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

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.
Remember all those scientists who signed a paper supporting the covid virus came from an animal which was 100% false and they knew it. They were threatened by Fauci to never get fundung fir their research if they didnt sign.
Science is easily corrupted and climate change science is corrupt the same way. No funding unless you agree to the fraud
 
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.
You’re still making a category error, and now you’re trying to hide it behind “appeal to authority.” I’m not rejecting those groups because I don’t like them. I’m pointing out that they aren’t research institutions in the first place. Think tanks, advocacy groups, and professional associations don’t generate empirical data, they comment on it. They publish position papers and critiques, not large-scale observational studies, satellite datasets, climate models, or experimental measurements. That distinction matters, because scientific consensus isn’t formed by who has opinions, it’s formed by who is actually producing and replicating evidence.

And notice what you skipped, the entire part about incentive structures and replication across independent labs and countries. You keep framing this as authority vs dissent, but that’s not what’s being argued. The claim is about method, not hierarchy. If a group doesn’t collect original data, run experiments, or publish in primary research journals, then citing them as counterexamples to scientific consensus is just a category mistake. You might as well be citing movie critics. You’re pointing at commentators and calling them scientists.
 
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.

That is true when discussing science.

I do not see this as science, I see it as religion. Where people are mandated to ACCEPT, or else. Any that does not ACCEPT is a heretic and must be shunned and driven out.

350891-Michael-Crichton-Quote-Historically-the-claim-of-consensus-has.jpg


And that is exactly the kind of thing that makes me laugh. When parroting the "Consensus", they will parade about all scientists from any aspect of science. But notice, how many will get their backs up and scream when somebody brings up Doctor Michael Crichton. "Oh, he's just a novelist, ignore him!" they almost always say.

Completely ignoring that Doctor Michael Crichton actually does have a doctorate, was educated at Harvard and before leaving science to become a novelist worked for such organizations as the Salk Institute, was a lecturer at Cambridge, and did professional scientific writing at MIT.
 
And an engineer, I've learned that your statement above isn't true when it comes to interpretation of what the physics mean.
That reply is doing a subtle slide from motives influence interpretation to “therefore the underlying physical claims are suspect,” which doesn’t actually follow.

Of course interpretation matters. Engineers live and die by models, assumptions, boundary conditions, and approximations. But that’s precisely the point: interpretation operates on top of physical constraints, it doesn’t get to rewrite them. You can debate how a system behaves, how fast, how sensitive, how nonlinear, but you don’t get to vote CO2 out of having radiative properties or oceans out of having thermal inertia. Those aren’t interpretations, they’re measured.

Engineers worry about how physics is applied; scientists worry about whether the physics is there at all. Motives can bias framing, policy, emphasis, and narratives. They can’t make ice absorb heat differently or make infrared spectroscopy a matter of opinion. So when someone leans on interpretation to undercut physical mechanisms, what they’re really doing is smuggling sociological doubt into a domain that’s already experimentally locked in. That’s category leakage.
 
You’re still making a category error, and now you’re trying to hide it behind “appeal to authority.”

No, I am pointing out a clear logical fallacy you keep repeating.

Care to discuss why you are completely ignoring the clear evidence in both geology and evolution that proves that the planet has been significantly warmer in the recent geological past? Or even in periods like the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period?

I am not trying to "appeal" to anything. I am simply pointing out that you will pull out any group that supports your belief, and instantly reject any that contradict it.

You are making the exact same mistake that a great many do. I do not have any "political axe to grind", and am actually about as moderate as you can find. But one thing I do find extremely distasteful is how politicized science has become in recent decades.
 
It's crazy that you feel the need to call for backup when I'm literally debating like five people by myself. That's fine though. It should be fun.
And losing badly because every response is the same circular logic. Science cant be wrong because its science
 
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".
You’re stacking a bunch of true statements and then jumping to a conclusion that simply doesn’t follow from them. Yes, climate has always changed. Yes, there were warmer periods in the Holocene and much warmer periods in deep geological time. Yes, sea levels were higher in past interglacials and fire adapted ecosystems exist.

None of that is controversial and none of it is denied by mainstream climate science It’s literally part of the same scientific framework. The mistake is treating "natural climate variability exists” as if it logically implies “therefore the current warming is not primarily human driven.” That’s a non sequitur.

The actual claim isn’t “this is the hottest ever in Earth history,” it’s that the rate and cause of warming over the last ~150 years cannot be explained by known natural forcings alone and quantitatively matches greenhouse gas physics. Past warm periods had different drivers. This one has a fingerprint.

Same issue with droughts, floods, and fires. That’s not a contradiction, it’s what you expect from adding energy to a fluid system. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and more energy, which increases variance: heavier rainfall where storms occur, more evaporation and drying elsewhere, longer fire seasons where fuels exist. Fire adapted plants don’t refute climate change any more than ice cores refute evolution; they just describe historical conditions ecosystems adapted to over millions of years.

You’re also quietly mixing geological timescales (slow adaptation) with human timescales (centuries, cities, agriculture) as if they’re interchangeable. “Earth has been warmer before” is true but irrelevant to the actual question, which is whether rapidly altering atmospheric composition in 200 years changes the climate system.
 
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.
What you’re describing is a sociological story layered on top of a scientific one, and the two are getting blurred together. Geologists talking about the Eemian, the Pleistocene, or the last few million years are not tiptoeing because those records contradict climate science. Those records are the foundation of climate science. Paleoclimate is literally how we know climate sensitivity, feedbacks, ice sheet behavior, and orbital forcing in the first place. There is no geological result being suppressed that undermines AGW.

On the contrary, those same records show that relatively small changes in radiative forcing can drive large global temperature and sea level shifts.

The Eemian is actually one of the strongest pieces of evidence for concern, not against it, because it shows that at only ~1–2°C warmer than preindustrial, sea levels were several meters higher due to ice sheet response. The Anthropocene thing is also a category error on your part. The ICS/IUGS didn’t reject climate change, they rejected formalizing a new geological epoch because stratigraphic epochs require globally synchronous rock-layer signatures over long timescales, and we simply don’t have that yet.

That’s a taxonomy issue, not a scientific refutation of human impact. You’re again conflating institutional classification debates with physical reality. Whether we name an epoch or not has exactly zero bearing on the situation. Geology doesn’t undermine climate physics. It’s one of the main reasons we understand how sensitive the system actually is.
 
Remember all those scientists who signed a paper supporting the covid virus came from an animal which was 100% false and they knew it. They were threatened by Fauci to never get fundung fir their research if they didnt sign.
Science is easily corrupted and climate change science is corrupt the same way. No funding unless you agree to the fraud
This is the same move you’ve been making the entire thread. You take a claim about incentives, power, or corruption and try to use it as a substitute for evidence about the physical world.

Even if everything you just said about Fauci were true, it still wouldn’t touch the core question of climate science. Climate science doesn’t rest on one agency, one funding body, or one set of emails. You can't actually invalidate Maxwell’s equations by pointing at bureaucrats.

What you’re really arguing is a sociological theory. “Science is corruptible, therefore this scientific field is corrupt.” That’s not reasoning, it's just suspicion. Yes, institutions can be biased. Yes, funding shapes behavior at the margins. But corruption claims have to be demonstrated at the level of data and methods, not vibes about power structures. Otherwise any result you dislike can be dismissed by inventing a conspiracy that conveniently explains why every independent dataset on Earth just happens to agree. At that point you’re no longer doing skepticism; you’re doing unfalsifiable narrative building, which is exactly what you accuse the other side of.
 
You dont matter the issue is dead today
Oh, okay.

Well since people are calling for backup in what's already an attempted dogpile, it's only fair that I do the same, right?

rightwinger
cnm
Coyote
Mac1958
Fort Fun Indiana
Crepitus
g5000
abu afak
playtime

If any of you have any insights I'd love for you to participate in this discussion.

---
People I'd be interested in hearing chime in even though I'm unsure if they'll agree or not...

TemplarKormac
Natural Citizen
 
15th post
No, I am pointing out a clear logical fallacy you keep repeating.

Care to discuss why you are completely ignoring the clear evidence in both geology and evolution that proves that the planet has been significantly warmer in the recent geological past? Or even in periods like the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period?

I am not trying to "appeal" to anything. I am simply pointing out that you will pull out any group that supports your belief, and instantly reject any that contradict it.

You are making the exact same mistake that a great many do. I do not have any "political axe to grind", and am actually about as moderate as you can find. But one thing I do find extremely distasteful is how politicized science has become in recent decades.
You’re conflating two separate issues again. Pointing out the scientific consensus on climate isn’t an appeal to authority. It’s a reflection of the fact that climate science is built on peer-reviewed data, reproducible experiments, and multiple independent lines of evidence. That consensus arises because of the rigor of the methods, not because of political alignment.

Regarding past warm periods, I’ve never denied they existed. The Roman or Medieval Warm Periods occurred regionally and on much smaller scales compared to current global trends. Pointing out consensus isn’t cherry picking; ignoring these nuances and framing them as mere appeals to authority is a category error.
 
More CO2 doesn't warm anything, so there is no reason not to add more.
That’s a misunderstanding of basic radiative physics. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation that would otherwise escape into space, trapping heat in the atmosphere. This is experimentally verified physics, measured in labs, observed in the atmosphere, and consistent with spectroscopy.

Saying “more CO2 doesn’t warm anything” ignores centuries of observational data showing exactly the opposite.
 
You’re conflating two separate issues again. Pointing out the scientific consensus on climate isn’t an appeal to authority. It’s a reflection of the fact that climate science is built on peer-reviewed data, reproducible experiments, and multiple independent lines of evidence. That consensus arises because of the rigor of the methods, not because of political alignment.

Regarding past warm periods, I’ve never denied they existed. The Roman or Medieval Warm Periods occurred regionally and on much smaller scales compared to current global trends. Pointing out consensus isn’t cherry picking; ignoring these nuances and framing them as mere appeals to authority is a category error.
Climate science is built on fear, left wing ideology, and funding
 
That’s a misunderstanding of basic radiative physics. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation that would otherwise escape into space, trapping heat in the atmosphere. This is experimentally verified physics, measured in labs, observed in the atmosphere, and consistent with spectroscopy.

Saying “more CO2 doesn’t warm anything” ignores centuries of observational data showing exactly the opposite.
What is the net CO2 left after green plants remove it and convert it toO2
 
Back
Top Bottom