gc1765

Prestigious journals like Nature and Science reject the majority of submissions that they receive, so it's not surprising that there are a lot of rejected authors. The only way that you could prove that there is a bias is to compare the percentage of pro-GW articles accepted vs. the percentage of anti-GW articles accepted, and even then you would have to show that the rejection of the pro-GW articles were more justified, which would be difficult if not impossible to do. I looked up his publications, but he has over 200 of them so it's hard to tell for sure which one you are talking about. He did have a paper in Nature in 1993, which was actually a rebuttal to another paper, along with a rebuttal from the authors of the original paper in the same issue. However, that is something that Nature does in every issue, and is certainly not exclusive to global warming articles.

How do you know this without knowing which papers were rejected? Could you give an example?

Yes you can. You might not know who reviewed the paper, but it is usually someone that you suggested. I have yet to see a journal that does not require you to suggest reviewers. Not true. It's actually pretty rare to have a paper rejected (unless maybe if you're submitting it to a very prestigious journal). Some people still might not accept it, but that doesn't mean it won't get published. When Michelson and Morley suggested that there was no "ether" it was very controversial, and took time to accept...but it went on to become one of the most important scientific findings of the century.

You can usually choose or suggest who reviews your papers. Scientists are also judged by the quality of papers. Papers that go against the status quo are usually more significant, and thus end up in better journals like Science or Nature.

I never suggested that we replace fossil fuels with bio-fuels. I am suggesting that we should reduce our overall energy use.

Good point. The Republicans and the war in Iraq have provided groups like al-qaeda (and perhaps Hamas as well) with new recruits. Terrorist leaders want a Republican in the Whitehouse, at least the ones who want to continue war with the U.S. do. If they endorse the Democrats, perhaps it is a calculated move to trick people who are easily tricked.

How do you propose we solve such a problem?

Isn't black carbon produced by combustion of fossil fuels? So reducing combustion of fossil fuels would also reduce black carbon.

I agree with most of your post except for this part. First of all, I doubt Hillary would refuse the VP nomination if it were offered. Hillary is ambitious, and being VP wouldn't be too shabby. Secondly, I doubt Obama will have trouble finding people. Bill Richardson is another name that a few people seem to be throwing around as a possible choice, and it seems to me that he too would take it if offered.

Mr. Dion, Many Canadians feel as though they have very little say over government policy, and must choose between the "lesser of evils". That is, they only have the choice of voting for 3 or 4 parties which don't necessarily reflect their views. What would you do to give Canadians more of a voice in government? How will you ensure that your party and your government, should you form government, will listen to the ideas put forth by average Canadians?

I agree that there is too much partisanship, but that partisanship goes both ways.

Some good news for the Democrats: link

If you are referring to Hillary Clinton, I don't believe she lost because she is a woman. She lost because she is an ambitious, selfish, phony person who would do or say anything to get herself elected. Of course, there are probably PLENTY of capable and deserving women who would make excellent Presidents...just not Hillary.

"Stop the Liberal attack on retirement savings and preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them." - Conservative 2006 platform What's your point???

More personal attacks? I must be doing something right Wrong, and wrong.

When someone has to resort to personal attacks, it is usually because they have no actual argument. I take it as a compliment

If that's your argument, then how can you be so sure that Harper won't impose his own carbon tax? It wouldn't be the first time he broke a promise either...

Why don't you ask Chretien about that? It would be a pretty big stretch to blame Dion for that considering he was not even a member of parliament then. Personally, I'm glad they kept the GST and I would rather have seen Harper's government cut income taxes instead of the GST. That's some interesting math there. Every cent that the government takes in from the carbon tax is one less cent that they need to raise through income taxes, so if you want to argue that fuel & heating will be an extra $100, then that means $100 will be saved on income taxes. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest.

Dion is not planning on raising taxes, he is planning on SHIFTING taxation from income & business taxes to taxes on the combustion of fossil fuels. At least try to be honest when you debate...

Precisely my point!

Why would he do that? According to your link, Saddam sent the fighter jets to Iran so that they wouldn't be destroyed. Why would Saddam care if the U.S. found his chemical weapons? Without those weapons, Saddam knew he was a dead man - with those weapons he had his only chance of staying in power. Don't you think Saddam would have chose to stay in power?

Saddam did not send fighter jets to Iran so that the U.S. wouldn't find out about them. The U.S. already knew they had them, so to try to compare that to removing chemical weapons so that they wouldn't be found is comparing apples to oranges.

Good point. Personally, I find it extremely hard to believe that a ruthless, power-hungry dictator who would do anything or kill anyone to stay in power, had WMDs but decided that rather than using those WMDs against the invaders (which was his only hope of staying in power) he simply decided to ship them off and hide in a hole. Very unlikely. The idea that Saddam had WMDs, but shipped them off to another country prior to the 2003 invasion is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Don't we have enough of that on this forum already?

Since we now know that there were no WMDs, I take it you agree that invading Iraq was a huge mistake??