Bigmal

The problem with peer reviewed journals is that one journal can have research showing one thing and another the opposite. That is what science is about.

how often do the "healthy foods" change - eat eggs, don't eat eggs, red meat good, red meat bad, trim red meat good, protein good, carbs good, carbs bad etc.

I have read plenty of peer reviewed arguments which argue for global warming and plenty that argue against it.

Then there are the IPCC reports of which the actual reports present evidence both for and against but the lead author summaries twist the information.

Peer review doesn;t equal correct. Research often conflicts.

t.u.s

Thanks TUS, but I think that what you were kindly explaining to me actually underpins the point I was making, namely that the science is far too unsettled at the moment for anyone to be placing big bets either way. Given that we are dealing with a chaotic system one is better off doing nothing than doing something that has no worthwhile return and may indeed do more harm. But in the interim there are range of actions, such as becoming more energy efficient anyway, that are very worthwhile. Exploring the greater use of alternative energy sources,including nuclear, is another.

On the question of harmful foods I read recently in a American journal that they are actively considering restricting the publishing of data from single surveys, until it has been validated by a second. The recent palaver over coffee is a case in point.Two surveys said quite different things,with the outcome being,be moderate is your use of coffee but other wise it does no harm.

At the risk of being labelled a sceptic, I have to say that I thought the report by the Marshall Institute done in concert with the UK Science Alliance and entitled "Climate Issues & Questions", was very fair and reasonable. I really would like to know what others think, without it descending into name calling and academic pretentions that it is outside my domain etc.

Whoa you guys are unreal. Close all the Unis. Close all the research companies if you got any problems that need answers just ask these chaps a quick google and they will become the fountain of knowledge of any subject you care to name. Never mind going to uni and getting a degree and then studying a subject for years just ask the instant experts here. Snowman, The Usual Suspect, Timmy, bossie and BOAZ_David and now newly joined by another intellectual giant Bigmal. Man I wasted all these years training I should have just logged on and I would have been set.

Fellers anyone can have a opinion but if you have a opinion about about something you know little or nothing about why hold so passionately? And just what the very thing you guys are saying is wrong with peer reviewed scientific study is the very thing peer review is trying to do. Peer review looks at the methodology not the answers.
The hardest part about the scientific method is the need to be able to throw out all you thought you knew if new facts come up. Everyone has trouble with that it is human nature, I’ve found though that some people just can’t hack it and they are generally very strongly religious.
BOAZ_David no matter how many pictures of smiling people you want to close me my mind is made up slavery is bad

Kenny,

All I was saying is that different researchers can, legitmately, come up with research that contradicts other peer reviewed research. As long as the methodology is right, then it passes peer review.
It doesn't mean either researcher is right or wrong does it.

But lay people are allowed to read the research of a variety of experts and come up with an opinion which they think is validated by research. Most of the people who comment on this site appear to be widely read and have come up with their own opinions. You certainly have, snowman has, grace pettigrew has, bozzie has, etc.

I still do not understand your point about not being allowed to comment because someone is not an expert. I wish I had the time and resources to get a medical degree so i could be a doctor, a physics degree to become an atmospheric physicist or a veterinary science course to make my dog feel better.

But i don't, but that doesn't exclude me from reading about health issues, or global warming or what is best for my pet and forming an opinion.

You have in other posts criticised Boaz because of his religous beliefs but are you an expert on theology or have you read things and came to your own conclusion that religion is wrong/pointless.

This Message is for John McLean,

John, I am not sure if your e-mail address is public but if it is, could you post it here so I can contact you? Your article has received some attention that might interest you.

Thorengard,

You can contact me via johnmclean@theinquirer.net. This is an email address via an online journal that I used to write for and may again in future.

No offence to you but I don't know who you are and I don't know what might happen if my email address is made public. I would have no qualms at all about shutting down this email address if junk mail increased inordinately.

cheers

John