Can you provide a credible source that demonstrates scientists are lying about the fundamental physics of how energy is absorbed, conducted, and mixed in the ocean? I’m asking for evidence that challenges the basic dynamics of how heat from sunlight or greenhouse gases moves through the ocean.
Yes, every failed theory that they have presented, yet which you are still here parroting.
I'm asking for a source that proves what you claim about science.
This isn't about the science. This is not a nice-to-know thing, this is a survival thing. So in this case, the science is just a means to the solution, but so far from what I can see, the science isn't certain enough to define the problem yet, so how can it offer a solution? Especially as painful a one as offered so far? Now because of just a few years of Joe dicking around with power companies over his "EV Mandate," many people are seeing a doubling and tripling of power costs in just a few short years.
Yep, I know all about models. Tricky, dangerous things. First you design them to predict what you can see and measure when you plug existing data into them. Then when you can run them back and let them go that they seem to predict the past reliably and deal with the present, you let them run forward to see what they say.
The models that this clown, and his heroes rely on, are not capable of doing a ONE DAY hindcast.
You keep dodging the question because you can’t answer it.
The key thing you’re missing is that climate models are not free form storytelling engines; they’re constrained by conservation laws, measured radiative physics, and boundary conditions from real observations. You can’t just fudge variables arbitrarily without the model immediately diverging from satellite radiation budgets, ocean heat content, atmospheric profiles, and historical climate states.
I'm dodging nothing, skippy. I provided you with what you asked. But YOU are doing EXACTLY what I said you would, ignoring what I pist, and then lying about it.
You're dismissing satellites, ocean floats, radiative spectroscopy, reanalyses, and conservation law as “not real science,” which effectively leaves you with only one admissible category: phenomena you can watch directly with your own senses in a simple causal loop.
You're not giving me what I asked for.
You’re conflating normal variation and public reporting with the underlying science. A single warmer or colder winter doesn’t validate or invalidate decades of temperature records, satellite measurements, ocean heat content, or radiative physics. Science doesn’t rely on media headlines; it relies on long term, reproducible, and cross validated measurements. Extraordinary claims are only extraordinary if they contradict well established evidence, but the warming trends, energy imbalance, and CO2 forcing are measured directly across multiple independent methods.
You like using that word, but I am beginning to think that, like science in general, you don't understand what it means.
I'm conflating nothing. In 70 years, I've yet to ever see any weather which was not within normal variation.
Fine, then show me a century of climate outside normal variation, show me a decade then. Just a few hundred years ago they had a mini ice age. Before that, they had the medieval warming. None of this can be linked to human activity. It is all part of normal variation. 8200 years ago, we had another freak cooling period; I seriously doubt the Mastodons were responsible for that. Nothing going on now is even up to that standard, so I'll ask again:
And yet, here you are. Lol
