaused by man also and a tax would have to be imposed, I have to go now and wipe the pee off my leg. it's all happening so fast, if only I could get another government grant. yes 'kristy' we can save the world.
bubba

Russia

#37655 Aug 7, 2013
^^ boohoo
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37656 Aug 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Allow me to butt it, but this is an interesting discussion.

What about 'publish or perish'? Wouldn't that be an influencing factor?

And related, here's an excerpt of from an article on peer review:

Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science first appeared in published form not in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles but in scientific books. That includes Copernicus' De Revolutionibus and Newton's Principia. Einstein's original paper on relativity was published in a scientific journal (Annalen der Physik), but did not undergo formal peer-review.1 Indeed, Darwin's own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience -- his Origin of Species -- not in a peer-reviewed paper.

Moreover, important scientific work has not uncommonly been initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals. As a 2001 article in Science observed, "Mention 'peer review' and almost every scientist will regale you with stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and steal the glory."2 Indeed, an article in the journal Science Communication by Juan Miguel Campanario notes that top journals such as "Science and Nature have also sometimes rejected significant papers," and in fact "Nature has even rejected work that eventually earned the Nobel Prize."3 In an amusing letter titled "Not in our Nature," Campanario reminds the journal of four examples where it rejected significant papers:

(1) In 1981, Nature rejected a paper by the British biochemist Robert H. Michell on signalling reaction by hormones. This paper has since been cited more than 1,800 times.

(2) In June 1937, Nature rejected Hans Krebs's letter describing the citric acid cycle. Krebs won the 953 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine for this discovery.

(3) Nature initially rejected a paper on work for which Harmut Michel won the 1988 Nobel prize for chemistry; it has been identified by the Institute of Scientific Information as a core document and widely cited.

(4) A paper by Michael J. Berridge, rejected in 1983 by Nature, ranks at number 275 in a list of the most-cited papers of all time. It has been cited more than 1,900 times.4

Elsewhere, Campanario lists "instances in which 36 future Nobel Laureates encountered resistance on the part of scientific journal editors or referees to manuscripts that dealt with discoveries that on later dates would assure them the Nobel Prize."5....

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdeta...
worried

Seattle, WA

#37657 Aug 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Continued from the citation above:
Then there’s the substance of the argument, little of which is responsive to Republican concerns about the size of government or cost and intrusiveness of federal regulation. The four suggest that a carbon tax would be a relatively efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage technological innovation. They’re right about this. They then suggest that a carbon tax is politically infeasible — a reasonable, if debatable, proposition. But rather than make the case for some sort of alternative to the current Administration’s policies, they suggest Republican leaders should endorse the EPA’s imposition of greenhouse gas controls under the Clean Air Act. Really? There are few, if any, climate experts who believe the Clean Air Act is well-suited to GHG emission control. This is one reason both the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats sought new climate legislation. The CAA is capable of imposing substantial costs on emitters, but cannot come close to achieving meaningful reductions (for reasons I detail here). Some may believe it’s better than nothing, but those folks are rare in Republican circles. If Republicans are ever gong to be convinced to endorse climate policies, they won’t be in the form of costly command-and-control emission regulations — regulations capable of imposing substantial pain for little gain.
oh 'brian', what was the u.s. government doing for for quite a few decades without the e.p.a.? if you were to set up equipment to extract and liquidify oxygen from the worlds atmosphere, would you not expect a visit from the e.p.a.? if you were to burn millions of tons of the worlds oxygen without anyones permission, wouldn't you expect a visit from the e.p.a. does the increase in atmosphere gasses other than oxygen have anything to do with the taking, without permission, of the worlds oxygen, to burn a bunch of holes in the sky? one or two of the worlds people await an answer. we will watch the solar switching of its poles while awaiting your answer, you have a few months left so take your time. gotta go wipe the pee of my leg.
chisholm

Columbus, OH

#37658 Aug 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted this earlier, but I am re-posting as it did not go through. I am leaving out some of the links to this, as I think that is why it did not go through earlier.
You said:“Although you offer (as usual) no support for your claimed percentages, I suspect they're backward.”
By showing you the Pew Research paper, I supported my claim; therefore, you suspected wrong. Where is your proof that I was wrong?
..edit...
Never saw your alleged "Pew Research paper," and I'm getting bored with your absurd conspiracy theories anyway.

The IMF and World Bank would have nothing to do with regulation of greenhouse gases and pollution, the only thing they might be concerned in is carbon trading, which I oppose as a means to control warming.

FYI
worried

Seattle, WA

#37659 Aug 7, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Allow me to butt it, but this is an interesting discussion.
What about 'publish or perish'? Wouldn't that be an influencing factor?
And related, here's an excerpt of from an article on peer review:
Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science first appeared in published form not in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles but in scientific books. That includes Copernicus' De Revolutionibus and Newton's Principia. Einstein's original paper on relativity was published in a scientific journal (Annalen der Physik), but did not undergo formal peer-review.1 Indeed, Darwin's own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience -- his Origin of Species -- not in a peer-reviewed paper.
Moreover, important scientific work has not uncommonly been initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals. As a 2001 article in Science observed, "Mention 'peer review' and almost every scientist will regale you with stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and steal the glory."2 Indeed, an article in the journal Science Communication by Juan Miguel Campanario notes that top journals such as "Science and Nature have also sometimes rejected significant papers," and in fact "Nature has even rejected work that eventually earned the Nobel Prize."3 In an amusing letter titled "Not in our Nature," Campanario reminds the journal of four examples where it rejected significant papers:
(1) In 1981, Nature rejected a paper by the British biochemist Robert H. Michell on signalling reaction by hormones. This paper has since been cited more than 1,800 times.
(2) In June 1937, Nature rejected Hans Krebs's letter describing the citric acid cycle. Krebs won the 953 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine for this discovery.
(3) Nature initially rejected a paper on work for which Harmut Michel won the 1988 Nobel prize for chemistry; it has been identified by the Institute of Scientific Information as a core document and widely cited.
(4) A paper by Michael J. Berridge, rejected in 1983 by Nature, ranks at number 275 in a list of the most-cited papers of all time. It has been cited more than 1,900 times.4
Elsewhere, Campanario lists "instances in which 36 future Nobel Laureates encountered resistance on the part of scientific journal editors or referees to manuscripts that dealt with discoveries that on later dates would assure them the Nobel Prize."5....
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdeta...
imagine,'mothra', how it would be if millions of tons of oxygen had not been removed from earths atmosphere by nasa? we would still be rolling in the grass
worried

Seattle, WA

#37660 Aug 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Very true. Most climate science is funded by governments around the world. NASA used to be the foremost entity on space exploration and now most of the funding goes to climate change. The Federal Reserve was voted in by congress in 1913. The politicians knew it was way to spend endless sums of money without resorting to taxes and without any oversight. The IMF and World Bank are the Federal Reserve of the World. They can loan out endless sums of money for any crisis with very little oversight if any and the loans are guaranteed. Governments can get this money for any crisis, climate change included, knowing that if they default, the loan will either be forgiven or restructured and the loan process can start again, over and over. So the only winner in this situation are the politicians and the banks. The people take the brunt of the losses either through inflation or the periodic raising of taxes. And the real kicker about this system the banks have created, is that they keep us fighting over taxes. The whole system is set up to never be paid off. They don't want anything paid off, because the way they make their money is through interest. I just read where our total debt just went up to 71 trillion. Don't you think the politicians are using us when the pit us against each other about the need to increase taxes? Do we really think that can ever be paid off? When other posters complain about immorality, to me this is the most immoral process we are embedded in. Through fractional banking, banks are loaning money they never had, charging interest on money they never had, and then making a profit off of money they never had.
oh 'kristy', help me get the government funding I need to study that and I promise you will never get an answer. I, however will have a house, several brand new rigs, a mistress and a step into fame, fortune and politics. you only need to demand the funding, I will do everything else. climate science is easy, once I get the funding.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#37661 Aug 7, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Allow me to butt it, but this is an interesting discussion.
What about 'publish or perish'? Wouldn't that be an influencing factor?
And related, here's an excerpt of from an article on peer review:
Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science first appeared in published form not in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles but in scientific books. That includes Copernicus' De Revolutionibus and Newton's Principia. Einstein's original paper on relativity was published in a scientific journal (Annalen der Physik), but did not undergo formal peer-review.1 Indeed, Darwin's own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience -- his Origin of Species -- not in a peer-reviewed paper.
Moreover, important scientific work has not uncommonly been initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals. As a 2001 article in Science observed, "Mention 'peer review' and almost every scientist will regale you with stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and steal the glory."2 Indeed, an article in the journal Science Communication by Juan Miguel Campanario notes that top journals such as "Science and Nature have also sometimes rejected significant papers," and in fact "Nature has even rejected work that eventually earned the Nobel Prize."3 In an amusing letter titled "Not in our Nature," Campanario reminds the journal of four examples where it rejected significant papers:
(1) In 1981, Nature rejected a paper by the British biochemist Robert H. Michell on signalling reaction by hormones. This paper has since been cited more than 1,800 times.
(2) In June 1937, Nature rejected Hans Krebs's letter describing the citric acid cycle. Krebs won the 953 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine for this discovery.
(3) Nature initially rejected a paper on work for which Harmut Michel won the 1988 Nobel prize for chemistry; it has been identified by the Institute of Scientific Information as a core document and widely cited.
(4) A paper by Michael J. Berridge, rejected in 1983 by Nature, ranks at number 275 in a list of the most-cited papers of all time. It has been cited more than 1,900 times.4
Elsewhere, Campanario lists "instances in which 36 future Nobel Laureates encountered resistance on the part of scientific journal editors or referees to manuscripts that dealt with discoveries that on later dates would assure them the Nobel Prize."5....
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdeta...
Ahhh..The Krebs cycle. I didn't realize it was initially rejected. Spent many nights studying that in college!! Publish or perish would definitely be an influencing factor. It seems that peer review has become the end all-be all and used against you if you aren't published.

I have also been thinking about the way are told that new innovations will occur by taxing CO2 emissions and subsidizing alternative energy. But throughout history, have new inventions come about this way? It seems we are putting the cart before the horse. During the Industrial Revolution, all the inventions came from the private sector without government subsidies. Examples would be of course Edison and Ford and then there were the railroads, steel, oil. These people mostly received private loans or used their own money so they had much to lose if not successful and they wouldn't want to put their money into something they would see as failing. But today, the government plan is to give out government-backed guaranteed loans to really any company that is regarded as alternative energy, not even caring whether it is viable or realistic and Solyndra is a good example of that. When there is no risk and nothing to lose and failure is rewarded, where is the incentive to really come out with the breakthrough ideas? It seems they are truly setting us all up to fail.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min ObamaLogic 1,154,005
New Beach Boys song. 23 min The Beach Boys 1
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 28 min Frijoles 71,015
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 29 min Rogue Scholar 05 181,822
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 42 min _Zoey_ 363
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 44 min _Zoey_ 4,918
sex 3 hr rahul 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr Ralph 98,853
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:39 am PST

Bleacher Report11:39AM
Complete Week 16 Preview for Indianapolis
NBC Sports12:33 PM
1 thing even Rahm can't fix: Da Bears - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 1:01 PM
Cowboys' Murray listed as questionable for Colts - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 8:26 AM
Report: Executives suggest Bears could have to attach a draft pick to move Cutler
Bleacher Report11:56 AM
Eagles vs. Redskins: Live Score and Analysis for Philadelphia