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

[Toddsterpatriot]

Off course I am conflating the two - since a further continuation of Climate change and it's impact on the planet will automatically bring a societal collapse in many regions if not globally.

And I never stated immediate.

How many will die if temperatures go up one degree?
How many will die if temperatures go up two degrees?
How do you know?

 

[Kruska]

Physical irreversibility does not automatically cause societal collapse. Climate models and observations project environmental changes and associated risks, but human societies are complex and adaptive; the magnitude and timing of social impacts remain uncertain. Conflating natural system inertia with inevitable societal collapse is a narrative choice, not a scientific conclusion.

I never said that it would be scientific conclusion. But that science concludes an irreversible negative impact onto our planet is fact.

That a continued negative impact (irreversible for the next hundreds or thousand years) onto our planet will cause a societal collapse in certain regions or globally is a logical conclusion.

 

[Anomalism]

I never said that it would be scientific conclusion. But that science concludes an irreversible negative impact onto our planet is fact.

That a continued negative impact (irreversible for the next hundreds or thousand years) onto our planet will cause a societal collapse in certain regions or globally is a logical conclusion.

The irreversible environmental changes are supported by data. Predicting societal collapse is an assumption layered on top of that data, not a deduction. It depends on how humans respond, which is inherently uncertain.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying we don't actually know that for certain. You're speculating, but some of the variables are unpredictable. Where will technology be in the future? What clever innovations will humans come up with? We're not the type to go out easily. We're persistent things.

I think you might be underestimating us.

For clarification, none of that means we shouldn't take the science seriously.

 

[Mushroom]

Which scientific institutions take the stance that AGW isn't real?

Science and Environmental Policy Project to start. The Science and Environmental Policy Project for another. The National Association of Scholars refuses to take an official stance, but encourages open conversation and not attempts to silencing any who dissent from the narrative.

And pretty much every geologist that I communicate with also says the same thing. They admit our current climate is abnormally cold, and the geological record proves without a doubt that most of the claims of the alarmists are incorrect. But they avoid ever actually making comparisons or they risk losing their positions.

You and your kind for decades have been trying to monopolize the discussion and absolutely dismissing any dissent. In fact, I have been watching this since the claims that humans were creating a New Ice Age. And it was "Global Warming" before it became the much more generic "Climate Change".

 

[Mushroom]

I am old enough to remember that entire "New Ice Age" scare of the mid-late 1970s. And even then, that was hardly new. At the very first Earth Day in 1970, Kenneth Watt told participants the following:

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

I remember in 1975 Time magazine publishing a story on the coming "man made ice age". And popular science fiction quickly picked up on it and a lot of stories grabbed onto that.

As I said already, I am fascinated as I am old enough to clearly remember all that hype from five decades ago. And always laugh when others try to tell me that was never the case and it never happened. Too bad for them many others remember it and not just me.

Me, I could not care less what the "climate" was a year ago, ten years ago or 100 years ago. When looking at cycles that are at a minimum 130-150 thousand years, such a narrow view is absolutely worthless. And it is a proven fact this is not the warmest period, or even the warmest period since the Last Glacial Maximum. And the geological record is absolutely clear and nobody is questioning that. That this interglacial is significantly colder than it should be. Many I know say even frighteningly so, as when the next ice age appears unless things start to warm significantly we may lose most of Europe above the Alps, all of Canada and about half of the Continental US under mile thick ice sheets unless things start warming fast.

And this is an absolute fact.

Om the above image, A is what the coast of Florida should look like at this point in an interglacial. And C is what it looks like now. And I always find it fascinating that when I confront the Climate Sibyls about the geological facts, they always simply ignore it. They know they can not refute the facts, so simply pretend nothing was ever said.

Frankly, I see none of it as "real science". I see people sticking their fingers in the air and seeing what will most likely get them funded or published. And their literal decades of manipulated and adjusted presentation of facts, manipulated data, ignoring actual science and outright lies and fabrications as exactly what it is.

 

[Mushroom]

How many will die if temperatures go up one degree?
How many will die if temperatures go up two degrees?

Far more will die if it drops than when it rises.

More people die each year on the planet from cold temperatures than warm temperatures.

Hominids evolved from the apes in an Interglacial, and Homo Sapiens itself evolved as a long distance endurance hunter in an interglacial. And depending on how you break down HS or HSS, we are in our second or third interglacial now. A climate that we evolved specifically to exploit. Warmer temperatures.

That is why we only expanded out of Africa in the first place in the closing phase of the last Ice Age, and only fully started to "conquer" the planet long after the LGM had passed.

Absolute facts, we can exist in very hot climates. But die in cold ones without significant support.

 

[HikerGuy83]

That scientists all agree because they share some common incentive to agree, not because the data points in one direction.

You got it

 

[HikerGuy83]

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

When you have people who fight against the concensu being chased out of the industry, you have an incentive.

And those thousands of scientists.....many of whom have specialized areas of research that have nothing to do with overall climate research....well, they just can't resist the chimera that makes them heros and lines their pockets.

Climate change is happening.

All those scientists can't model a cow fart and yet are bent on making predictions that are not coming true.

And if they are underpaid, what does that tell you?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Motives don’t rewrite physics.

And an engineer, I've learned that your statement above isn't true when it comes to interpretation of what the physics mean.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Nazism needed censorship,

<b>Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics</b>

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which...

www.epw.senate.gov

This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

 

[HikerGuy83]

We need more CO2 we are at the lowest levels and that threatens green plants

Where is EMH?

 

[Mushroom]

Climate change is happening.

Yes, and it always has happened. There have been several climates optimums and minimums in the past 10,000 years. And some of those climate optimums were even warmer than it is now.

None of those were blamed on humans, so why is suddenly this one entirely blamed on humans?

Mostly I reject it because their claims are directly contradictory to science. They claim this is the hottest ever, it is not. They claim the warming causes droughts, then hilariously they turn right around and scream it causes increased flooding. They scream about it causing increased fires, when the locations we are seeing those fires they are pointing to actually have plants that have evolved over millions of years specific adaptations that require fire in order to reproduce!

We know that Southern Florida is completely submerged during an interglacial, the freaking geological record proves that as cities like Miami are literally built on top of limestone beds left behind by those interglacial coral reefs.

The evidence is absolutely everywhere proving that the climate is abnormally cold, yet they have this amazing ability to absolutely ignore any science that contradicts their claims.

I can't tell how many times I have pointed out things like the historical sea levels of past interglacials and the evolution of pyrophytic plants, and they always simply ignore it. If somebody actually believes in science and believes in evolution instead of some kind of divine creation, it is impossible for almost every tree on the West Coast of North America to have evolved such a specific evolutionary adaptation unless that was a common condition to where it evolved.

And this is not something unique to just North America. Plants in areas of Europe and Australia have the exact same adaptations, which are not found in other areas. This is why trees native to Italy, Spain and Greece are often pyrophytes, but those in countries like England, France, Germany and the Nordic nations are not. Just as those on the North American West Coast are, but those on the East Coast are not.

The funny thing is that they scream at me even louder than many, not because I am a "Climate Denier" but because I not only accept and embrace that change, I see it as not only completely natural but I point out the simple fact that we are abnormally cold and not hot. I am the worst kind to them, like a heretical Protestant in front of a mob of rabid Catholics. One that distracts them from the Jews that they really want to be exterminating.

And in over ten years of calmly and rationally attempting to discuss the actual science, none of them can actually refute any of those claims. They simply ignore me because I state facts they can not deny so they pretend I say nothing. Or simply spin back to "XXX said so!".

As far as I am concerned, that is as scientific as telling me because "their Priest said so".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The irony here, of course, is that advanced computer models are huge hogs of energy, and thus produce more CO2 than most folks produce.

That you are sitting here recommending the production of CO2 to run machines that are trying to get you to believe the global rules actually care about CO2?

That's just hilarious.

Some time in the future, scientists will discover that posting dire manmade global warming warnings was actually the leading cause of CO2 emissions

 

[Mushroom]

This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

And this is something I hear from a lot of geologists.

That almost all of them finding themselves tip-toeing a fine line when talking about the geological record over the past 3 million years. They will discuss something like the Eemian-Sangamonian Interglacial, and have to insert some caveat that they are discussing a period of 110,000 years before the present. Or other periods like the Pleistocene and inject they are talking about the past and only the past.

Because if it is realized they actually are discussing the proven geological record and it contradicts what the alarmists are saying they would find themselves the recipients of a lynch mob. That is why you had the insanity of 2024, where climate alarmists tried to force the International Commission on Stratigraphy and the International Union of Geological Sciences (the two scientific bodies that actually name and quantify the geological eras) to accept their fantasy of an "Anthropocene Era".

Which both of those bodies clearly rejected. I myself over the last decade seen the almost hilarious edit wars on the Wikipedia page discussing that. To me, the scientific idea of an Anthropocene is about as scientific as phrenology or kirlian photography.

 

[Mushroom]

And to add in a bit more, to show how many geologists see this.

I have interacted with more than one geologist that has told me that even the very idea of the "Holocene Epoch" should be erased. Because it was a concept based on a proposal written in 1885 and based entirely on what is now known to be incorrect data.

For those that do not know, it generally is breaking a new geological era from the Pleistocene in the Younger Dryas. Which in that time it was proposed they believed that was the actual end of "the ice age". As in singular ice age.

Which in the time since we know is wrong. Not only have there been over five named ice ages, there have been dozens of others in the past three million years. And that the Bølling-Allerød interstadial that came before the Younger Dryas had not yet been discovered, and was actually warmer than it is now.

Hell, it often blows my mind at how many people who claim to be "knowledgeable" do not know that there have been dozens of ice ages going back millions of years and not just one. And that even in the early 1900s you had "radical geologists" that were outright rejected when they tried to propose that there had been multiple ice ages and not just one.



One who is a college professor has actually told me that when discussing the Holocene to his students, to consider it just the name of the current interglacial, and in reality it is just a small sliver of a repeating cycle seen multiple times since the start of the Pleistocene. And that even the designation is now largely a joke because it is based on beliefs that are now over a century out of date.

And unlike "Climatologists", Geologists have absolutely no problem with accepting a hypothesis as to why and how the planet is the way it is now. Then a decade or so later simply shrug their shoulders and dismiss all they had believed before based upon new evidence. I am old enough to remember when Plate Tectonics was finally being widely accepted, but when a geologist was asked why and how the plates moved they largely shrugged their shoulders. Because the concept of subduction zones had yet to be fully understood. They knew about them, but had yet to understand how that was the force that actually drives continental drift.

 

[Anomalism]

Science and Environmental Policy Project to start. The Science and Environmental Policy Project for another. The National Association of Scholars refuses to take an official stance, but encourages open conversation and not attempts to silencing any who dissent from the narrative.

And pretty much every geologist that I communicate with also says the same thing. They admit our current climate is abnormally cold, and the geological record proves without a doubt that most of the claims of the alarmists are incorrect. But they avoid ever actually making comparisons or they risk losing their positions.

You and your kind for decades have been trying to monopolize the discussion and absolutely dismissing any dissent. In fact, I have been watching this since the claims that humans were creating a New Ice Age. And it was "Global Warming" before it became the much more generic "Climate Change".

What you listed aren’t actually scientific institutions in the sense people mean when they talk about scientific consensus. The Science and Environmental Policy Project is a political advocacy think tank, not a research body. It doesn’t run climate models, collect data, or publish peer-reviewed work. It exists to promote a viewpoint. The National Association of Scholars is even further from science It’s a cultural and ideological organization focused on higher education and academic freedom, not a professional society representing climate researchers or any scientific discipline. Saying these groups “disagree with climate science” is like citing a book club or a debate society as evidence against medicine.

This is the key category error: you’re substituting organizations that talk about science for organizations that actually do science. Real scientific institutions are things like NASA, NOAA, the National Academies, the American Geophysical Union, or the Geological Society of America, bodies made up of researchers who produce and evaluate empirical work. Those institutions all explicitly affirm AGW. So what’s being presented as “scientific dissent” isn’t dissent within the field; it’s political or cultural opposition speaking from outside the field and borrowing the aesthetic of science to sound authoritative. That’s not a hidden minority. It’s just not the same game.

 

[Hafar1014]

What you listed aren’t actually scientific institutions in the sense people mean when they talk about scientific consensus. The Science and Environmental Policy Project is a political advocacy think tank, not a research body. It doesn’t run climate models, collect data, or publish peer-reviewed work. It exists to promote a viewpoint. The National Association of Scholars is even further from science It’s a cultural and ideological organization focused on higher education and academic freedom, not a professional society representing climate researchers or any scientific discipline. Saying these groups “disagree with climate science” is like citing a book club or a debate society as evidence against medicine.

This is the key category error: you’re substituting organizations that talk about science for organizations that actually do science. Real scientific institutions are things like NASA, NOAA, the National Academies, the American Geophysical Union, or the Geological Society of America, bodies made up of researchers who produce and evaluate empirical work. Those institutions all explicitly affirm AGW. So what’s being presented as “scientific dissent” isn’t dissent within the field; it’s political or cultural opposition speaking from outside the field and borrowing the aesthetic of science to sound authoritative. That’s not a hidden minority. It’s just not the same game.

Give up its a fraud and no one cares anymore.

 

[Mushroom]

What you listed aren’t actually scientific institutions in the sense people mean when they talk about scientific consensus.

Translation, you refuse to accept them therefore they should be ignored.

Anything that does not agree with your consensus must be ignored.

This is just doubling down on the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority". Any that refuses to bow down to your accepted authority must be ignored.

 

[Hafar1014]

Translation, you refuse to accept them therefore they should be ignored.

Anything that does not agree with your consensus must be ignored.

This is just doubling down on the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Authority". Any that refuses to bow down to your accepted authority must be ignored.

Its his religion

 

[Anomalism]

When you have people who fight against the concensu being chased out of the industry, you have an incentive.

And those thousands of scientists.....many of whom have specialized areas of research that have nothing to do with overall climate research....well, they just can't resist the chimera that makes them heros and lines their pockets.

Climate change is happening.

All those scientists can't model a cow fart and yet are bent on making predictions that are not coming true.

And if they are underpaid, what does that tell you?

The incentive structure in science actually runs in the opposite direction of what you’re describing. Consensus is not where careers are made; consensus is where papers get ignored. If you want status, funding, and citations, the highest-reward move is to overturn an existing model with better data or a better explanation. That’s how you become famous in science. Every major scientific breakthrough, plate tectonics, relativity, germ theory, heliocentrism, came from people contradicting the dominant view and being rewarded for it once the evidence held up.

A young climate scientist who could convincingly show that AGW is wrong would instantly become one of the most famous scientists on Earth. That is not a suppressed career path; it’s the golden ticket. The reason that hasn’t happened isn’t sociological, it’s empirical: the data keeps converging.

That’s not a narrative bubble, it’s distributed replication. And the “underpaid” part actually undercuts the conspiracy. If people were chasing money and hero status, they’d be in finance, tech, or industry, not publishing incremental papers on atmospheric chemistry. What you’re seeing isn’t a cult maintaining consensus; it’s a field where the easiest way to stand out would be to break it, and no one has managed to do so with evidence that survives contact with reality.