BTW, what is the source on the estimated cost of the CO2 taxation scheme?
Printable View
BTW, what is the source on the estimated cost of the CO2 taxation scheme?
Estimated cost in what regard?Quote:
Originally posted by Xywalan
BTW, what is the source on the estimated cost of the CO2 taxation scheme?
It mentions a ballpark figure for the amount of money expected to flow from wealthy nations through the newly established government's hands, supposedly passing on to "developing nations".
Page 39 of the PDF I linked to under point 33. The other link I provided listed it as one of it's sixteen key points, and provided a translation into plain English rather than UN lawyer speak.
You have been hand fed.
@Malacasta
Is this a matter of qualifications?
If you will only accept a persons position if they have a fancy framed piece of paper on the wall, then for the sake of argument, how many PhDs you need to see?
Ten?
One hundred?
A thousand?
For me none. But the "opinion" must be published in a peer-reviewed journal to have any weight in scientific terms. However, it is usually the case that the people with PhDs get to publish those.Quote:
Originally posted by Rilthyn
@Malacasta
Is this a matter of qualifications?
If you will only accept a persons position if they have a fancy framed piece of paper on the wall, then for the sake of argument, how many PhDs you need to see?
Ten?
One hundred?
A thousand?
BTW, thanks for reference. I'll check it out.
Side point: I thought a lot of papers published in those journals were by people _working on_ their advanced degrees, so a lot of them won't already _have_ a PhD. I could be wrong though, the only peer-reviewed publication I've ever submitted anything to is Wikipedia.....Quote:
Originally posted by Xywalan
For me none. But the "opinion" must be published in a peer-reviewed journal to have any weight in scientific terms. However, it is usually the case that the people with PhDs get to publish those.
BTW, thanks for reference. I'll check it out.
I wouldn't look at where something's published as proof or otherwise of its quality. Internal evidence is more useful, including hard data about what was done and what the results were, is more useful. And while it's true that someone could just make all that up, it's no more likely they'd do that on their own web site than in a p-r jour. *shrug*
Postdocs and professors publish a lot as well, but even if the primary author of the paper is a graduate student a Ph.D. will certainly be one of the co-authors.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
Side point: I thought a lot of papers published in those journals were by people _working on_ their advanced degrees, so a lot of them won't already _have_ a PhD.
A lot of peer-review journals will still publish almost anything, though. Only top-tier publications and conferences (Nature, Science, IEEE, etc.) are credible enough to assume that all papers they publish have any minimum standard of quality.
Re authors: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=562Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
Postdocs and professors publish a lot as well, but even if the primary author of the paper is a graduate student a Ph.D. will certainly be one of the co-authors.
A lot of peer-review journals will still publish almost anything, though. Only top-tier publications and conferences (Nature, Science, IEEE, etc.) are credible enough to assume that all papers they publish have any minimum standard of quality.
Sure, that's a webcomic. But I'd not be at ALL surprised if a lot of those PhD coauthors are only listed there for the sake of getting such a coauthor, and actually had little or no involvement in the content of the paper. If publication depends on (or is made easier by) having a "big name", then big names will simply deign to allow their names to be used. (Or charge for their use, depending on the mentality. Hey, it's a good way to recover the cost of education...) And if there's plenty of papers that don't even require that, then the very concept of "peer-reviewed journal" is brought down to this: it's equivalent to posting on a blog-style site that has a large community of highly qualified scientists. In fact, the web site would work a lot better, due to the time advantage of the internet.
What's your point, Rosuav?
Point? No point. Old men like me don't bother with making points... there's no point.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
What's your point, Rosuav?
Good thing I'm young yet. Snrrub said that "even if the primary author of the paper is a graduate student a Ph.D. will certainly be one of the co-authors." and I was suggesting that such co-authorship didn't really mean anything about the reliability of the report. This whole matter is in relation to Xywalan's comments about peer-reviewed journals and people with PhDs.
The involvement of co-authors (especially 3rd and 4th authors) is usually minimal, but they still review the content of the paper themselves before they put their names on it. So, Ph.D. co-authorship of papers still adds credibility to the work being published. 2nd authors generally have had substantial direct involvement in the research, and they usually hold Ph.D.s as well.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
But I'd not be at ALL surprised if a lot of those PhD coauthors are only listed there for the sake of getting such a coauthor, and actually had little or no involvement in the content of the paper.