I don't know how people even trust it anymore, honestly

So if peer reviews are so unreliable, doesn't that render them irrelevant?

Sure as hell does

How much climate research should therefore be discarded, what do you think?

It would be hard to tell.

But that doesn't mean the climate change research is wrong.

You're talking issues in reproducability

So, here's the thing about climate change: it happens. With us or without us, it happens. Freaking out about it's just stupid.

We can only tell right from wrong if the bias in peer review is eliminated

@Ironclad You're right, it does, but it is very clear that we have a effect on it too.

A very small effect. Did you know that fully a third of the carbon emissions of the world are from volcanos?

Science shows that our current atmosphere is predominantly a product of biological life. Our oxygen concentrations are a product of life

Is it so ridiculous that overwhelming evidence of humans impacting environment is true?

People's Veto aka Alternative Hypothesis has posted a few videos on this matter
'The Authoritarian View of Knowledge: Peer Review' and 'The Expertise of Experts'
https://www.youtube.com/user/fringeelements/videos?disable_polymer=1

Everything has an effect on the environment. The sun has an effect on the environment, the fucking moon, has a huge effect on the environment.

And that shit's haunted.

Should we do something about it? Well, we are doing something about it. The first thing we should do is to switch to nuclear energy.

@Ironclad Carbon emissions come from a variety of sources, the issue isn't having them at all, the issue is upsetting a balance. Volcanoes alone aren't causing climate change.

Yes

I misread your statement.

I apologize.

The point is that we can only do so much. Though, I'm down with carbon capture tech, because we can use that carbon for nanotubes and I'm 100% down with literally manufacturing supermaterials literally out of thin air.

Everything has an effect on the climate, but historically our environments are historically part of dynamic equilibriums changing through cycles.

We're upsetting the equilibrium, which has affects

I disagree.

"Is it so ridiculous that overwhelming evidence of humans impacting environment is true?"
No it's not ridiculous, I mean we solved the ozone hole and that was in essence the same issue as man-made climate change. So science does work more often than not.

I don't think we're upsetting the balance at all, I think it's just doing it's thing, as it's inclined to do. Unless you think we have weather machines, this shit was going to happen regardless.

We have solved the ozone hole, but we did not fix it.

It's still there

It's repairing SLOWLY

CFCs last from 40 years to thousands

It's absolutely tiny now.

What I mean is that we solved the problem, it's going to close probably around 2075

Chile still gets tendrils of ozone hole pass it.

Look a Chile's skin cancer

It used to cover most of Australia, now I think it's a little thing over the ocean.

My issue is that it has been demonstrated that academia has been severely compromised. It's not that I don't want to trust them, it's that I can't.

It would at this point be unscientific to put complete trust in them.

And yet that still doesn't discount the current consensus

I think the skin cancer thing is more likely to be caused by granite than anything else.

Yes it does actually, because that is the main point of contention that I have