The business: Bronze and Beauty, 887 Oxford Road, Reading, RG30 6TR. Tel (0118) 945 4000. www.bronzeandbeauty.net, email bronzenbeauty@live.co.uk.
The boss: Sarah McVey: “I am originally from a sales environment, which I was involved in for the best part of 30 years. I gave up my job two years ago to care for my husband who had been diagnosed with a terminal brain tumour.
"Sadly, he passed away last year. It was an absolutely life-changing moment and made me realise life is far too short so, when I was ready to return to work, I decided that I wanted a complete change.”
What is your business about? “The business is all about beauty and lifestyle, and making the customers feel good about themselves.”
What product/services do you offer? “At Bronze and Beauty we offer treatments ranging from tanning (spray tans as well as a tanning booth), manicures including nail extensions, pedicures, eyelash extensions, waxing for both women and men, facials, massages including Indian head massage, reflexology, ear piercing, body wraps and teeth whitening.”
How and when did you start your business? “The business was established in 2003 by Emily Shepherd. I bought the salon in January 2012 when Emily decided that she wanted to concentrate more on her family.
“Although I did not have prior experience in the beauty profession I had been a customer of Bronze and Beauty myself, and when chatting to Emily I realised what a great little business it was, and that the existing staff would be able to continue to manage the shop as well as teaching me along the way.”
How many staff do you employ? “I employ five staff.”
Who are your customers? “Bronze and Beauty has a wide range of female and male customers from the local area as well as further afield, including a few who appear on television, and it is therefore important for them to look their best.
“Some of our regular customers pop in as and when they feel the need for a quick tanning session without having to make an appointment.
“Others, like the busy mums, will make an appointment and set aside a few hours or so to have a complete pamper session and will take in a relaxing massage followed by a facial, manicure and pedicure.”
What sets you apart from the competition? “Because we are located just outside of the town centre, we are able to provide our customers with free on-site parking, so they do not have to worry about the high parking charges in the town centre. Also, Bronze and Beauty has been established for over nine years and prides itself on its strong loyal customer base.”
How has the recession affected business? “I have to say that although the first few months of the year were relatively quiet (which I put down to the usual post-Christmas lull), business has since picked up and our appointments diary is steadily getting fuller.
“Before knowing that I had taken over at Bronze and Beauty, a friend of mine who had driven past the salon and noticed that it had been redecorated said to me: ‘What idiot would open a beauty salon in a recession?’ However, women and men will always want to look good and feel good about themselves, even if that means just a few minutes in the tanning booth or a beauty treatment.”
How do you feel about the future? “I feel positive about the future. I have great staff, some of whom have remained at Bronze and Beauty since my takeover, and some I have employed since I took over. They are keen to continue to attend training courses to learn new techniques and treatments and I am hoping that, in the not too distant future, Bronze and Beauty will be able to offer new products and treatments as they become available.”
Diablo 3's real-money auction house delayed again - CVG Online
The launch of Diablo 3's real-money auction house has been delayed again.
It was initially expected to launch on May 22, then May 29, but will now miss this month entirely.
"In light of the post-launch obstacles we've encountered, we have made the decision to move the launch of the real-money auction house beyond the previously estimated May time frame," Blizzard said on the Diablo forums.
"As we mentioned in our original announcement, our goal has always been to ensure everyone has the smoothest experience possible when the real-money auction house launches, and we need a bit more time to iron out the existing general stability and gameplay issues before that feature goes live.
"While we don't have a new launch date to share just yet, we'll have more information soon."
Blizzard also issued a lengthy statement addressing a number of post-launch issues players have encountered with Diablo 3, most notably the hacking of user accounts.
Earlier this week Activision Blizzard announced that Diablo 3 had become the fastest-selling PC game ever after shifting 3.5 million copies in its first 24 hours of availability.
If you haven't already, why not check out our Diablo 3 review and our Diablo 3 guide, which features 30 essential tips and tricks every dungeon crawler should know.
Stocks up on new hopes on Europe - Click2Houston.com
U.S. stocks were poised for a lackluster open Friday, as anxiety persists over Europe.
Investors on both sides of the Atlantic are worried about the Spanish banking crisis and the failure of European leaders to come up with any good solutions, especially concerning Greece and its possibility of leaving the eurozone. According to CNNMoney's Fear & Greed Index, investor sentiment has been at an "extreme fear" level for the past two weeks.
Dow Jones industrial average, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures were little changed. Stock futures indicate the possible direction of the markets when they open at 9:30 a.m. ET.
European markets were mixed in afternoon trading, Britain's FTSE 100 was down 0.3%, while the DAX in Germany gained 0.1% and France's CAC 40 slipped 0.1%.
Signs that the Spanish banking crisis is worsening weighed on investors. Trading was halted on the Madrid stock exchange for shares of Bankia, the nation's fourth-largest bank, as the bank's board prepares a bailout request from Spain's central bank to fund a recapitalization.
Concerns about the European debt crisis and whether a Greek exit from the euro would spark a meltdown in financial markets around the world, as well as a global recession, have weighed on U.S. markets in recent weeks. European leaders held an informal summit earlier this week, but there were no agreements announced afterward.
U.S. stocks finished mixed Thursday, as investors mulled lackluster economic data in the U.S. amid the ongoing concerns about Europe.
Also, the start of a three-day weekend for U.S. markets may depress trading volumes Friday, which could add to market volatility here.
Given the market's recent slide, many investors may soon be looking for buying opportunities. Tyler Vernon, chief investment officer at Biltmore Capital, noted Thursday that the S&P 500 is trading at an attractive valuation -- below 13 times earnings estimates.
Companies: Facebook shares rose 3% Thursday and continued to edge up in premarket trading, as the company continues to deal with the fallout from its bungled IPO last week. The offering has prompted concern from regulators and lawsuits from investors who say they were denied access to privileged information ahead of the stock's debut.
World markets: Asian markets ended mixed. The Shanghai Composite closed down 0.7%, but the Hang Seng in Hong Kong closed up 0.3% while Japan's Nikkei gained 0.2%
Economy: The University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment Index for the month of May is expected to come in at 77.5, according to a survey of analysts by Briefing.com, down from 77.8 in April.
Currencies and commodities: The dollar was lower against the euro, the Japanese yen and the British pound.
Oil for July delivery rose 23 cents to $90.89 a barrel.
Gold futures for June delivery rose $3 to $1,560.50 an ounce.
Bonds: The price on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury rose, pushing the yield down to 1.75% from 1.76% late Thursday.
Cheap resources stocks a tempting target for the brave - Sydney Morning Herald
Resources may look a steal, but all may not be as it seems. Photo: Peter Braig
Blue chip offerings are selling for a (relative) song, but some are counselling caution until commodity prices stabilise.
IT'S a tempting time for investors peering into the resources lolly shop with pocket money in hand.
Bags of BHP Billiton shares haven't been this cheap for three years.
A scoop of Rio Tinto - the stock that traded above $120 per share before the global financial crisis and was still testing $89 last year - will set you back less than $56 today.
There's plenty of others begging to be included in the party mix - Woodside, Fortescue, Atlas, Newcrest Mining - all going at prices 15 to 30 per cent less than they were just three months ago.
The major causes are well known: European worries have escalated, Chinese data has slipped a tad, commodity prices have receded and public sentiment from the big miners has changed notably towards the cautious.
That has added up to a sudden lack of love for resources stocks, which some experts now believe has been overdone.
Analysts at Deutsche Bank this week ran a pessimistic macroeconomic scenario through their models and found that some resources stocks were not only trading below their current fair value, but were trading below what their fair market price would be in a significantly weaker economic environment.
Assuming commodity prices fall well below current levels for a sustained period, and growth projects don't go ahead, Deutsche found the recent market punishment had been particularly harsh on Rio Tinto, BHP and uranium miner Paladin Energy.
Deutsche found Rio shares were today worth 30 per cent less than net present value would be under the pessimistic scenario, while BHP's current share price was 13 per cent less.
''Although there is likely one or two quarters of earnings downgrades ahead, value has emerged and some stocks do appear oversold,'' the report said.
But it wasn't all one-way traffic: Deutsche found gold play Newcrest Mining and iron ore miner Atlas Iron were vulnerable should the pessimistic scenario play out.
For those who let price-to-earnings ratios guide their investments, there's plenty to get excited about at the moment. BHP, for example, was carrying a PE ratio above 10 barely three months ago, but is rated at 9.6 by multiple investment banks now.
Based on the recent changes to PE ratios, Goldman Sachs this week ranked Fortescue and OneSteel (which is increasingly focused on exporting iron ore) among the cheapest resources stocks right now.
The analysts at Macquarie - who have a bullish view on iron ore's future - also like Fortescue. Macquarie is predicting a strong rebound in iron ore prices during the second half of 2012 and believe Fortescue's large, near-term expansion program is best placed to take advantage.
But while the sector may be looking cheap, there's an entirely different debate over whether now is the ideal time to buy.
Many resources analysts say PE ratios are far from the best way to measure the particular quirks of the mining sector.
''I haven't had a conversation with an investor about PE for about three years,'' said one analyst this week.
''It's about the outlook in China, commodity prices, the company's growth, sustainability of the cycle, the capital management: it's those factors that drive these resources companies rather than PE.''
And none of those factors are creating much optimism at the moment.
Tim Schroeders from Pengana Capital says net present value is a better guide to the resources scene.
''A more simplistic approach is that it's very difficult for the share prices of these companies to go up while commodity prices are still falling," he said.
"It's very much driven by what the commodity prices are doing and until you see a stabilisation of those prices you are unlikely to see share prices move upwards."
Most pundits believe the current commodity price slide has further to run - particularly in iron ore - meaning investors may want to keep their hands in pockets for some time yet.
The floor in the iron ore price - set by the production costs of marginal iron ore producers inside China - is believed to be somewhere between $US110 per tonne and $US120 per tonne.
That theory gained further credibility when last September's spectacular price slide finally turned around at $US116 per tonne.
With the benchmark iron ore price still edging close to $US130 per tonne, several analysts said it was reasonable to expect the falls to continue.
Stability in the oil price - a crucial reference for stocks such as Woodside and Santos - also seems unlikely in the short term. The American benchmark oil price - West Texas Intermediate - was this week at its lowest price for seven months, and the future is clouded by decisions over whether to extend sanctions banning exports from Iran.
Mr Schroeders said in times like these there is no point trying make a hero of yourself.
"As a rule you are better off waiting for greater certainty than trying to pick the bottom,'' he said.
''You are better off waiting for confirmation that an equilibrium has been reached and there is a higher degree of earnings certainty, and then step in at that stage, rather than trying to be brave and pick the bottom, when you might just be riding unprofitable trades that you need to extinguish at a later date."
New business models in attaining sustainable resiliency in Silicon Valley - Examiner
A consortium of companies, government agencies, research and academia, as well as other not-for-profit organizations,gathered at the 2012 WEST Summit yesterday. WEST stands for Water, Energy, and Smart Technology. The third annual summit, organized by Sustainable Silicon Valley (SSV) and hosted by Santa Clara University, sent out a clear message: a sustainable future is the only way for us and the next generations. To be a viable business in the future, enterprises need to take action today and not live in the past.
Through collaboration, innovation, sharing of knowledge and lessons, along with bringing solutions from Silicon Valleys' entrepreneurs and companies to solve problems - the region can develop resiliency. Furthermore, local impact 'can go global' and cascade to other areas around the world.
SSV has the most forward-thinking leaders in the valley. The organization engages business, government, academia, NGOs, and private citizens in support of a sustainable future, vibrant economy and social responsible communities.
For the past few years we have grappled with different definitions of sustainability. The concept of sustainable planet includes economy, society, and environment, however these do not carry equal weights. SSV encourages us to rethink the concept from a different point of view: business exists within society, which is highly dependent on the environment. Markets exist with a framework of legislation and the social structure for finance, education, culture, and politics. The environment provides people with resources for survival. When society supports an economy that adheres to conditions and rules that promote responsible use of the environment - we can achieve sustainability. This approach looks beyond achieving cost savings through efficiency, but shifts to rethinking along the lines of systematic values. While typically business leaders and elected officials operate in timeframes that are much shorter than the existence and management of a system, recognizing a 'System of Systems' strategy may lead to thinking 'bigger' when we address energy and water infrastructures, as well as materials and natural resources.
To read more about SSV's 'System of Systems' and more click here.
How to move forward in becoming resilient in Silicon Valley in a volatile economy?
To get a broad view of what actions businesses already take and what needs to be done, speakers represented a wide spectrum of enterprises, from a startup in Marine County (Fibershed) to a global corporate player (IBM Corporation).
Moderated by Ray Martin, Vice President of Technology at Daeson USA, panelists talked about innovation and their businesses' solutions toward becoming more sustainable.
· Andrew Clark, Director of Corporate Strategy, Venture Capital Group, IBM Corporation
· Brian Schmidt, District Director, Santa Clara Valley Water District
· Diana Pereira, Specialty Solid Waste & Recycling
· Emily Hanson, GreenWaste Recovery
· Rebecca Burgess, Fibershed Project
· Iris Harrell, Founder and CEO, Harrell Remodeling.
With today's technology advances, experts optimistically estimate that in one hundred years the American economy will be based on renewable energy. To maintain regional resiliency, we need to build a robust cradle-to-cradle economy. How do we do this in an unpredictable economic future?
One of SSV's programs is EcoCloud, an innovative platform for collaboration for sustainability. Launched in 2010, the platform encourages the exchange of ideas, learning, and discussions on sustainable business practices, in an effort to create a cradle-to-cradle economy in Silicon Valley. The platform addresses several dimensions including water, energy efficiency, product design, transportation, and dematerialization. See more information about EcoCloud below.
Cradle-To-Cradle also means local job creation, local manufacturing, and the view that we need to be more self-reliant. The concept is vertical integration: becoming self sufficient entities. For example, GreenWaste Recovery recycles, recovers and retrieves resources from garbage, not just paper, plastic, and aluminum - the typical recyclable materials. Composting, extracting energy from waste, and more, are operations GreenWaste employs through several of their 'Green' companies. Specialty Solid Waste & Recycling, a smaller scale business that works in Sunnyvale, CA, also handles a spectrum of recycling activities.
Climate change is presenting challenges to our water resiliency as well. Water resources and contamination were the focus of Fibershed. Fifty-two percent of garments are made in China and require dyes which are mainly fossil fuel-based and synthetic. In the process of manufacturing and fiber dyeing textiles, million of gallons of fresh water are used, leading to contamination of drinking water. In fact, the textile industry is the number one polluter of fresh water resources, coupled with a disturbing carbon footprint.
The Fibershed Project came with alternative dyes that are sustainable and promote health and regenerative processes of the ecosystem. In addition, fiber and garments are produced here and not overseas, reducing shipping and transport costs, as well as CO2. In Fibershed, no new concept was introduced; no innovation was required, the business has utilized existing sources and processes, such as materials, fibers and dyes. Using already available technology and a lot of conviction and enthusiasm, Fibershed-type operations, although small-scale, have flourished all over the world.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District is working on addressing the issues of providing clean water to every resident, when you need it, and while maintaining a healthy ecosystem. Our area is semi arid with minimal rain. Salt water invasion is also a threat. At the same time, population rates are estimated to grow dramatically, including in Silicon Valley.
In planning to mitigate climate change, the Water District has several programs: quantitive analysis, flood control, modeling of changing snow-line, personal and business consumption, protecting and restoring natural habitats, salt water invasion. Additional regulation is needed and can be accomplished through collaboration of communities, government and businesses.
IBM's Smarter Planet is essentially about partnerships and collaboration. To address and implement local problems, we need a larger effort. Facing the future with many challenges such as dwindling budgets, disintegrating city infrastructure,urban transportation issues, crime and safety, and population growth - residents are putting increasing demands to innovate and address sustainability. At the same time, leaders and elected officials understand we need to progress with solutions for growing urban living.
Focusing on cities, we need to not just fix apparent issues, but also anticipate future problems. We need to have Smarter Cities. Being proactive and applying forward thinking is important to become resilient in our lifetime and the future. IBM has been building and coordinating a global effort to collect massive amounts of data from various resources, groups, and entities with best practices for cities to learn from each others' programs, successes and also failures.
For example, to monitor the water pressure in a city water infrastructure, IBM placed sensors at various spots in the pipe system to gather more information, detect leaks, optimize maintenance and repair work, improve delivery processes, and more, and enabled a better water management systems.
Harrell Remodeling introduced the concept of 'Forever homes' and Universal Design. Homeowners benefit from green design, which means lower energy cost, better air quality, low maintenance costs, and also sustainable timeless universal design. The concept of the 'forever home' is that you don't have to change or remodel again and again since design is becomes outdated or doesn't function well.
The idea is to build safe, live-able, sustainable structures with timeless design, that is not tied to temporary fashionable traits. For example, construct a shower-stall that can adapt to tall people, children, and people in a wheelchair. Design a bathroom counter that can adjust to various height and therefore is highly functional and comfortable to all people.
Resiliency boils down to collaboration, finding creative solutions, looking at the big picture and bigger time line, and thinking outside the box.
NEXT SSV EVENT
Showcase Launch Event (By Invitation): showcase of sustainable solutions at NASA Ames Research Park in Mountain View.
When: August 23, 2012; 5:30 - 8:00 PM.
Where: NASA Ames, Sustainability Base in Mountain View.
Contact SSV: showcase@sustainablesv.org;
Tel.: 650-318-3638 X 100
Website: sustainablesv.org
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1. EcoCloud: http://ecocloud-sv.com
2. IBM's Smarter Planet: http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet
Santa Clara Valley Water District: http://www.valleywater.org/
GreenWaste Recovery: http://www.greenwaste.com/
Fibershed Project: http://fibershed.wordpress.com/
Harrell Remodeling: http://www.harrell-remodeling.com/
Money market fund assets rose to $2.569 trillion - Yahoo Finance
NEW YORK (AP) -- Total U.S. money market mutual fund assets rose by $1.19 billion to $2.569 trillion for the week that ended Wednesday, the Investment Company Institute said Thursday.
Assets of the nation's retail money market mutual funds fell $1.26 billion to $889.51 billion, the Washington-based mutual fund trade group said. Assets of taxable money market funds in the retail category fell $820 million to $702.41 billion. Tax-exempt retail fund assets fell $450 million to $187.10 billion.
Meanwhile, assets of institutional money market funds rose $2.45 billion to $1.679 trillion. Among institutional funds, taxable money market fund assets rose $3.43 billion to $1.592 trillion; assets of tax-exempt funds fell $980 million to $87.06 billion.
The seven-day average yield on money market mutual funds was 0.03 percent in the week that ended Tuesday, unchanged from the previous week, said Money Fund Report, a service of iMoneyNet Inc. in Westborough, Mass.
The 30-day average yield was also unchanged from last week at 0.03 percent. The seven-day compounded yield was flat at 0.03 percent. The 30-day compounded yield was unchanged at 0.03 percent, Money Fund Report said.
The average maturity of portfolios held by money market mutual funds was unchanged from the previous week at 45 days.
The online service Bankrate.com said its survey of 100 leading commercial banks, savings and loan associations and savings banks in the nation's 10 largest markets showed the annual percentage yield available on money market accounts was unchanged from last week at 0.13 percent.
The North Palm Beach, Fla.-based unit of Bankrate Inc. said the annual percentage yield available on interest-bearing checking accounts was unchanged from the week before at 0.06 percent.
Bankrate.com said the annual percentage yield on six-month certificates of deposit was unchanged from the previous week at 0.22 percent. The yield on one-year CDs was also unchanged at 0.33 percent. It was flat at 0.53 percent on two-and-a-half-year CDs and held steady at 1.13 percent on five-year CDs.
Accusations that climate science is controlled by money are mistaken - Wired.co.uk
One of the unfortunate memes that has made repeated appearances in the climate debate is that money isn't just influencing the public debate about science, but it's also influencing the science itself. The government, the argument goes, is paying scientists specifically to demonstrate that carbon dioxide is the major culprit in recent climate change, and the money available to do so is exploding.
Although the argument displays a profound misunderstanding of how science and science funding work, it's just not going away. Just this week, one of the sites where people congregate to criticise mainstream climate science once again repeated it, with the graph accompanying this story. That graph originated in a 2009 report from a think tank called the Science & Public Policy Institute (notable for using the serially confused Christopher Monckton as a policy advisor).
The report, called " Climate Money: The climate industry: $79 billion (£50.4 billion) so far -- trillions to come" (PDF) and prepared by Australian journalist Joanne Nova for the Science & Public Policy Institute, claims to show how money has distorted climate science. There are several aspects to this argument, but we'll start with the money itself.
Who's got the money?
Many discussions have focused on the fact that businesses with a
large carbon output (like fossil fuels extractors) have funded PR
and lobbying efforts that, in part, have attempted to undercut the
scientific case for human-driven climate change. It notes that
there is now significant money being made by companies that build
carbon-neutral energy sources and energy efficient technology, some
coming from tax incentives and subsidies. In addition,
carbon-trading markets are predicted to grow rapidly over the
coming decades. Combined, the report asserts, this money provides
an incentive to keep the spotlight focused on carbon.
In short, some of the green industries are now in the same position as their fossil fuel counterparts, in that they have an incentive to shape policy and the public support for it. There's a definite element of truth to this, although there are clearly reasons other than climate change -- ocean acidification, energy security, extending the lifetime of finite resources -- for promoting efficiency and green energy.
But the key thing here is that, at best, these companies can influence things like public perception and policy responses. They don't influence the underlying science because almost none of them are paying any scientists to gather data. So, although a focus on the income of various companies might tell us something about public opinion, it doesn't really say much about the science.
The false assertion that money is distorting the science comes, in part, from a spectacular misreading of the graph that accompanies this article.
The graph ostensibly shows how the US has gone from essentially funding nothing in the way of climate research to spending over $7 billion (£4.47 billion) a year. But the vast majority of that money is in the form of "Climate Technology," and a careful reading of the report indicates that this goes to things like wind and solar power, biofuel production, and things of that nature. None of that money goes to the researchers who are actually generating the results that point to anthropogenic warming, so it can't possibly provide an incentive to them.
The money that is actually going to climate science is on the bottom of the graph, in purple. And, as that shows, funding has been essentially flat since the early 1990s. (Funding has gone up slightly in recent years, but is still in the neighbourhood of $2 billion (£1.2billion) annually.) A lot of that money doesn't actually go to scientists, either, as it pays to support everything from some of NASA's Earth-monitoring satellites to land and ocean temperature monitoring.
The other issue with this graph is that it gives the false impression that funding shot up from nowhere around 1990. The truth of the matter is that the US has been funding climate science for decades. It's why we have things like a record of CO2 levels that goes back to the 1950s, temperature records that span over a century, and a detailed history of periods like the ice ages. People didn't just suddenly start studying this stuff in 1990 -- and much of the work from before that date was funded by the government. What changed was the accounting. There are over a dozen different branches of the government that fund some sort of science, but it wasn't until 1990 that the government formed the Climate Change Science Program, which started aggregating the expenditures across agencies.
There has never been any sudden boom in government funding for climate research that is luring people onto the research track, much less inducing them to support the consensus view. If anything, many years of flat funding would provide an incentive for people to look to getting out of the field. The graph, held up as evidence that climate scientists are being led around by money, actually shows the exact opposite.
Where's that money going?
But maybe that money is somehow being directed in a biased manner,
distributed in a way that ensures the current consensus is
supported. "Where is the Department of Solar Influence or the
Institute of Natural Climate Change?" Nova asks, elsewhere
claiming, "Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a
connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly
any have been funded to find the opposite."
This displays an almost incomprehensible misunderstanding of how science research works. Thereare institutes that are dedicated to studying the Sun -- the Naval Research Laboratory has one, as does NASA. But those institutes are focused on learning about what the Sun actually does, not squeezing what we learn into some preconceived agenda. For decades, solar activity has been trending downwards, even as temperatures have continued to rise. It's not that the researchers are being induced or compelled to some sort of biased interpretation of the data. Reality just happens to have a bias.
The same thing works in other areas as well. A number of countries have spent large sums of research dollars to put Earth-monitoring satellites in orbit, not with the intent of finding anything in particular, but because monitoring the Earth can tell us important things. This hardware has imaged the Greenland ice sheet -- again, not because of some sort of bias, but because the sheet is very big and very significant. Most of these studies have suggested that ice loss is accelerating, but a recent one concluded, "sea level rise from Greenland may fall well below proposed upper bounds."
The researchers weren't from some sort of "Institute to discover a stable sea level." They were from departments focused on polar research and Earth sciences. What Nova doesn't seem to get is that the people who study the planet actually pay attention to what the planet tells them, not to what their institute may be titled.
(Incidentally, this paper is also a clear indication that research that indicates things aren't as bad as they could be not only gets published, but makes it into very prestigious journals.)
Like many other self-proclaimed skeptics, Nova also has the bizarre idea that research normally proceeds by "auditing" existing studies. "Auditing AGW research," she writes "is so underfunded that for the most part it is left to unpaid bloggers who collect donations from concerned citizens online." But nobody audits the JPL to see if it's handling the Cassini probe properly; geneticists aren't being asked to open their books so that other scientists can see if they're fudging the numbers.
Science simply doesn't proceed through audits. The Greenland paper linked above provides a much more typical picture of how things work. The researchers behind it didn't simply reanalyse what others had done; they got new (and, in many ways, better) data that addressed the same issue and provided a more comprehensive picture of what was going on at the ice sheet's glaciers.
In short, you generally don't make an impression on science by auditing past data; you do it by coming up with better data.
It's pretty strange that people find in the graph (which shows research stuck in neutral for decades) evidence of a flood of money into climate science that distorts its conclusions. But it's unfortunately typical that an argument focused on climate science leaves the facts behind from the start.
Source: Ars Technica
No comments:
Post a Comment