betsy

He is free to make an assessment. However, he is not an expert in the science of climate change as he himself admits. Bingo! Finally you got it! Then why are you all listening to Suzuki? Presumably Everrett is making an assessment of the climate change debate. And where it's going. And if it's going in the right direction. He doesn't need to be an expert in climate change. He only needs to be an expert in assessing a debate. Now from the fact that he's not an "expert" in climate change, let's not conclude that he does not know what he's talking about - he's an expert in related fields. Our resident geneticist is, as far as I know, just a charlatan. Jdobbin, read your own post about Everett! If the studies of oceans and polar regions don't give insight into climatic studies, then what's all the talk about the effects of climate change on the oceans and polar regions? Duh! Maybe he didn't noticed that the climate was affecting the regions of his major specialties!

Got a better suggestion? Yep.

What???? First, you got it backward, he's an expert in assessment, but not in global-warming. As for the importance thereof - maybe because it'll help in the assessment! You truly are a confused girl. I suggest you read the exchanges between me and Jdobbin. And that's Suzuki, btw!

Yes. That's why we shouldn't just throw away trillions of dollars to Kyoto! Instead we should be planning in a sensible manner...how we can adapt to climate change!

What he said in his report to Congress in April is that he is an expert in assessment not in the science of climate change. Why is it suddenly important that a scientist be an expert in climate change. The god of all global warming gods is a geneticist. What precisley is wrong about being an expert in assessment? At least it's clearly related to the issue...assessing the possible causes of climate change. Anyway I think he is more important than a mere assessor. Like a property assessor. Or some other mundane assessment role. No! He is the assessor of all assessors! And his property is....THE EARTH!

Jdobbin and BC Chick: "This site is constructed by Dr. John Everett to provide objective information about climate warming from the perspective of a systems analyst who is often asked about climate change, whether as part of some other issue or directly in Congressional testimony. Every effort is made to present all the issues, similar to what an enquiring mind would need to understand before rendering an opinion as to whether there are pros and cons to a warming (or cooling) scenario for a particular sector in a particular region, or even for the global society. Essentially, this is a site for those who think before they leap. For those whose mind is already determined, perhaps you should go elsewhere and not become confused by facts." For those not afraid of facts, go to... http://climatechangefacts.info/AboutUs.html

Regarding Dr. Everett who you brought up - are you agreeing that it's not very sound logic for you to claim that somebody who disagrees with the human-causes of GW, believes, for some reason, in reducing emissions? No, I changed my explanation. Please go back and read it. It's not a contradiction at all. It's a misquote of Everett and me. As for my statement concerning the trillions and the destruction of our economy (which got deleted), I stand by that.

Pinning all your trust on this so-called peer-reviewed...or any peer-reviewed journals, and accepting them without question, is not sensible. I am not denying there is climate change. What I'm questioning and challenging are those peer-reviewed journals. The Politics of Peer Review "In fact, "peer review" turns out to be highly susceptible to such subversion. For one thing, it's only as reliable as the individuals chosen to serve as "peers" and the formal process within which peer review takes place. Peer review doesn't automatically serve as a "guarantor of truth," note Rutgers University science policy scholars Stuart Shapiro and David Guston, and it also won't necessarily quench controversy in highly politicized scientific areas. So while "peer review" may be important as a direction or ideal, it's not a process that can be automatically and uncritically trusted to strengthen science. In closing, another telling example of the ambiguities inherent in peer review comes to mind. Last year the Stanford Law Review, a non-peer reviewed journal, published a devastating critique of economist John Lott's famed "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis, which had generally been supported by a series of peer reviewed studies that, in retrospect, seem severely flawed. Not surprisingly, Lott now criticizes the Stanford Law Review study for not being peer reviewed. But the substance of the argument is what actually counts, and economists seem increasingly convinced that Lott has lost on the merits--peer review notwithstanding. Perhaps there's a lesson there when it comes to the OMB/OIRA proposal. Before automatically embracing "peer review," we should be exceedingly careful to determine what the phrase actually means, who's using it--and why they care." http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/peerreview/

Despite the fact the jdobbin already addressed this, I want to put forth a suggestion to you about what you're trying to establish here - how much sense does it make to argue that someone is advocating something, which, by your admission, that person also claims is futile? First, what do you mean by my admission? It's his admission. Read the quote. He thinks reducing emission is a good idea, AND he says that doing so will have no significant effect on climate change. Dr John Everett "shares the IPCC notion that carbon emissions should be reduced, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change." Everett, without his saying so, does seem to agree with the Harper approach. He considers the reduction of emissions a good thing. He also comsiders that reduction in emissions will not help alleviate climate change. Without knowing more of what he says and thinks - in other words, purely from this quote, we learn nothing about why he thinks reduction of carbon emissions is good. We can infer that he feels that it would be a valuable reduction in pollution. We can infer no more than that. And we're taking liberties at that. In other words, he didn't say why. We'll have to read the entire link to fully understand where he's coming from, assuming that he says why. Edited. Removed some.

Dr. Everett is not an opponent of reducing emissions. http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Media/...ony_Everett.pdf Yes, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change.

Global Climate Change Facts: The Truth, The Consensus, and the Skeptics What are the views of the IPCC Process by the Skeptics? Very Few Scientists. Few scientists are actually involved in writing the materials, perhaps a few dozen. Usually there is one real leader, a Chair or Co-Chair and 2 or 3 titular co-chairs that often are present to provide balance for the developing nations. Because of skill or language barriers they may not be greatly involved. Lead Authors are usually involved in just one piece of the section or chapter. These few people, depending on the breadth of the chapter, prepare the first and subsequent drafts and the Executive Summary that feeds into the SPM, long before the draft chapters have been through national reviews. Even here, the Co-Chairs decide which inputs are to be accepted, or make recommendations that usually are sustained, during plenary sessions. Yes, thousands of scientists review the IPCC documents, but usually only those parts that impinge on their own expertise, which is usually quite narrow. Overstatement of Risks and Impacts. We know from the paleo record that the Earth routinely goes through climate swings greater than IPCC projects, yet IPCC does not go far enough in correcting overstatements in its own documents and in those of the press. There will be winners and losers, but always we hear only of the losses. Balance is missing. Things will be different, but not necessarily worse. For example, sea level rise has been happening since the end of the last ice age, and there is little evidence of any significant acceleration, yet most people believe that global warming will flood all coastal areas. The areas may flood, just as Georges Bank is now deep beneath the Atlantic, if this unusually long period in between ice ages continues and we see warmth as great as the last interglacial, but flooding won't be caused by human-derived warming, although it may contribute. Another example is the great numbers of reports about Antarctica warming, yet the latest IPCC document shows that there is no evidence of any change in temperature or ice coverage. Too Many People are Excluded or Their Input not Valued. This includes astronomers and geologists. Some times the exclusion is real or just perceived. Over time this tends to make the inside group of IPCC scientists more uniform in their beliefs while adding to the anti-IPCC consensus. Pressure is Placed on People Who Disagree with the IPCC Majority. This is evidenced by the attempted removal of at least 4 US state climatologists whose Governors have decided that conformance to the consensus view is required. The Policy Statement of their Association states that the natural variability in the climate system is very strong, that we lack the ability to predict greater than about 10 years into the future, and it is essential to collect data necessary to know if the climate is changing. The process leading to the Summary for Policy Makers is too Political. The Skeptics have more trouble with the SPM than the underlying reports. It is not too affectionately called "SPAM". Even though the Scientists are present during finalization, and have sufficient authority to make sure they can live with it, many of the national delegations work to accomplish their policy objectives through the report. Some Skeptics have responded by developing an Independent SPM, based on the same underlying IPCC science documents, but with very different interpretations. An excellent report by the Earth Negotiations Bulletin sheds light on the process. It is recommended reading. An excerpt follows from their report of the approval meeting of the IPCC SPM for WG1 (2007): "Participants discussed whether it would be clearer to state that warming of the climate system is “unequivocal” or “evident.” Participants agreed to state that warming is “unequivocal.” Canada, with Germany and Switzerland, suggested adding a reference to the accelerating trend of warming. China, New Zealand, and South Africa, supported by the Coordinating Lead Authors, opposed this, given the possibility of decadal variability, and the reference was not included in this section. On text noting high decadal variability in Arctic temperatures, Canada, supported by Norway, suggested removing a specific reference to a warm period observed from 1925 to 1945. The Coordinating Lead Authors explained that “climate sceptics” often point to this warm spell to question the IPCC for not acknowledging such warm spells. Participants agreed to keep the reference." What Does the Consensus Say About the Skeptics? On Somebody's Payroll. Many press articles have been written to say that scientists who disagree do so because they are being supported by oil companies or some other group with a stake in the outcome. The counter argument is that most consensus scientists have funding derived from government or university sources that are directly based on public concern and fear. It is most likely that nearly all scientists say and write that which they do because they believe it to be true. Money, whether a Federal grant, or a corporate grant, will flow to support an avenue of inquiry believed in the grantor's interest. Science is not bought in advance (usually). Not Mainstream Scientists. The skeptics are discredited often by allegations that they are not doing work that is germane to the climate change work, or that they are inexperienced. The countering allegation is that since one or more of any reviewers for the main scientific journals are likely to be members of the consensus, any work showng the consensus view is wrong cannot be published in a primary journal. One fact is that many of the mainline skeptics are full professors involved in climate research at major universities. Disproportionate Press Coverage. Consensus scientists and their allies decry all the attention the Skeptics get, when they are so few. Perhaps they are perceived to be so few because Consensus people do not see them in the room and do not realize how numerous they are becoming. Conversely the Skeptics have reached critical mass and, not seeing any consensus members in their own midst, see themselves as the true consensus. Of course, the press loves a controversy. It, along with fear, are two primary attributes that expand the audience. If anyone believes the Skeptics are some tiny minority, try using your favorite search engine to search for climate skeptics. The search will show dozens or hundreds of pro and con Skeptic arguments and websites. It will show some of the hype and hysteria on all sides of the climate arguments, as well as legitimate scientific sites and discussion forums. Is Global Warming Bad ? The IPCC 2007 reports suggest there will be more losers than winners.The IPCC process includes many unlikely scenarios. These worst-case estimates also have associated impacts, from benign to worst-case. Thus we get the 5% worst impacts that have a 5% chance of happening (a combined 0.25% likelihood) equally discussed with benign changes that are reasonable to expect. By the time summaries are written, and press releases, only the bad ieffects are presented. This leads to a gross exaggeration of the problems. Global Warming Will Actually Have More Winners then Losers. Throughout the history of human life, the Earth's livability has always been better when the climate has been warmer than cooler. Human populations have expanded the most when the Earth warmed and turned greener, whether during the middle ages or durning the last 2 decades. Whether it is a fish in the ocean, a shrimp in an aquaculture pond, or a bean on a vine, it will grow faster when it is warmer, all things being equal. Humans will be quick to take advantage of a warmer climate and to adjust if it gets too warm in an area. More crops grow where it is warm or hot than in frozen ground, and CO2 is a primary food of plants - basic facts that seem forgotten. Even now, NASA satellites show that the Earth has become 6% greener as the world has warmed over the past 20 years: "Our study proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth" . Further, a May 2007 Nature paper shows that preciptation increases 6.5% per degree C rise, not the 1-3% used in models, making the Earth 3X wetter than models forecast. Deserts, as is known for prior warm periods, will be wetter, not drier. http://climatechangefacts.info/index.htm

Easy there sunshine, for someone who admittedly doesn't understand half the time what I say, I wouldn't get so lippy. Well, see? Now we're debating! And you wanted to insert this in your Dion thingy? Mind you, nothing is stopping you from posting your reply to this thread in your thread. LOL. You've got to admit, you were way off back there telling that this does not deserve to have its own thread. Like, who made you boss? Rudeness begets rudeness. So you know where the lip came from! Now zip your lip and let's get on with the topic!

Opponents of the "Consensus" on Anthropogenic Global Warming Sudha Shenoy "Contrary to what one often hears, opponents of the ‘scientific consensus’ promoted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are not self-published kooks & cranks. In view of the heat that this statement seems to generate, it is necessary to spell out & clarify what is involved (for careful readers): There are many established scientists who seriously question its procedures & arguments. See, for example, the following: 1. Dr John Everett, now a consulting oceanographer; also involved with the IPCC as reviewer, etc. This contains much useful info. Dr Everett shares the IPCC notion that carbon emissions should be reduced, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change. Good review of the main issues, including the IPCC & its procedures, esp the famous 'scientific consensus'. Provides good background/context for lay inquirers. 2. Dr Roger Pielke, Sr. has an excellent blog which lists, summarises, comments on scientific papers (from proper journals) that both support/question the IPCC consensus. Really valuable: a continuing annotated bibliography." http://blog.mises.org/archives/006620.asp

Yeah, but the problem is, you don't want to know anything differently! You embrace Kyoto with your blinders on! You're like a child who's afraid to look under his bed....because he's afraid he might find something he won't like.

Just last month there was a consensus amongst UN scientist, so I don't know where this "more and more" is coming from. As for your "predictions," yeah, okay. My crystal-ball says differently! Why don't you bring out the names from your crystal ball? I'll even give you the permision to post them on my thread! Just so you'll stop your irritating whining.

Yes, I realise that. Still doesn't mean they deserve their own thread. My thread on Dion being the same old Liberal or new has already been hijacked in this direction. Well MY THREAD is not about Dion! It was out of respect for your thread as well that I decided to create this one - not that it does not highly deserve a thread of its own! Anyway, do we need authorisation from you as to what or who deserves their own thread?

Be quiet. I'm still trying to edit. Lol!

OPEN KYOTO TO DEBATE Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming Special to the Financial Post An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Dear Prime Minister: As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science. Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action. While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary. We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy. "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next. We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas. We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic. CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources - - - Sincerely, Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont. Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont. Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K. Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont. Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C. Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont. Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J. Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif. Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn. Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health) Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z. Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K. Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K. Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000 Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass. Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant. Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore. Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K. © National Post 2006 http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...be-4db87559d605 -------- So, let's not wave that so-called "peer-review journal" as proof!

"so-called scientists"? Huh? They are scientists working at Universities. So? This so-called "peer-reviewed" journals shouldn't be taken without any questions. I'm opening up a new thread so we don't hijack this one. Check out: An open letter to Harper.

Me too. I wouldn't have heard of this if I wasn't tuned in on CTV Newsnet. One day they were showing how she partied just before going to jail....the next thing I know, she's out of jail! Besides why would it be odd for the public to have legitimate interest in this kind of things when news channels no longer just concentrate on serious stuff? They are like tabloids! Remember that super rich woman Leona-something who said something like "taxes are for little people"...and she got jail sentence for tax evation?? Of course someone like her spout off a Marie Antoinette-like spin, you get the heat from the crowd! Boy, the media and the public had a field day out of that! Then there's Martha Stewart. Conrad Black. It's the attitude emanating, I guess from some high-profile rich and famous. Some come off as very priviledged, a sneering sense of entitlement. Whether they truly feel this way or not - it's how it is being portrayed by the media, and how it's being perceived by the people. This is the price of fame I guess. The real source of the problem are the people. If the public didn't mindlessly adore these celebrities, there'll be no fuel for the fire. If the public didn't treat these celebrities as somebody special, these celebrities wouldn't be strutting about expecting "special" treatments. The greatest traders in influence in the world of celebrity are those who treat their adoring fans with the greatest contempt.

Only if we can videotape it and use the footage for another season of the simple life Just kidding. Actually, I think that would be a good idea. hey, they can always do a reality show!

You don't know what a peer-reviewed journal is? The reviewers are other scientists in the field. But who are these so-called scientists?

Wow, I'm impressed. Her ordeal has been the predominant story on CNN just as Anna Nicole Smith's death overshadowed all the news..... and don't even get me started on Britney's shaved head or Lohan's DUI. I'm glad at least Paris is pointing out this folly in so-called journalistic reporting. Well why is she surprised with all the attention, I wonder? I've read somewhere that she deliberately sought attention from the press in the past, trying to be controversial what with all the supposed staged cat-fight with another starlet, etc. If her name is not HILTON, she would've been long forgotten! The folly I see is BUYING into her effort to downplay the gravity of her action by blaming everyone who's now paying very close attention - because her name is HILTON - to the justice system. That same attention she seemed to have craved and sought for now works against her - by probably forcing the hand of justice to show unbias and show it well! She is the Martha Stewart for DUI. Lol. So she now plays the victim. I guess it's a good thing nobody was hurt or killed by her actions. And if somebody did get hurt or killed, maybe the quality of her penalty would've depended on how rich and famous or.....how utterly ordinary her victim is. Too bad we couldn't do a realistic comparison on that score. I'm glad Hilton had brought an awareness to a problem that might be in the system - and brought it out into the open - as to what must be rampantly been going on. "Bringing awareness." It seems we need a celebrity to do this these days. From AIDS to the Environment to Iraq/Afghanistan, sealhunt, etc., So maybe this is Paris Hilton's baby.

How many times was this prosecutor's wife arrested for driving with a suspended license? Compared to Hilton's arrest three times in the span of how many months? "arrested Hilton in Hollywood on Sept. 7. In January, she pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of the alcohol-related reckless-driving charge. She was sentenced to 36 months' probation, alcohol education and $1,500 in fines. But the heiress was pulled over again by California Highway Patrol on Jan. 15. Officers informed Hilton she was driving on a suspended license and she signed a document acknowledging she was not to drive. Then again on Feb. 27, she was pulled over by sheriff's deputies, at which time she was charged with violating her probation. A traffic court judge ruled on May 4 that Hilton violated her probation and sentenced her to 45 days in jail. " She is a repeat offender. And what exactly does that "reckless-driving" means? One thing I notice, MADD hasn't issued any comments on this (unless I've missed it). I guess they're not in California.

Read it again...maybe you'll get it. Hint: corruption?