How Blogs Are Changing the Scientific Discourse

quax writes "Mainstream media always follows the same kind of 'He said, she said' template, which is why even climate change deniers get their say, although they are a tiny minority. The leading scientific journals, on the other hand, are expensive and behind pay-walls. But it turns out there are places on the web where you can follow science up close and personal: The many personal blogs written by scientists — and the conversation there is changing the very nature of scientific debate. From the article: 'It's interesting to contemplate how corrosive the arguments between Bohr and Einstein may have turned out, if they would have been conducted via blogs rather than in person. But it's not all bad. In the olden days, science could easily be mistaken for a bloodless intellectual game, but nobody could read through the hundreds of comments on Scott's blog that day and come away with that impression.'"

Comments

Ah, I see you're in denial about your denial.

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate denial is the insistence that the climate science as accepted by mainstream is entirely incorrect based solely on the fact that it means that we cannot continue with the current scheme of huge financial interests in fossil fuels and must change.

And when you're at the top, change is bad. Since there are far more ways to go down than to go up.

And when you're THAT rich and powerful, it's not the money, but the relative money that matters, so if you gain money but someone else GAINS MORE, then you've "lost".

So change is bad.

And since climate science inevitably leads to "Burning fossil fuels is a shit idea and we must stop now", they can't claim "BUT I WANNA BURN IT!" so have to deny the evidence that informs the scientists.

They deny the climate.

For example, how would you tell if the climate were changing? You retards all "accept" that "climate has always changed" but you're entirely unwilling to accept any evidence that climate is changing now. "Oh, that's just weather!". Well, climate is weather, in gross.

When you deny that the shit weather is evidence of AGW, you're denying climate change, because climate is the average weather, and the average weather is the weather you have, each event. So the weather is evidence of cliamate. And the weather is changing. That means the climate is changing. But you'll deny it because it means your current career choices have been poorly made and that's unpossible.