During her recent election campaign, Alberta NDP leader Rachel Notley pledged to raise Alberta’s minimum wage from $10.20 an hour to $15...
Kevin Grandia's blog
As we have always maintained here at DeSmogBlog, we don't argue the science. But if legitimate scientific debate is at issue, Dr. Ball is similarly disinclined. This tape shows him, again, to be the kind of public relations person who will say whatever is necessary to give his oil-industry backers comfort.
Here's a few quotes to whet your appetites:
I don't think one should look at green house gas emissions or global warming as a political issue. So if that policy is against the Bush administration, so be it.”We couldn't have said it better ourselves!
There is no doubt that science would be made easier by throwing out the concept of 'peer review.' I am sure many scientists curse from time to time the rigorous questioning of their peers, the need to re-visit completed work and the possibility that years of research may be for naught based on the scrutiny of their colleagues.
That being said, the peer-review process of science plays an extremely important role in ensuring that conclusions drawn by research are in fact sound before being touted in the scientific community. Without peer review, science could easily fall into the category of opinion.
The Friends of Science, a Calgary-based cadre of climate skeptics who we have reported extensively on, delivered a statement today in the National Post via their appointed spokesperson, Albert F. Jacobs. This letter serves as a great example of the fantasy world the FOS promotes when it comes the concepts of science and peer-review.
“Ahmad Hadri Haris, project leader for the photovoltaic or solar energy sector in Malaysia said it was the fastest-growing energy source in the world with expansion of 25-30 percent over the last 15 years.”And it seems many people around the world agree with Ahmad, see here, here and here for examples.