However, now we have the technology to access papers on-line it seems pointless. As indicated by the climategate emails (and again here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/21/scient... ) it can be used to suppress unwanted views - sometimes called censorship.
As the data associated with a paper is not checked peer review is obviously limited in what it can achieve.
A search engine can log the number of accesses to a web page and bring it nearer the top in searches. A similar system could be used for scientific papers. The error correction cycle should be shortened by this technique. Progress would be made faster. Bad papers would not be accessed as much as the good ones and decisions of good/bad would be more democratic.
As for the particular claims made in the paper you mention, I suspect that there will have been some sort of model made and the results reported. Common sense is not necessarily a factor in published papers, it seems to me. It certainly features well below acquiring more funding - but that is another problem.
<
He does not write that at all!
That is what the Washington Times editorial writes. In his nearly 2 year old peer-reviewed paper Ranson does not talk about chaos but examines the relation between crime rates and temperature.
I find it highly amusing that in a question about people's opinion on peer-reviewed papers, you admit you haven't actually read the paper itself, just the abstract and whatever the aforementioned editorial had to say about it.
As you might have learned had you managed to graduate from high school with something higher than a C- average, Economics is not Science. The scientific proof of AGW does not depend on what one guy guesses might happen to crime rates in 2099.
Let's see. it is published in an economic journal. it is not a climate study and the author is not a climate scientist SO it has no bearing on climate science, it is merely one economists view of the impact of climate science on crime. BUT of course you deniers are drawn to sensational headlines as if they prove anything Why don't you quit wasting our time with nonsense and try disproving AGW Oops forgot again it isn't possible for any of you do do that
And yet another lie, he does not think chaos awaits. "Ranson acknowledges that those results represent a relatively small jump in the overall level of crime―a 2.2 percent increase in murder and a 3.1 percent increase in rape, for instance." [1]
It is irrelevant if Mother Jones is left wing or not, your claim that Matthew Ranson thinks chaos awaits is a lie as we have Matthew Ranson's own words to show that he does not.
Well I think peer review needs some independant peer review, at the moment it is more like Pal review
I'd like to learn his reasoning. With just that snippet, it sounds as absurd as the material you usually quote. Perhaps he is extrapolating the economic strain caused by climate change to figure the change in the crime rate. I wonder if he is allowing for the changes caused by population increase. If not, those increases are just a drop in the bucket.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/...
Not that hard to find an earlier version. And before you go off on me about how the numbers are different I hope you read the bottom of the link you gave concerning 'corrected proofs'.
Since everything you say is totally irrelevant and mostly lies. No
More than this question enhances my opinion of your education and intelligence.
Matthew Ranson, an economist, describes in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management the chaos that he thinks awaits. “Between 2010 and 2099,” he writes in the peer-reviewed journal, “climate change will cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft in the United States.”
