Zum Seitenende Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum
First the link to this week’s complete list as HTML and as PDF.
Granted, Keuschnigg et al. are able to reproduce the observed distribution in a simple model with a certain amount of randomness. But is this relevant and worthy of a prominent publication? The main premise on which their whole study is based is that all the relevant
“cognitive ability” leading to success is wholly captured by a standardized IQ-test alone – an obvious nonsense.
Munday et al. explain an issue that has always puzzled me. As they say in their abstract
“the uplift of the
rift system [should lead] to a wetter climate in East Africa and a drier climate in the Congo Basin.”. The opposite is the case and their model demonstrates the rift valley to be the main actor here.
N.B: This is again a model, but this time a correctly used one. It is not touted instead of or against measured data and not used to extrapolate outside its area of validity but given to explain the mechanism of how the observed and measured data came about. Modelling at its best.
Climate change is a fact and has been for the last ten thousand years. It is also true that a large part of the most recent change is man-made. Thirdly the rise in carbon dioxide does have a part in this anthropogenic forcing, but contrary to prevailing ideology it is a tiny and negligible part. Smith et al. again point out one of the major and far more important influences and an area where effort at stopping the damage would be far more appropriate.
Zum Anfang Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum