Global Climate Change Science News

[pErvinalia]

It really is strange that we don't take seriously a person who claims to be a spacefarer in contact with aliens.

[Galaxian]

Science deniers cannot accept that the peer review process of science-at-large acts to dampens down possible research biases because bias is the currency of science denial, particularly when it comes to environmental science.

That's true. Bias is indeed the currency of science denial. Including the bias shown by 'scientists' in their 'research' and interpretations thereof in order to grease the axles of a convenient agenda and self-serving careers.

We see it here to the extent that a denier, knowing that they must present some factual basis for their objective claims, is attempting to discredit science-at-large with science which is simultaneously held to a lower standard than science-at-large while being elevated to be more scientifically significant or important than any other science.

By a denier I presume you mean Galaxian. If so, say so. Don't dilly dally, don't shilly shally, simply spit it out. But then you would be wrong, because Galaxian is about as 'scientific' and science asserting as one could hope to find. What I deny is "scientism", that we have defined before. You seem to think that a gaggle of 'scientists' is a Divine Institution, and that 'peer review' is as pure & incorruptible as the Concourse of Angels in Heaven.
That is simplistic arrant nonsense, suitable only for infants. EVERY institution is subject to corruption and manipulation. EVERY institution is populated mainly by self-serving entities who have climbed into them by hook or by crook, and who brook no opposition that might endanger their livelihood & perks.

I would suggest that even if the fundamental conclusions of current climate science changed in response to new data over the next 10 years to show that humans have absolutely no impact on the global environment the problems of global warming would still exist and the debate would continue about the best way to deal with that. The fact remains that the climate is warming and that this will have unavoidable consequences for humans regardless of or aside from the reasons for that warming. Discrediting the science does not change this fact but what environmental science does offer is a sound basis for future action.

Thank you for that admission -that the causes of global warming may be wrongly ascribed. You have just demolished the previous proposal that the IPCC can do no wrong, and that wise & learned boffins are 'evidently' right. Did you notice that admission? You stated it clearly. So why keep on attacking Galaxian who is the most innocent & rational Being on this forum?

The science deniers scepticism has simply been co-opted by those powerful political and economic entities who see that changing the way we respond to global warming--which is bassically changing the way we organise our society and live our lives--is bad for business. The science denier is the stooge of corporate Capitalism, and whether they know it or not they are foot soldiers on the side of intransigent greed in its ongoing war against humanity.

Your last paragraph is pure piffle. Corporate Capitalism doesn't give a hoot what the IPCC or other bought & paid for climatologists think. Corporate Capitalism can make money no matter what the regulations. War or peace, warming or cooling, urban or rural population enforcement, ANYTHING. Right now they're making a pretty penny in climate engineering such as dusting the atmosphere with vapor trails, such as enforcing 50 vaccines for youngsters, such as adding toxins to the water supply... ANYTHING.
So you think that Galaxian is a corporate stooge? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it!

Anyway, far from the banal, idiotic, half-baked prognostications of an intellectually challenged fool like MIT geophysics professor Daniel Rothman, mentioned in Animavore's post, here's a presentation from a true genius, Lord Christopher Monckton, with refreshing intellectual rigor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kt79plFwdE

[Rum]

You are one sick motherfucker. Chemtrails, vaccines, toxins as well as denial of climate change.

You’ve got the full nut job set.

[Hermit]

Chemtrails, vaccines, toxins as well as denial of climate change.

You’ve got the full nut job set.

Nobody has the full set. I met a bloke who had all the above delusions, plus a fervently held belief in the existence of mermaids. He didn't have the full set either, though. A fellow going by the alias of Gerome da Gnome has been making the rounds of the forums for many years. He is a flat-earther, currently posting at Mindromp.

It's that sort of thing that makes a forum so much more interesting than rationalia.

[pErvinalia]

I wonder if Galaxian drinks his own urine.

[pErvinalia]

It's a thing. Usually done by anti-vaxxers.

[Galaxian]

You are one sick motherfucker. Chemtrails, vaccines, toxins as well as denial of climate change.
You’ve got the full nut job set.

Nobody has the full set. I met a bloke who had all the above delusions, plus a fervently held belief in the existence of mermaids. He didn't have the full set either, though. A fellow going by the alias of Gerome da Gnome has been making the rounds of the forums for many years. He is a flat-earther, currently posting at Mindromp.

It's that sort of thing that makes a forum so much more interesting than rationalia.

But maybe he's right: "Any sufficiently advanced mind is indistinguishable from being a sick motherfucker." With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke.
Here's another sick motherfucker sufficiently advanced mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=silfiTY32xo

[Hermit]

But maybe he's right: "Any sufficiently advanced mind is indistinguishable from being a sick motherfucker." With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke.

Yes, if there were no such thing as science he might indeed be right. With apologies to Sean Lock

[Brian Peacock]

Science deniers cannot accept that the peer review process of science-at-large acts to dampens down possible research biases because bias is the currency of science denial, particularly when it comes to environmental science.

That's true. Bias is indeed the currency of science denial. Including the bias shown by 'scientists' in their 'research' and interpretations thereof in order to grease the axles of a convenient agenda and self-serving careers.

We see it here to the extent that a denier, knowing that they must present some factual basis for their objective claims, is attempting to discredit science-at-large with science which is simultaneously held to a lower standard than science-at-large while being elevated to be more scientifically significant or important than any other science.

By a denier I presume you mean Galaxian. If so, say so. Don't dilly dally, don't shilly shally, simply spit it out. But then you would be wrong, because Galaxian is about as 'scientific' and science asserting as one could hope to find. What I deny is "scientism", that we have defined before. You seem to think that a gaggle of 'scientists' is a Divine Institution, and that 'peer review' is as pure & incorruptible as the Concourse of Angels in Heaven.
That is simplistic arrant nonsense, suitable only for infants. EVERY institution is subject to corruption and manipulation. EVERY institution is populated mainly by self-serving entities who have climbed into them by hook or by crook, and who brook no opposition that might endanger their livelihood & perks.

I would suggest that even if the fundamental conclusions of current climate science changed in response to new data over the next 10 years to show that humans have absolutely no impact on the global environment the problems of global warming would still exist and the debate would continue about the best way to deal with that. The fact remains that the climate is warming and that this will have unavoidable consequences for humans regardless of or aside from the reasons for that warming. Discrediting the science does not change this fact but what environmental science does offer is a sound basis for future action.

Thank you for that admission -that the causes of global warming may be wrongly ascribed. You have just demolished the previous proposal that the IPCC can do no wrong, and that wise & learned boffins are 'evidently' right. Did you notice that admission? You stated it clearly. So why keep on attacking Galaxian who is the most innocent & rational Being on this forum?

The science deniers scepticism has simply been co-opted by those powerful political and economic entities who see that changing the way we respond to global warming--which is bassically changing the way we organise our society and live our lives--is bad for business. The science denier is the stooge of corporate Capitalism, and whether they know it or not they are foot soldiers on the side of intransigent greed in its ongoing war against humanity.

Your last paragraph is pure piffle. Corporate Capitalism doesn't give a hoot what the IPCC or other bought & paid for climatologists think. Corporate Capitalism can make money no matter what the regulations. War or peace, warming or cooling, urban or rural population enforcement, ANYTHING. Right now they're making a pretty penny in climate engineering such as dusting the atmosphere with vapor trails, such as enforcing 50 vaccines for youngsters, such as adding toxins to the water supply... ANYTHING.
So you think that Galaxian is a corporate stooge? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it!

Anyway, far from the banal, idiotic, half-baked prognostications of an intellectually challenged fool like MIT geophysics professor Daniel Rothman, mentioned in Animavore's post, here's a presentation from a true genius, Lord Christopher Monckton, with refreshing intellectual rigor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kt79plFwdE
...

You do your self-curated custom reality if you like, but I'm sticking with the observable universe.

[Galaxian]

But maybe he's right: "Any sufficiently advanced mind is indistinguishable from being a sick motherfucker." With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke.

Yes, if there were no such thing as science he might indeed be right. With apologies to Sean Lock

Indeed. One has to get blind drunk with Rum to get past caring what is right & what is wrong.

Meanwhile, here's Jordan Peterson on the topic, being interviewed by the mother of Greta Tintin Thunberg, judging from her precocious arrogance in trying to put Jordan Peterson right, like her teenage angst suffused daughter. Or maybe they're not related?
Later, the video is of a debate at the Oxford Union. Jordan again struts his stuff to the merriment of the audience, and adroitly demolishes a pompous upstart:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaxVk7AViOk

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, we all know what Peterson says about climate change -- anything he's paid to!

[JimC]

Getting back to peer review, I suspect that people ignorant of science (like Galaxian) do not understand the process. When done properly (which is most of the time), it is rigorous, not least because of the competitive nature of science. There is nothing a reviewer likes more than finding an error in a fellow scientist's work; often, they are competitors for funding and acclaim by their peers. It can be quite a savage business. And if he thinks that scientists don't enjoy finding something which overturns the current theories (done correctly, of course) then he has no idea of the aspect of science which is ego-driven and competitive...

[Tero]

And there is some plagiarism in science. Someone steals someone else's thunder. It does not make it fake, it just get to be "who had this first?" Reviewers are not always aware of the competition. They send articles to different journals.

[Seabass]

So Galaxian. Moon landing. Real or fake?

[JimC]

So Galaxian. Moon landing. Real or fake?

He frequently visits his alien friend's base on the far side of the moon...