Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Orangedogsrule]

Originally Posted by FLVOL_79:
IPCC was created in 1988. If you read what I said they either said those things were going to happen or people in their organization said, aka before ICCP was created.

Now use google or get the f### out of here.

Oh..here you go https://www.ipcc.ch/

And go on with your examples because they literally prove NOTHING. Show me a natural disaster that took massive amounts of human life directly related to climate change. Don't work too hard I already know the answer..you can't.

The Disappearance of the Aral Sea and Manmade Environmental and Climatological Disaster.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

..."Formerly one of the four largest lakes in the world with an area of 68,000 km2 (26,300 sq mi), the Aral Sea has been steadily shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet irrigation projects"...

Many, many, many deaths due to toxic substances.


..."Impact on environment, economy, and public health

The ecosystems of the Aral Sea and the river deltas feeding into it have been nearly destroyed, not least because of the much higher salinity. The receding sea has left huge plains covered with salt and toxic chemicals – the results of weapons testing, industrial projects, and pesticides and fertilizer runoff – which are picked up and carried away by the wind as toxic dust and spread to the surrounding area. As a result, the land around the Aral Sea is heavily polluted, and the people living in the area are suffering from a lack of fresh water and health problems, including high rates of certain forms of cancer and lung diseases. Respiratory illnesses, including tuberculosis (most of which is drug resistant) and cancer, digestive disorders, anaemia, and infectious diseases are common ailments in the region. Liver, kidney, and eye problems can also be attributed to the toxic dust storms. These dust storms also contributed to the lack of fresh water since the salt melted the glaciers faster and not enough moisture was in the air to help replace them. The dust storms increased the melting levels for the glaciers by 12 times the normal rate.[23] Health concerns associated with the region are a cause for an unusually high fatality rate amongst vulnerable parts of the population. The child mortality rate is 75 in every 1,000 newborns and maternity death is 12 in every 1,000 women.[24] An overuse of pesticides on crops was one of the contributing factors to this. To get their crops to grow, their pesticide use would have to exceed health standards and could be twenty times more than the national average.[23] Crops in the region are destroyed by salt being deposited onto the land and are flushed with water at least 4 times a day to try and remove the salinity from the soils.[23] Vast salt plains exposed by the shrinking Aral have produced dust storms, making regional winters colder and summers hotter.[25][26][27][28]"...

Never, ever think someone cannot point to a manmade environmental and climate change disaster that has resulted in monstrously deadly changes to earth's ecosystems.

Mankind "Disappeared" the earth's FOURTH LARGEST lake. And many people have died.

 

[FLVOL_79]

The Disappearance of the Aral Sea and Manmade Environmental and Climatological Disaster.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

..."Formerly one of the four largest lakes in the world with an area of 68,000 km2 (26,300 sq mi), the Aral Sea has been steadily shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet irrigation projects"...

Many, many, many deaths due to toxic substances.


..."Impact on environment, economy, and public health

The ecosystems of the Aral Sea and the river deltas feeding into it have been nearly destroyed, not least because of the much higher salinity. The receding sea has left huge plains covered with salt and toxic chemicals – the results of weapons testing, industrial projects, and pesticides and fertilizer runoff – which are picked up and carried away by the wind as toxic dust and spread to the surrounding area. As a result, the land around the Aral Sea is heavily polluted, and the people living in the area are suffering from a lack of fresh water and health problems, including high rates of certain forms of cancer and lung diseases. Respiratory illnesses, including tuberculosis (most of which is drug resistant) and cancer, digestive disorders, anaemia, and infectious diseases are common ailments in the region. Liver, kidney, and eye problems can also be attributed to the toxic dust storms. These dust storms also contributed to the lack of fresh water since the salt melted the glaciers faster and not enough moisture was in the air to help replace them. The dust storms increased the melting levels for the glaciers by 12 times the normal rate.[23] Health concerns associated with the region are a cause for an unusually high fatality rate amongst vulnerable parts of the population. The child mortality rate is 75 in every 1,000 newborns and maternity death is 12 in every 1,000 women.[24] An overuse of pesticides on crops was one of the contributing factors to this. To get their crops to grow, their pesticide use would have to exceed health standards and could be twenty times more than the national average.[23] Crops in the region are destroyed by salt being deposited onto the land and are flushed with water at least 4 times a day to try and remove the salinity from the soils.[23] Vast salt plains exposed by the shrinking Aral have produced dust storms, making regional winters colder and summers hotter.[25][26][27][28]"...

Never, ever think someone cannot point to a manmade environmental and climate change disaster that has resulted in monstrously deadly changes to earth's ecosystems.

Mankind "Disappeared" the earth's FOURTH LARGEST lake. And many people have died.

Stupid communists did that.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Communists are 'mankind'. And mankind is doing it again with the destruction of the tropical rainforests.

Region by region we are doing possible/probable irrepairable harm to the earth. Like with atmospheric gasses, we do not know the real fractions involved to reach a "tipping point" when the basket spills and all the good fruit goes SPLAT on the kitchen floor.

 

[InVOLuntary]

To expand:

1. The money from the GCF goes to both mitigation and adaptation. Regarding the former, as a whole the planet will get more bang for its buck in reducing emissions if we focus on getting developing economies off coal asap. It costs more money for the US to cut a gigaton of carbon pollution in the US because we’ve already come a long way in reducing our emissions. There are diminishing returns.

Regarding the latter, climate change resiliency is quite expensive. Miami spends hundreds of millions of dollars pumping water out of the city into the bay. Relocating communities is very expensive. The federal govt just spent $50 million relocating a community of 100 people or so from SE Louisiana because their island is no more. Likewise many small Alaskan communities have already voted to relocate from their disappearing homes and are asking for millions and millions of dollars. CNN ran a piece on Tangier Island in the Chesapeake Bay last week. How much do you think it will cost to relocate an entire country’s population? Or to build ever larger pumps and seawalls around the world's hundreds of millions of coastal population?

Considering the US is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other country, we’d be getting off easy by simply redirecting a few $billion of foreign aid from one fund to another. On a per capita basis we haven’t contributed nearly as much to the GCF as other countries who have contributed far less to the climate change problem.

And again, all of this is voluntary. We should contribute to the funds, but we don’t need to. We could still stay in the PCA. It would still be shameful, but not as shameful as pulling out altogether.

2. We did set our own guidelines for reduced emissions. Trump could change them and remain a part of the PCA if he wanted to. The narrative that Europe and China are imposing emissions regulations on us is utter hogwash. We set our own goals and achieve them however we choose.

3. China is somewhere between a developing and developed economy. There are still millions without access to electricity. Their emissions were skyrocketing before Paris and they’ve already slowed that down considerably due to both international and domestic pressure (and an economic slowdown). They pledged to decrease their emissions 60 to 65% per unit of GDP, peak their emissions, and have 20% of their power sourced from alternative energy by 2030. They’ve also committed to a goal of 40-45% reduction per unit GDP and 15% alternative energy by 2020. China’s coal consumption has dropped for 3 straight years after probably peaking in 2013. They’ve cancelled numerous coal plants. Their overall emissions growth was flat last year. Over the past two years China has invested about $210 billion in alternative energy while the US has invested about $120 billion. China’s 5-year plan for 2016-2020 includes investing $360 billion in alternative energy. They are also developing a cap-and-trade system (pioneered by the Reagan administration!) to help them achieve their emissions reductions goals. To say they are exempt or doing nothing until 2030 is 100% false.

So basically all this was is a money grab?

 

[AirVol]

So basically all this was is a money grab?

Of course it is, lots of self made millionaires depend on this scam.

 

[LouderVol]

3. China is somewhere between a developing and developed economy. There are still millions without access to electricity. Their emissions were skyrocketing before Paris and they’ve already slowed that down considerably due to both international and domestic pressure (and an economic slowdown). They pledged to decrease their emissions 60 to 65% per unit of GDP, peak their emissions, and have 20% of their power sourced from alternative energy by 2030. They’ve also committed to a goal of 40-45% reduction per unit GDP and 15% alternative energy by 2020. China’s coal consumption has dropped for 3 straight years after probably peaking in 2013. They’ve cancelled numerous coal plants. Their overall emissions growth was flat last year. Over the past two years China has invested about $210 billion in alternative energy while the US has invested about $120 billion. China’s 5-year plan for 2016-2020 includes investing $360 billion in alternative energy. They are also developing a cap-and-trade system (pioneered by the Reagan administration!) to help them achieve their emissions reductions goals. To say they are exempt or doing nothing until 2030 is 100% false.

They are not really slowing down their emissions, at all. They are turning off factories for periods of time while the testing is done and then crank them back on. And when they did an internal review they found a couple thousand, not sure on the total but it may have been more than 10k, companies weren't following their own rules. but the chinese government had reported it as such before.

they may not be opening as many new coal plants but they are still doing damage in other ways. pretty much each one of their hydroelectric damns has been an ecological disaster. a lot of their new power infrastructure has had to been located out in the middle of nowhere with a lot of hidden pollution damage associated with the distance.

 

[AM64]

Communists are 'mankind'.

Hardly.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Communists are 'mankind'. And mankind is doing it again with the destruction of the tropical rainforests.

Region by region we are doing possible/probable irrepairable harm to the earth. Like with atmospheric gasses, we do not know the real fractions involved to reach a "tipping point" when the basket spills and all the good fruit goes SPLAT on the kitchen floor.

Might not even exist.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Might not even exist.

When it comes to redistribution of wealth, they'll always err on the side of "yes, I think we will".

 

[armchair]

It is absolutely astounding that in 2017 there are people--blockheads or worse--that really are not committed to environmental protection--serious environmental protection. There are, what, 8 or 9 BILLION people on this planet. This planet is being slowly but steadily destroyed--that is incontrovertible: too many people, too much trash (plastic), vast amounts of pollution, overfishing, deforestation, etc. Animal habitat shrinks farther every year; more species disappear every year; the climate is changing. And yet there is great resistance to environmental regulations among conservatives essentially because they don't want to interfere with the ability of already huge, wealthy corporations to make money and pollute.

Republicans in this country--which should be leading the way on environmental protection, and has in the past when Democrats were in power--are an absolute disgrace. GOP politicians know nothing about the science of climate change (or anything else) and yet trot around disputing what scientists are telling us for no other reason than they are complete toadies to big business. It is shameful--disgusting. Scott Pruitt is a disgrace--the rube from Oklahoma who has been in the pocket of the energy industry for many years, dislikes environmental regulations, and he is head of the EPA. Every time that idiot talks he is mentioning jobs and the economy--as if he thinks the EPA should be an offshoot of the Chamber of Commerce. No, Pruitt, you head the EPA. Your job is to protect the environment. Only Republicans would put guys in charge of agencies who are opposed to the basic role of these organizations. Pruitt nows nothing about climate change and gets in front of cameras and tries to challenge what the experts are telling us--because he's a lackey for big business. Embarrassing. Fellow southern boob Rick Perry, at the Energy Dept., is the same. I wouldn't pretend to challenge experts on issues I know nothing about--but Republicans feed Americans a bunch of lies and nonsense to keep wealthy industries from spending a bit more money to help clean up the planet. Sad state of affairs in this country.

 

[VolStrom]

After a few thousand years of humans, I'm thinking that ole mother earth has had enough of us and will eliminate us from existence not long from now.
Earth has been around for billions of years, we're just a blink of an eye in the long run.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

After a few thousand years of humans, I'm thinking that ole mother earth has had enough of us and will eliminate us from existence not long from now.
Earth has been around for billions of years, we're just a blink of an eye in the long run.

Then again, we very well can eliminate ourselves, and turn the earth to radioactive wastelands.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

It is absolutely astounding that in 2017 there are people--blockheads or worse--that really are not committed to environmental protection--serious environmental protection. There are, what, 8 or 9 BILLION people on this planet. This planet is being slowly but steadily destroyed--that is incontrovertible: too many people, too much trash (plastic), vast amounts of pollution, overfishing, deforestation, etc. Animal habitat shrinks farther every year; more species disappear every year; the climate is changing. And yet there is great resistance to environmental regulations among conservatives essentially because they don't want to interfere with the ability of already huge, wealthy corporations to make money and pollute.

Republicans in this country--which should be leading the way on environmental protection, and has in the past when Democrats were in power--are an absolute disgrace. GOP politicians know nothing about the science of climate change (or anything else) and yet trot around disputing what scientists are telling us for no other reason than they are complete toadies to big business. It is shameful--disgusting. Scott Pruitt is a disgrace--the rube from Oklahoma who has been in the pocket of the energy industry for many years, dislikes environmental regulations, and he is head of the EPA. Every time that idiot talks he is mentioning jobs and the economy--as if he thinks the EPA should be an offshoot of the Chamber of Commerce. No, Pruitt, you head the EPA. Your job is to protect the environment. Only Republicans would put guys in charge of agencies who are opposed to the basic role of these organizations. Pruitt nows nothing about climate change and gets in front of cameras and tries to challenge what the experts are telling us--because he's a lackey for big business. Embarrassing. Fellow southern boob Rick Perry, at the Energy Dept., is the same. I wouldn't pretend to challenge experts on issues I know nothing about--but Republicans feed Americans a bunch of lies and nonsense to keep wealthy industries from spending a bit more money to help clean up the planet. Sad state of affairs in this country.

If you could calm down your superlative laden hyperbolic attack dog rhetoric, more people might (might-I say because, like VolProf your reputation precedes you, and the smell of scorched earth follows) give an ear to what you say. As it is, I think most just scan your posts for a hoot.

 

[BartW]

The cult of climate scientists. The science hacks like Jacobson, the celebs like DiCaprio and Ruffalo, the politicians like Sanders and Gore. These are the people the Democratic party and major publications parade out.

This article was written by reasonable minds. But let's be real, this will be ignored. And crackpots will keep pushing wind and solar at all costs. Countries like France and Germany, leaders of this accord will increase emissions by shutting down nuclear.

If the left was serious they'd be pushing for the carbon tax and dividend plan. But it's quite obvious that any plan that isn't solar and wind, is a no go. Follow the money, and I'm sure it leads to natural gas. You know, the real winner.

There are some nutters in the public sphere, no doubt, but celebrities and politicians don’t constitute a “cult of climate scientists”. Scientists’ political opinions are all over the spectrum. Remember that crazy climate scientist turned environmentalist that the ‘skeptics’ love to hate, James Hansen? Here’s a recent article of his in Scientific American: After Trump's Withdrawal from Paris, Nukes Are More Crucial Than Ever

While this isn’t the main point of the article, I just wanted to point out:

Over the long-term, Congress should implement a tax on carbon emissions, and return the money to ratepayers. Such an approach would create a strong incentive and level playing field for all forms of clean energy. And it would give all Americans, even ones skeptical of climate change, reason to support aggressive action.

And support for such a carbon tax and dividend plan is still growing:

Exxon, Stephen Hawking, greens, and Reagan’s advisors agree on a carbon tax

 

[BartW]

They are not really slowing down their emissions, at all. They are turning off factories for periods of time while the testing is done and then crank them back on. And when they did an internal review they found a couple thousand, not sure on the total but it may have been more than 10k, companies weren't following their own rules. but the chinese government had reported it as such before.

they may not be opening as many new coal plants but they are still doing damage in other ways. pretty much each one of their hydroelectric damns has been an ecological disaster. a lot of their new power infrastructure has had to been located out in the middle of nowhere with a lot of hidden pollution damage associated with the distance.

Dams are ecological problems, for sure, but we need to weigh the costs and benefits of all energy technologies. I'm not as big on hydro as I am on nuclear though. Here, nuclear has much more room to grow imo. Hopefully trump realizes that and doesn't defund R&D.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry distances himself from Trump’s proposed budget cuts
[URL="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-29/carbon-free-nuclear-fusion-is-coming-if-it-survives-trump-s-budget-cuts"]Carbon-Free Nuclear Fusion Is Coming, if It Survives Trump’s Budget Cuts
http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/...ch-would-trigger-mass-ornl-layoffs/440984001/Oak Ridge National Laboratory could face massive layoffs under Trump budget request
[/URL]
Anyway, China’s emissions are largely slowing because of China’s (and the global) economic slowdown. They currently have overcapacity problems. Furthermore, you’ve highlighted another reason the US should continue participating in the Paris Agreement. We would have much more influence in shaping the emissions monitoring and reporting (which the US delegation was already heavily involved in).

Interestingly, since it takes 4 years for the US to withdraw, we could continue to be involved in shaping the implementation of the Paris Agreement. We could push for tighter and more invasive emissions monitoring. It will be interesting to see if Trump even sends people to UN climate meetings.

 

[BartW]

Happy energy week(end). ‘merica!

Trump’s pitch for U.S. ‘energy dominance’ is dominated by misleading claims

The White House has branded this week “energy week,” rolling out a buzzword, “dominance,” and replaying lines from last year’s Trump campaign in an effort to portray the United States as a global energy superpower — and to label previous administrations as obstacles to energy growth.

President Trump is expected to sound these themes Thursday in an address on energy, picking up from Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who said Tuesday: “We’re ending the bureaucratic blockade that has hindered American energy creation.”

But analysts say that many of the administration’s claims about American “dominance” are overstated and that authoritative energy statistics do not line up with those cited by the administration.

One example: The White House asserted that the United States has 20 percent more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. But according to the Energy Information Administration, the federal authority on such matters, the United States had proven oil reserves of 32.3 billion barrels as of Dec. 31, 2014. That’s a fraction of Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves of about 268 billion barrels.


Perry, Zinke and Pruitt also heralded the launch of the Petra Nova plant in Texas, which captures carbon dioxide from the burning of coal and then uses it to help push additional oil out of largely depleted oil fields.

“Innovative technology like this is what will clean up the environment, not bad deals for the American people like the Paris agreement,” they wrote. “We will build on that success. Instead of preaching about clean energy, this administration will act on it.”

The Petra Nova plant, however, was built in significant part thanks to the Obama administration, which promoted research into carbon capture and storage technology. Overall, Petra Nova received $ 190 million from Obama’s Department of Energy.

Meanwhile, Perry’s Energy Department is proposing to slash funding for research on carbon capture and storage science and technology. Carbon-capture research funding would decline from $100.8 million in 2017 to just $16 million in 2018 in the administration’s proposed budget, and carbon storage research dollars would similarly fall from $105.8 million to $15 million.


Perry, in a briefing for journalists at the White House, said the Trump administration would push harder on nuclear energy. Perry has made finding a central nuclear waste storage site a priority, and the department’s proposed budget would revive work on the Yucca Mountain waste repository in Nevada.

Perry said reviving American nuclear power plant construction companies was important. “It’s about America maintaining, or regaining may be a better word, our leadership role in nuclear energy,” he said. He mentioned Westinghouse, the nuclear construction firm that has been part of Toshiba and that recently declared bankruptcy.

“It’s a lot bigger than just making sure that Westinghouse continues to be a stable American company,” Perry said. “This is a massively important issue for the security of America and the security for America’s allies.”

However, once again, the Energy Department is seeking to slash funding for nuclear energy research by 28.7 percent. A price on carbon emissions, the policy that would most help nuclear compete against natural gas and coal, is not on the Trump table.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Hey Bart...... put this in your pipe and smoke it.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/e...or-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

 

[LouderVol]

Dams are ecological problems, for sure, but we need to weigh the costs and benefits of all energy technologies. I'm not as big on hydro as I am on nuclear though. Here, nuclear has much more room to grow imo. Hopefully trump realizes that and doesn't defund R&D.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry distances himself from Trump’s proposed budget cuts
[URL="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-29/carbon-free-nuclear-fusion-is-coming-if-it-survives-trump-s-budget-cuts"]Carbon-Free Nuclear Fusion Is Coming, if It Survives Trump’s Budget Cuts
http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/...ch-would-trigger-mass-ornl-layoffs/440984001/Oak Ridge National Laboratory could face massive layoffs under Trump budget request
[/URL]
Anyway, China’s emissions are largely slowing because of China’s (and the global) economic slowdown. They currently have overcapacity problems. Furthermore, you’ve highlighted another reason the US should continue participating in the Paris Agreement. We would have much more influence in shaping the emissions monitoring and reporting (which the US delegation was already heavily involved in).

Interestingly, since it takes 4 years for the US to withdraw, we could continue to be involved in shaping the implementation of the Paris Agreement. We could push for tighter and more invasive emissions monitoring. It will be interesting to see if Trump even sends people to UN climate meetings.

I am saying China's pollution isn't slowing at all. They Chinese are falsely reporting cooked numbers to make it look like they are going down. well i guess the more accurate term would be leveling out.

China is doing a typical china thing and setting up a system that they can't lose at. And the powers that be with the Paris accord have already said they won't work with us, so how exactly would we be shaping things?

 

[Carl Pickens]

I am saying China's pollution isn't slowing at all. They Chinese are falsely reporting cooked numbers to make it look like they are going down. well i guess the more accurate term would be leveling out.

China is doing a typical china thing and setting up a system that they can't lose at. And the powers that be with the Paris accord have already said they won't work with us, so how exactly would we be shaping things?

So they're doing the same type of thing as the guys adjusting temperatures in the link I posted

 

[AM64]

Do they're doing the same type of thing as the guys adjusting temperatures in the link I posted

Marketing types always find the way to crank out the numbers they need; these guys are no different; they are just selling their own product - "research". They include the term "science" to make it all sound legitimate, but their methods and success in marketing hype would make used car salesmen green with envy.

The calculations might be plausible, but the garbage going into the mixer stinks.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Hey Bart...... put this in your pipe and smoke it.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/e...or-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oops. Derp. Derp.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Happy energy week(end). ‘merica!

Trump’s pitch for U.S. ‘energy dominance’ is dominated by misleading claims

"Meanwhile, Perry’s Energy Department is proposing to slash funding for research on carbon capture and storage science and technology. Carbon-capture research funding would decline from $100.8 million in 2017 to just $16 million in 2018 in the administration’s proposed budget, and carbon storage research dollars would similarly fall from $105.8 million to $15 million."

Is R&D supposed to be an endless burn of government funds? Each idea was researched and developed by over $100 million in 2017 alone. What carbon results have they come up with and how much more should be spent? Projects don't need to continue in perpetuity with enormous levels of funding by the government.

 

[ShowSomePride]

Hey Bart...... put this in your pipe and smoke it.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/e...or-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

This is not a peer reviewed paper nor has it, to my knowledge, been published through an actual journal.
Having seven of your friends back your findings is not peer review. I am not saying the results are invalid or unimportant, but this paper should undergo actual peer review and publication.

This https://climatefeedback.org/sensational-claims-of-manipulated-data-in-the-mail-on-sunday-are-overblown/ article reviews the validity of the paper. You can read each argument and make a decision on your own.

This http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/crn2016/CRN%20Paper%20Revised.pdf paper, which has been peer-reviewed and published in GRL, finds that "...there are no systematic trend biases introduced by adjustments during this period; if anything adjusted USHCN stations still underestimate maximum (and mean) temperature trends relative to USCRN stations." This analysis, however, is only for a specific time period of overlap between the USHCN and USCRN stations.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Peer review as a standard is garbage.
Groupthink is a bad thing and more often than not stifles discourse, discovery and creativity. That's in any field of study.

(Should read.....that's needed in any field of study. )

Then add that this field of study has a history of faking the data and your conclusions should be to not trust peer reviewed data. It's like when foldgers concluded that drinking coffee has major health benefits and all the other coffee companies agreed. Well it must be true then.

Lol

Nope climate change is happening. We're not going to change it. It's a waste of time and money to fight it. (Unless you're pushing a political agenda) that is time and money that should be spent on technology to survive the changes. The problem is the climate change study is so corrupted by politics we're not really sure what those changes are likely to be.



But I digress.....

 

[ShowSomePride]

Peer review as a standard is garbage.
Groupthink is a bad thing and more often than not stifles discourse, discovery and creativity. That's in any field of study. Then add that this field of study has a history of faking the data and your conclusions should be to not trust peer reviewed data. It's like when foldgers concluded that drinking coffee has major health benefits and all the other coffee companies agreed. Well it must be true then.

Lol

Nope climate change is happening. We're not going to change it. It's a waste of time and money to fight it. (Unless you're pushing a political agenda) that is time and money that should be spent on technology to survive the changes. The problem is the climate change study is so corrupted by politics we're not really sure what those changes are likely to be.



But I digress.....

This is a very dangerous line of thinking. Peer review is an important process in every major field of science. Yes there can be limitations, such as a bias in small journals. If they are truly worried about that then they have the option of submitting to the journal of their choosing. The point of peer review isn't to decide whether they like the results or not, it's to decide if the author came to their conclusion on good basis.

You are essentially saying "Science that other experts in the field and non experts have reviewed should not be trusted because of the risk of a bias". Instead you want people to just publish whatever the hell they want. That is how bad science becomes disseminated.