Once slow-moving threat, global warmi...

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

There are 60042 comments on the Newsday story from Dec 14, 2008, titled Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt.... In it, Newsday reports that:

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, 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

Eden Prairie, 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

New Smyrna Beach, 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”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#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

New Smyrna Beach, 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

New Smyrna Beach, 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.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37662 Aug 7, 2013
These deniers are corrupt to the core.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37663 Aug 7, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
NEWS: WASHINGTON — Last year was one of the 10 hottest since global average temperatures have been recorded, according to an assessment of worldwide climate trends by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
"The State of the Climate in 2012," released Tuesday, paints a sobering portrait of vast swaths of the planet transformed by rising temperatures. Arctic sea ice reached record lows during the summer thaw. In Greenland, about 97% of its ice sheet melted in the summer, far greater than in years past.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/natio...
" Nine of the 10 hottest years have been recorded since the late 1990s, with 2012 ranking number 8 or 9, depending on the methodology."

If that doesn't raise a whole lot of questions, nothing will.
worried

Seattle, WA

#37664 Aug 7, 2013
bubba wrote:
^^ boohoo
I agree 'bubba', the charade has gone on too long.
kristy

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#37665 Aug 7, 2013
chisholm wrote:
<quoted text>
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
You are too funny, telling people they don't have a clue and yet you can't even open a link right in front of you on post #37607 that leads right to the Pew Research.
worried

Seattle, WA

#37666 Aug 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
oh no 'kristy', there is great promise in moonbeams and stardust. we have to trust in the government grants. it's not made up, if I could get another government grant I would prove it to you.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#37667 Aug 7, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
As you've seen, many hold "peer review" as the gold standard standard of "science".

I searched for "peer review gold standard" and found many interesting articles challenging that notion.

The following is from an article on medical peer review:

--Fraud, flawed articles and corrections have haunted general interest news organizations. But such problems are far more embarrassing for scientific journals because of their claims for the superiority of their system of editing.

A widespread belief among nonscientists is that journal editors and their reviewers check authors' research firsthand and even repeat the research. In fact, journal editors do not routinely examine authors' scientific notebooks. Instead, they rely on peer reviewers' criticisms, which are based on the information submitted by the authors.

While editors and reviewers may ask authors for more information, journals and their invited experts examine raw data only under the most unusual circumstances.

In that respect, journal editors are like newspaper editors, who check the content of reporters' copy for facts and internal inconsistencies but generally not their notes. Still, journal editors have refused to call peer review what many others say it is — a form of vetting or technical editing....

Many nonscientists perceive reviewers to be impartial. But the reviewers, called independent experts, in fact are often competitors of the authors of the papers they scrutinize, raising potential conflicts of interest.

Except when gaffes are publicized, there is little scrutiny of the quality of what journals publish....

Despite its flaws, scientists favor the system in part because they need to publish or perish. The institutions where the scientists work and the private and government agencies that pay for their grants seek publicity in their eagerness to show financial backers results for their efforts.

The public and many scientists tend to overlook the journals' economic benefits that stem from linking their embargo policies to peer review. Some journals are owned by private for-profit companies, while others are owned by professional societies that rely on income from the journals. The costs of running journals are low because authors and reviewers are generally not paid.

A few journals that not long ago measured profits in the tens of thousands of dollars a year now make millions, according to at least three editors who agreed to discuss finances only if granted anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak about finances.

Any influential system that profits from taxpayer-financed research should be held publicly accountable for how the revenues are spent. Journals generally decline to disclose such data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02do...

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.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News News 28 Mins Ago 'Not the America we want': Oba... 16 min Patriot 274
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 19 min OK Barry 917
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 22 min OzRitz 1,394,923
keep a word----drop a word (Feb '11) 55 min -Prince- 19,014
News Supreme Court leaves assault weapons bans in pl... 1 hr Batch 37 Pain Is ... 117
News At gay pride parades, a year to weave sorrow an... 2 hr chokesontranniesu... 6
Casey Anthony is still a MILF 2 hr one love 7
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 9 hr Murphey_Law 513,333
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages