This has been hashed around quite a bit in this discussion, but, I think it is important to redundantly point out that regardless of the paper's credibility, it is not proper for a bureaucrat to decide what is worthy of being put forth for peer review. Deciding whether a paper is junk, or not, is up to the peers who review the paper, otherwise the peer review process becomes tainted.

Actually, I believe you. But, it seems that you are asking that we non-climatologists perform the peer review in this case, instead of letting the peer review process work like it is supposed to.

As logical as it sounds to tell people to educate themselves by reading the paper (and supporting documents) for themselves to come to their own conclusion, that logic breaks down when you take into consideration all of the other issues that are important that people are expected to make informed decisions about, in addition to whatever topic is being discussed.

It is not realistic to expect every person to research all the ins-and-outs, and ramifications, of everything that is important.

We have to put our faith in experts, trusting that peer review works, and raise the bullshit flag when something happens that jeopardizes the peer review process. Otherwise, we would spend every waking moment researching all of these important things on our own, and end up accomplishing nothing ourselves. That removes our ability to work on the things that we may be experts in.

There is just too much going on to be well-informed on every topic that could be important, and it is impossible to assign proper priority to each topic, without relying on expert opinion.

And, yes, that arguments coming from both sides are so heavily laden with emotional propaganda, does make me sick. I think both sides are guilty as sin in this respect.

Sarcasm: ON
Thanks!
Sarcasm: OFF

That's a good point, and yes, I did consider it before posting.

The merits of your statement actually set up another argument that I am in the passionate minority over, but they are even more off-topic than we are now, so I won't expand on how to prevent the criminal mentality.

The main point I was trying to make is that I don't think it is reasonable to expect people share the burden equally when they make a conscious decision that reduces the actual burden for everyone. These burdens should be adjustable, IMO, based on how much of the resource that you actually use.

I'm not saying that we childless folks should pay zero, that would be incredibly selfish, but I also don't think it is fair to say that we should have to pay the full share, either. By default, we are making the burden less for everyone.

I think if we were to implement sliding scales for these types of things, where you picked up a greater share of the burden based on your use of these resources, that people might be a whole lot more conscious of the consequences of the decisions they make, and might just make those decisions in more responsible manner (e.g., have 2 kids, instead of 10, because you know it is easier to support financially).

Yes, I think this would add additional complexity, but not much more than to create a table where the education tax rate that you pay is in the column that corresponds to the number of children you have. I think this would go a long way towards making the system seem fair, and equitable.

You know, this kind of thinking has always rubbed me the wrong way. Who the heck are you to make that judgment?

I have no kids, and don't intend to have any kids. I think I, and others like me, might just be entitled to a bit of break on that.

After all, only 12 years of my life were spent using those resources. I don't mind throwing a reasonable amount into the kitty for that.
(Even though that was parents responsibility, really.)

If my kidless status changes, I do see it as my responsibility to pay for the resources required to educate my kid(s).

Why is it again, that I need to pay to educate other people's ankle-biters?

I pay the taxes, but I sure don't like paying them.

It's like adding insult to injury when I see how inefficiently those dollars are spent by the time they get to the public education system.

So, to sum up your first three paragraphs, there are very few people who you would consider qualified to make informed judgments on the matter.

That comes off a bit on the academically snobbish side to me. I hope you didn't mean it that way.

If Global Warming is likely to be a human race ender (or some other really nasty outcome), then I would think that you would want all the smart people you could find working on it, without regard to their chosen specialty.

I also wonder how many absolutely brilliant people are out there, that don't have the "proper" academic degree, that could lend incredible insight to the problem that won't be given the time of day because they chose a different path in their studies?

As to your last paragraph, I could not agree more.

Used car salesmen can probably provide a lot of insight, too.

Emotional Purchases ~ Impulse Buying ~ FUD have strong similarities.

Impulse purchase

And probably the second question, too.

Gotcha, thanks for the reply.

That definitely answers my first question.

You are obviously feeling defeated by the situation. I don't blame you.

However, this thread of the discussion wouldn't exist if people didn't care.

I won't beat the dead horse anymore, but, don't give up.

Actually, the more that I think about it, the less I understand the GP's idea.

What is meant by the "Wikipedia of social networking"? I think I need someone to spoon feed it to me.

Not to knock down your idea, but, how are you going to raise the few million to get started, and what about the recurring costs to keep it up, and running, without it generating some form of income?

Again, not to knock your idea, but, aren't privacy, and openness, mutually exclusive to some degree, in a social network?

The P2P idea may do quite a bit for the costs, but, I'm still stuck on the privacy part.

(Score:Googol, Foresight)

(emphasis mine)

Maybe no one can realistically say to themselves "I'm going to flip a switch, and kick Google's rear-end."

That does not mean that Google's services cannot be improved upon.

There is opportunity there to compete with them.

It will always be possible to build a better mousetrap. The bar is high, but, it can be cleared.

It may be a tremendous task, and you would need some brilliant ideas to do it, but please don't say that it is not possible.

My prediction is that there will come a day where Google, Inc. falls into the same trap as every other business is likely to fall in.

They will eventually become complacent. How they deal with that is unknown.

When they do become complacent, that will be the time it will be easiest to compete with, and possibly eclipse them.

However, there is no reason that someone with a brilliant idea, and good organizational skills, can't become a real competitor before Google becomes complacent.

I don't think the problem you are referring to has anything to do with the Internet.

Social clubs provide the same exact opportunities to form splinter groups, and have probably done so, for as long as humans were capable of thought, and reason.

No Internet required.

Actually, the Internet provides some relief to the kind of group-think that bothers you, in that it makes different viewpoints much more available to you.

This might deserve the off-topic mod, but, it might not be.

My knee-jerk reaction in reading that was, "Yep, I don't think organizations who think in that fashion, and make statements like that, are likely to take much business away from Google."