Time to drop a brick of epistemology on a table full of vibes. - Climate change

[Anomalism]

I don't debate the science. I don't need to. Here's why.

Every scientific institution on Earth says climate change is real and human caused. Every national academy of sciences. Every major university. Researchers across every continent, including countries that agree on almost nothing else. Thousands of independent teams, different methodologies, different funding sources, arriving at the same conclusion for decades.

To believe this is a hoax, you have to believe all of them are lying and coordinating across borders, languages, political systems, and career incentives. With no meaningful leaks or defections in fifty years.

Or you can believe that the most profitable industry in human history is paying people to create doubt, which isn't even in question by the way. Exxon's own internal research confirmed climate change in the 1970s while they spent forty years funding external denial. That's not speculation. That's court evidence.

Now think about incentives. The average climate scientist makes professor wages if they're lucky. Shares an office with two grad students. Drives a ten year old car. Begs for grant funding. That's your conspirator? That's who's maintaining the greatest scientific fraud in history?

Meanwhile, every scientist on Earth would love to be the one who proves climate change isn't happening. They'd be famous overnight. They'd be in history books. Entire scientific careers are built on proving other scientists wrong. That's literally what peer review is. The incentive structure points in the opposite direction of a conspiracy.

So what's more likely?

A.) Every scientific institution on Earth, thousands of underpaid researchers across every country, all coordinating a lie for no personal benefit with zero defections.

B.) The trillion-dollar fossil fuel industry, which was already caught doing exactly this, spends a fraction of its profits on blogs and talking points to delay regulation.

That's the real Occam's Razor test. One side requires a thousand assumptions. The other requires one. And the one has receipts.

And here's the part almost nobody talks about. The scientific community doesn't even agree on everything within climate science. They argue constantly about timelines, feedback mechanisms, tipping points, regional impacts, model sensitivity. There's fierce internal debate about the details. That's what a healthy scientific ecosystem looks like. What they don't disagree on is whether it's happening and whether humans are driving it. If this were a coordinated lie, they'd all agree on everything. The fact that they fight about the details while agreeing on the fundamentals is what genuine consensus actually looks like. Manufactured consensus is uniform. Real consensus is messy everywhere except at the foundation.

Small conspiracies happen all the time. Five people can fake data. A company can hide a defect. A government can lie about a war for a while, or a murder...

But global, multi-decade, multi-discipline conspiracies are structurally impossible because they require:

perfect information control

perfect incentive alignment

zero whistleblowers

zero rival factions exploiting it

zero prestige seekers breaking ranks for fame.

That combination has literally never existed in human history.

Not for religions, not for empires, not for intelligence agencies, not for the Catholic Church, not for the USSR, not for the NSA. The bigger and longer the system, the more it fractures. Always.
Science is one of the most adversarial human systems ever built. It is explicitly designed to fail conspiracies. Peer review, replication, data sharing, international competition, ideological diversity. It's basically a distributed lie detection engine run by people whose main hobby is proving each other wrong.

If climate change were fake, it wouldn’t require a conspiracy of scientists. It would require the first perfectly functioning global human institution in history.

 

[Oddball]

Where like interests converge, no conspiracy is necessary.

 

[Anomalism]

Where like interests converge, no conspiracy is necessary.

You're quoting a real principle and applying it in exactly the wrong direction.

That quote is typically used to explain how powerful interests can act in concert without explicit coordination. Oil companies don't need a secret meeting to all fund climate denial. Their interests naturally converge on the same outcome so they independently arrive at the same strategy. That's a valid concept.

But you're using it to defend the wrong side. You seem to be implying that scientific consensus is the product of converging interests rather than converging evidence. That scientists all agree because they share some common incentive to agree, not because the data points in one direction.

I already killed that argument in my post. I laid out exactly why the incentive structure for scientists points toward breaking consensus, not maintaining it. Fame, career advancement, peer review, replication challenges, every incentive a scientist has rewards them for proving the consensus wrong, not for protecting it.

Where interests converge without conspiracy is actually my argument about the fossil fuel industry. Their interests naturally converge on delaying regulation. They don't need a secret cabal. They just independently fund doubt because it serves their bottom line. That's the convergence. That's where the quote applies.

You grabbed a smart line and pointed it at the wrong target.

Explain how that principle applies to thousands of underpaid scientists whose career incentives reward them for breaking consensus, not maintaining it.

Your quote supports my argument.

 

[80zephyr]

Can climate science be created? Absolutely. Look no further than the transexual movement for proof.

 

[80zephyr]

I already killed that argument in my post. I laid out exactly why the incentive structure for scientists points toward breaking consensus, not maintaining it. Fame, career advancement, peer review, replication challenges, every incentive a scientist has rewards them for proving the consensus wrong, not for protecting it.

You need funding to prove anything. They don't get funded to prove global warming doesn't exist.

 

[Anomalism]

Can climate science be created? Absolutely. Look no further than the transexual movement for proof.

You just connected climate science to transgender issues with zero logical throughline. That's not an argument. That's a worldview leaking. You're telling me what side you belong to, not what you think. You didn't make a claim. You made a mood.

This is a category error.

The trans comparison is about social classification and identity. Climate science is about thermodynamics and radiative forcing. One is sociology and the other is physics. Treating them as the same thing is like saying “gravity is fake because fashion trends exist.”

 

[Oddball]

You're quoting a real principle and applying it in exactly the wrong direction.

That quote is typically used to explain how powerful interests can act in concert without explicit coordination. Oil companies don't need a secret meeting to all fund climate denial. Their interests naturally converge on the same outcome so they independently arrive at the same strategy. That's a valid concept.

But you're using it to defend the wrong side. You seem to be implying that scientific consensus is the product of converging interests rather than converging evidence. That scientists all agree because they share some common incentive to agree, not because the data points in one direction.

I already killed that argument in my post. I laid out exactly why the incentive structure for scientists points toward breaking consensus, not maintaining it. Fame, career advancement, peer review, replication challenges, every incentive a scientist has rewards them for proving the consensus wrong, not for protecting it.

Where interests converge without conspiracy is actually my argument about the fossil fuel industry. Their interests naturally converge on delaying regulation. They don't need a secret cabal. They just independently fund doubt because it serves their bottom line. That's the convergence. That's where the quote applies.

You grabbed a smart line and pointed it at the wrong target.

Explain how that principle applies to thousands of underpaid scientists whose career incentives reward them for breaking consensus, not maintaining it.

Your quote supports my argument.

You killed nothing in your OP.

What is the primary source of anthropogenic income for climate hoaxers?...Grants from The State...They produce absolutely nothing that anyone would willingly purchase...Perfect toadies for The State.

What is The State interested in?...More money and power, no matter where it can be obtained and the proles be damned.

The State gives money to "climate scientists" and every one of their findings results in avenues for The State to enrich itself and exercise more arbitrary power over the hoi polloy.

The findings of the climate hoaxers get questioned and debunked by scientists who have no financial interests?.... The hoaxers -via the power of The State with which they've merged- silence, demean, and defame the debunkers (see: the East Anglia emails).

IOW, you're all ******* wet.

 

[80zephyr]

You just connected climate science to transgender issues with zero logical throughline. That's not an argument. That's a worldview leaking. You're telling me what side you belong to, not what you think. You didn't make a claim. You made a mood.

This is a category error.

The trans comparison is about social classification and identity. Climate science is about thermodynamics and radiative forcing. One is sociology and the other is physics. Treating them as the same thing is like saying “gravity is fake because fashion trends exist.”

You seem to believe that humans can't be swayed. The scientists in Germany during Hitler could prove that Jews were sub human. They did the tests.

 

[Anomalism]

You need funding to prove anything. They don't get funded to prove global warming doesn't exist.

This collapses instantly under incentive analysis.

If you could credibly disprove human caused climate change, you would become one of the most famous scientists in history. You’d get:

instant tenure

massive media attention

book deals

think tank funding

fossil fuel money

political backing from half the plane

Overturning a dominant scientific paradigm is the single most rewarded act in science. That’s how careers are made. Also, the idea that there’s no funding on the skeptic side is just factually false. Oil companies, energy lobbies, conservative foundations, and entire governments have poured billions into climate skepticism for decades. The reason there’s no successful disproof isn’t lack of money; it’s lack of evidence.

You can fund research all you want. You can’t fund different laws of physics. So the real situation is the opposite of what you think. If climate change weren’t real, it would be the most overfunded, politically supported, career-making disproof project in modern scientific history.

And it still hasn’t happened.

 

[ReinyDays]

I don't debate the science.

And you refuse to learn ... you're anti-education ... you're creating carbon pollution by posting this ... that makes you a hypocrite ... not a single scientist can point and say "climate has changed here" ... no where ... so why do you believe climate is changing? ...

The Emperor's New Clothes ... only special cool people can see the carbon dioxide ...

 

[Oddball]

Overturning a dominant scientific paradigm is the single most rewarded act in science. That’s how careers are made. Also, the idea that there’s no funding on the skeptic side is just factually false. Oil companies, energy lobbies, conservative foundations, and entire governments have poured billions into climate skepticism for decades. The reason there’s no successful disproof isn’t lack of money; it’s lack of evidence.

How DARE the people who'd have their legitimate businesses ruined by people who don't produce a ******* thing fight back!

You can fund research all you want. You can’t fund different laws of physics. So the real situation is the opposite of what you think. If climate change weren’t real, it would be the most overfunded, politically supported, career-making disproof project in modern scientific history.

Climate change is real...It's just that the activities of modern industrial man have a negligible, if any at all, effect upon it either way.

 

[80zephyr]

This collapses instantly under incentive analysis.

If you could credibly disprove human caused climate change, you would become one of the most famous scientists in history. You’d get:

instant tenure

massive media attention

book deals

think tank funding

fossil fuel money

political backing from half the plane

Overturning a dominant scientific paradigm is the single most rewarded act in science. That’s how careers are made. Also, the idea that there’s no funding on the skeptic side is just factually false. Oil companies, energy lobbies, conservative foundations, and entire governments have poured billions into climate skepticism for decades. The reason there’s no successful disproof isn’t lack of money; it’s lack of evidence.

You can fund research all you want. You can’t fund different laws of physics. So the real situation is the opposite of what you think. If climate change weren’t real, it would be the most overfunded, politically supported, career-making disproof project in modern scientific history.

And it still hasn’t happened.

To disprove you need CASH. You can't study without it.

 

[Hellokitty]

Is this the same science who was telling us a man can be a woman?

 

[Oddball]

Don't take my word for it, let's look to one of the high bishops of the hoaxers....

 

[Oddball]

Is this the same science who was telling us a man can be a woman?

The same "science" that told you to stay 6 feet away from your neighbors in the grocery store and that wearing a flimsy cloth mask will keep you safe from a flu bug.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Why is it every solution to "global warming " is more tax dollars resulting in un imaginable toxic waste dumps

 

[Anomalism]

You killed nothing in your OP.

What is the primary source of anthropogenic income for climate hoaxers?...Grants from The State...They produce absolutely nothing that anyone would willingly purchase...Perfect toadies for The State.

What is The State interested in?...More money and power, no matter where it can be obtained and the proles be damned.

The State gives money to "climate scientists" and every one of their findings results in avenues for The State to enrich itself and exercise more arbitrary power over the hoi polloy.

The findings of the climate hoaxers get questioned and debunked by scientists who have no financial interests?.... The hoaxers -via the power of The State with which they've merged- silence, demean, and defame the debunkers (see: the East Anglia emails).

IOW, you're all ******* wet.

This one’s a classic. You posted less of an argument and more of a cosmic villain narrative. Your claim is built entirely on assumptions about “The State” and imagined motives, rather than evidence.

You’re arguing that climate science is a hoax because scientists take government grants. That’s like saying every engineer is a fraud because the city paid them to build bridges. Funding does not dictate outcomes; reality does. A grant only buys effort, not a change in physics, chemistry, or thermodynamics.

Claiming climate science is a hoax requires imagining every major government on Earth coordinating a lie. The US, China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, the EU, and more, for decades, across rivalries, regime changes, wars, and ideological divides. That’s a superhero-level global conspiracy.

Reality check: governments can barely agree on trade, pandemic responses, or drone strikes, let alone a unified, multi-decade scientific deception. Some of these countries are economically dependent on fossil fuels, and some would gain geopolitical leverage by exposing the lie — yet none defected, leaked, or exploited it. Not once.
Meanwhile, science is adversarial by design. Thousands of researchers in dozens of countries, competing for funding, prestige, and fame, replicate experiments, challenge each other, and publish contrary results whenever possible. If anthropogenic climate change weren’t real, a single defector could become instantly famous, fabulously funded, and historically immortal. That opportunity exists everywhere, and yet no one has succeeded.

Cherry-picking emails or claiming “state funding corrupts outcomes” doesn’t change physics. Laws of thermodynamics, atmospheric chemistry, and ocean heat content don’t negotiate. Funding only buys effort, not different outcomes. The East Anglia emails, for example, do not falsify decades of independent, multi-national data collection from satellites, ocean buoys, ice cores, and countless peer-reviewed papers.

You can smear motives all you want, but reality doesn’t negotiate. If climate change were fake, it would already be debunked, with a mountain of fame, funding, and career success waiting for the person who did it. Believing otherwise requires imagining the first perfectly unified global political system in history, secretly coordinated for decades, inside a species that can’t even reliably agree on daylight savings. That’s myth-making.

 

[Oddball]

This one’s a classic. You posted less of an argument and more of a cosmic villain narrative. Your claim is built entirely on assumptions about “The State” and imagined motives, rather than evidence.

You’re arguing that climate science is a hoax because scientists take government grants. That’s like saying every engineer is a fraud because the city paid them to build bridges. Funding does not dictate outcomes; reality does. A grant only buys effort, not a change in physics, chemistry, or thermodynamics.

Claiming climate science is a hoax requires imagining every major government on Earth coordinating a lie. The US, China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, the EU, and more, for decades, across rivalries, regime changes, wars, and ideological divides. That’s a superhero-level global conspiracy.

Reality check: governments can barely agree on trade, pandemic responses, or drone strikes, let alone a unified, multi-decade scientific deception. Some of these countries are economically dependent on fossil fuels, and some would gain geopolitical leverage by exposing the lie — yet none defected, leaked, or exploited it. Not once.
Meanwhile, science is adversarial by design. Thousands of researchers in dozens of countries, competing for funding, prestige, and fame, replicate experiments, challenge each other, and publish contrary results whenever possible. If anthropogenic climate change weren’t real, a single defector could become instantly famous, fabulously funded, and historically immortal. That opportunity exists everywhere, and yet no one has succeeded.

Cherry-picking emails or claiming “state funding corrupts outcomes” doesn’t change physics. Laws of thermodynamics, atmospheric chemistry, and ocean heat content don’t negotiate. Funding only buys effort, not different outcomes. The East Anglia emails, for example, do not falsify decades of independent, multi-national data collection from satellites, ocean buoys, ice cores, and countless peer-reviewed papers.

You can smear motives all you want, but reality doesn’t negotiate. If climate change were fake, it would already be debunked, with a mountain of fame, funding, and career success waiting for the person who did it. Believing otherwise requires imagining the first perfectly unified global political system in history, secretly coordinated for decades, inside a species that can’t even reliably agree on daylight savings. That’s myth-making.

Excess verbosity doesn't prove or disprove diddly shit.

What interest/motivation does the primary funder of the hoaxers -The State- have, other than more money and power?

Please don't insult my intelligence and claim that they just have everyone's best interests at heart.

 

[Anomalism]

You seem to believe that humans can't be swayed. The scientists in Germany during Hitler could prove that Jews were sub human. They did the tests.

This comparison fails for one simple reason. Nazi “science” wasn’t science, it was ideology with lab coats.

It wasn’t built on open data, global replication, adversarial peer review, or independent verification. It was conducted inside a totalitarian state, with no external scrutiny, no free press, no international collaboration, and severe penalties for dissent. That’s not a scientific ecosystem; that’s propaganda production.

Climate science is the opposite environment.

Thousands of independent teams

Dozens of rival nations

Open datasets

Continuous replication

Publicly available methods

Fierce internal disagreement on details

Nazi racial theory collapsed the moment it hit real external scrutiny. That’s exactly what happens to fake science in open systems: it dies fast.

The key difference you’re ignoring is system structure. Bad science thrives in closed, authoritarian systems. Real science only survives in open, adversarial, competitive ones. So this isn’t an argument that “scientists can be wrong.” Of course they can. It’s an argument about how long falsehoods can survive under global adversarial pressure.

Nazism needed censorship, prisons, and murder to maintain its “science.” Climate science survives under enemies, rivals, leaks, FOIA requests, hostile governments, and trillion-dollar industries trying to kill it. Those two things are not comparable. One required force to exist. The other exists despite force trying to destroy it.

 

[Anomalism]

Excess verbosity doesn't prove or disprove diddly shit.

What interest/motivation does the primary funder of the hoaxers -The State- have, other than more money and power?

Please don't insult my intelligence and claim that they just have everyone's best interests at heart.

Lol

You collapsed everything into motive and declared victory.

You're basically saying: “I don’t need evidence, I just need a villain with incentives.” That's a logical dead end.

Nobody is claiming the state has everyone’s best interests at heart. That’s a strawman. Governments pursue power and money. Always have. That’s not controversial. The mistake is thinking motive is sufficient to explain truth. It isn’t.

Yes, governments have incentives. So do corporations, and activists, and even you. That tells us nothing about whether atmospheric CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation or whether global mean temperatures are rising. Motives don’t rewrite physics.

You’re doing this backwards. You start with “the state is corrupt” then infer “therefore the data must be fake.” That’s not skepticism. That’s narrative substitution. If state funding automatically invalidated science, then...

all medicine is fake

all engineering is fake

all epidemiology is fake

all climate models are fake

all spaceflight is fake

all nuclear physics is fake

Because they’re all funded by states. At some point you have to explain how the corruption propagates into the measurements:

How are satellites lying?

How are ocean buoys lying?

How are ice cores lying?

How are independent labs across rival nations coordinating false data?

How are instruments producing the same wrong answer?

“Because the state wants power” is not a mechanism. It’s a vibe.

You don’t get to overthrow empirical reality with motive analysis alone. Motive explains why someone might lie, not how a global measurement system produces identical fake results across hostile nations for 50 years. Without a concrete mechanism, “the state wants power” isn’t an argument. It’s just a villain monologue.