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

[Anomalism]

Climate science is built on fear, left wing ideology, and funding

That’s not engagement. It’s a drive-by comment. You’re not addressing the arguments or evidence, just tossing labels around.

 

[Hafar1014]

That’s not engagement. It’s a drive-by comment. You’re not addressing the arguments or evidence, just tossing labels around.

Im addressing the process that drives climate ideology. Process is everything. Science claimed smoking was good for you. Covid came from an animal. 40% of all science is invalid

 

[Anomalism]

What is the net CO2 left after green plants remove it and convert it toO2

Net CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing, even after photosynthesis. Plants and oceans absorb a significant fraction, but human emissions exceed what natural sinks can remove. That’s why atmospheric CO2 concentrations keep rising year after year.

 

[Hafar1014]

Net CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing, even after photosynthesis. Plants and oceans absorb a significant fraction, but human emissions exceed what natural sinks can remove. That’s why atmospheric CO2 concentrations keep rising year after year.

Why because you say so. So how come the temperature isnt going up. We have the coldest winter in decades today. Its also imposible because green plants grow exponentially and will increase as CO2 increases.

 

[Anomalism]

Im addressing the process that drives climate ideology. Process is everything. Science claimed smoking was good for you. Covid came from an animal. 40% of all science is invalid

Dropping a couple of unrelated examples doesn’t actually engage the specifics of climate science. Smoking and COVID are separate cases with very different evidence structures, controls, and peer review standards. If you want to critique climate science on process, you need to address the data, models, and reproducibility directly, not analogies.

 

[Anomalism]

Why because you say so. So how come the temperature isnt going up. We have the coldest winter in decades today. Its also imposible because green plants grow exponentially and will increase as CO2 increases.

Global temperature trends are measured over decades, not individual days or single winters. Short term weather events, like a cold winter, don’t disprove long term warming.

CO2 fertilization does increase plant growth, but natural sinks cannot keep pace with human emissions, which is why atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. Science relies on measured trends, not isolated anecdotes.

 

[HikerGuy83]

That reply is doing a subtle slide from motives influence interpretation to “therefore the underlying physical claims are suspect,” which doesn’t actually follow.

No, it's acknowledging that the physics can be used to promote different points of view.

I've seen people look at the same data and reach entirely different conclusions as well as offer very different ideas of how to move forward.

I would agree 100% that the laws of physics can't be altered.

But men are pretty good at twisting and turning facts to fit a narrative.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where is EMH?

Maybe the Mossad finally got him?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Every scientific institution on Earth says climate change is real and human caused.

Since you want to structure this, let's look at this statement:

1. Climate change is real and has gone on forever. I am not sure if anyone is debating that the climate is changing. I know I see it. I've already seen small cycles in my lifetime.

2. We know that the climate has always changed.

3. So your statement is not meaningful. If it is accepted that climate change is always happening, then it seems that your statement should reference that man has somehow altered that change.

Do you agree with #3?

 

[ReinyDays]

I never claimed to speak for all scientists in all fields, and pretending I did is just a straw man. Dismissing scientific research as “statistical mumbo-jumbo” isn’t a rebuttal, it’s an evasion.

Statistics is literally how you detect large-scale patterns in complex systems. Without it, you don’t have climate science, epidemiology, or even engineering.

Name dropping Navier–Stokes doesn’t help your case either. Fluid dynamics is exactly why we use distributed measurements and models to study atmospheric behavior over time. You’re not engaging the data, you’re reframing the conversation so my actual claims disappear and can be replaced with caricatures.

 

[Anomalism]

No, it's acknowledging that the physics can be used to promote different points of view.

I've seen people look at the same data and reach entirely different conclusions as well as offer very different ideas of how to move forward.

I would agree 100% that the laws of physics can't be altered.

But men are pretty good at twisting and turning facts to fit a narrative.

It’s true that humans can frame data in different ways and push narratives that suit their goals. That doesn’t mean the underlying physical claims themselves are suspect. The laws of physics don’t bend to rhetoric or ideology; they operate independently of how people describe or politicize them. Gravity doesn’t pause because two engineers disagree on a bridge, and climate feedbacks don’t alter themselves to fit someone’s argument.

Treating human interpretation as equivalent to the physical system is a category error. Models are judged by their predictive power, internal consistency, and alignment with observation, not by whether they suit a narrative. Yes, humans can spin facts and cherry-pick data rhetorically, but that doesn’t erase the constraints imposed by reality. Conflating interpretive variation with invalid physics is a misstep. It’s why science emphasizes replication, peer review, and testing, so interpretations are continuously checked against the physical world rather than against anyone’s preferred story.

 

[Anomalism]

Since you want to structure this, let's look at this statement:

1. Climate change is real and has gone on forever. I am not sure if anyone is debating that the climate is changing. I know I see it. I've already seen small cycles in my lifetime.

2. We know that the climate has always changed.

3. So your statement is not meaningful. If it is accepted that climate change is always happening, then it seems that your statement should reference that man has somehow altered that change.

Do you agree with #3?

The nuance is important. Saying “climate change is real” is meaningless without context. The meaningful claim in the scientific consensus is that human activity is now the dominant driver of the observed changes, particularly the rapid increase in greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane. That’s the part that distinguishes present day climate change from natural variability.

In other words, #3 is correct in noting that the statement needs qualification. Scientists aren’t claiming “climate changes for the first time ever” They’re claiming human actions are forcing the rate and magnitude of change beyond natural cycles, which has observable effects on temperature trends, sea levels, and extreme weather. That’s the precise claim, and it’s what every major scientific institution is actually supporting.

 

[ReinyDays]

I never claimed to speak for all scientists in all fields, and pretending I did is just a straw man. Dismissing scientific research as “statistical mumbo-jumbo” isn’t a rebuttal, it’s an evasion.

Yes you did ...

Every scientific institution on Earth says climate change is real and human caused.

Do you have a scientific citation? ...

Statistics is literally how you detect large-scale patterns in complex systems. Without it, you don’t have climate science, epidemiology, or even engineering.

Name dropping Navier–Stokes doesn’t help your case either. Fluid dynamics is exactly why we use distributed measurements and models to study atmospheric behavior over time. You’re not engaging the data, you’re reframing the conversation so my actual claims disappear and can be replaced with caricatures.

I'm sorry to inform you ... but science relies on cause-and-effect ... statistics is a tool, just like instrumentation ... making actual scientific statements seems to offend you ...

NS is just the conversion formula ... makes the math easier ... and we use gradients to smooth the data between stations ...

You’re not engaging the data

What data? ... all I see is global warming ... all the other meteorological parameters remain the same ... pressure, humidity, wind speed and direction, and precipitation ... and that includes weather patterns ... remember, you claim every weather station is showing the same weather pattern, why do you say these weather patterns are changing? ... c.f. Atmospheric circulation - Wikipedia ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Things I learned about CO2 from listening to the AGWCult:

1. American CO2 is radically different than Chinese CO2, (must be like the thalidomide molecule) because though China emits double the American CO2, only America must cut our emissions
2. CO2 only drives the climate on planet Earth. Other planets have variations in their temperatures and climates, but these are caused by a myriad of natural factors besides CO2, including the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky. The climactic impact of the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky on Earth is negligible, especially compared to American CO2.
3. American CO2 (see 1 above) refuses to participate in the local environment; plants won't touch it, the oceans refuse to absorb it. It can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds maybe thousands or billions of years.

 

[Anomalism]

Yes you did ...

Reporting the positions of scientific institutions is not the same as personally speaking for all scientists. Summarizing what the research shows is simply sharing the evidence based consensus; it does not imply that I claim universal authority or that no individual scientist might dissent. Conflating those two is yet another strawman. You're attacking a position I never actually took. Dismissing the consensus as “statistical mumbo-jumbo” or mischaracterizing reporting as a claim of absolute authority is a way of avoiding engagement with the substance.

Do you have a scientific citation? ...

Which scientific institutions, meaning ones that do actual research and modeling, have a public stance that AGW is not actually happening? Testing the claim is easy. Find me one. None exist.

I'm sorry to inform you ... but science relies on cause-and-effect ... statistics is a tool, just like instrumentation ... making actual scientific statements seems to offend you ...

NS is just the conversion formula ... makes the math easier ... and we use gradients to smooth the data between stations ...

You’re not engaging the data

What data? ... all I see is global warming ... all the other meteorological parameters remain the same ... pressure, humidity, wind speed and direction, and precipitation ... and that includes weather patterns ... remember, you claim every weather station is showing the same weather pattern, why do you say these weather patterns are changing? ... c.f. Atmospheric circulation - Wikipedia ...

Regarding the data itself, climate science relies on statistics and models precisely because the system is complex, distributed, and variable. It’s not sufficient to point to single stations or local observations and claim “everything else is the same.”

Using instruments, gradients, and models, grounded in physics, allows scientists to detect these large-scale patterns. Ignoring these measurements and framing the conversation around selective observations is not engagement with the data; it’s reframing to avoid the actual findings.

 

[Anomalism]

Things I learned about CO2 from listening to the AGWCult:

1. American CO2 is radically different than Chinese CO2, (must be like the thalidomide molecule) because though China emits double the American CO2, only America must cuts our emissions
2. CO2 only drives the climate on planet Earth. Other planets have variations in their temperatures and climates, but these are caused by a myriad of natural factors besides CO2, including the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky. The climactic impact of the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky on Earth is negligible compared to American CO2.
3. American CO2 (see 1 above) refuses to participate in the local environment; plants won't touch it, the oceans refuse to absorb it. It can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds maybe thousands or billions of years.

Yes, CO2 regulations often get applied unevenly. That doesn’t change the science. You're describing a policy problem, not a physical one.

CO2 is absorbed by plants and oceans according to physical and chemical principles, and a portion remains in the atmosphere long enough to affect global temperatures. Politics might be messy, but the carbon cycle and greenhouse effect don’t care who produced the emissions. They only care how much is added. You're trying to use a political statement to obscure basic physics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, CO2 regulations often get applied unevenly. That doesn’t change the science. You're describing a policy problem, not a physical one.

CO2 is absorbed by plants and oceans according to physical and chemical principles, and a portion remains in the atmosphere long enough to affect global temperatures. Politics might be messy, but the carbon cycle and greenhouse effect don’t care who produced the emissions. They only care how much is added. You're trying to use a political statement to obscure basic physics.

China added DOUBLE our CO2 but the Warmers always give China a pass.

 

[Anomalism]

China added DOUBLE our CO2 but the Warmers always give China a pass.

That’s a policy and equity issue, not a physics issue. The science is about total atmospheric concentration and its effect on global temperature, not which country is responsible. Debates over who should cut more are political, not physical.

And it’s worth remembering that China is taking measures. They have massive reforestation projects, investments in renewables and efficiency initiatives. Comparing absolute emissions without accounting for population size and economic scale is misleading.

 

[Mushroom]

It's crazy that you feel the need to call for backup when I'm literally debating like five people by myself.

ROFL!

You really think that? EMH is actually almost exactly like you, as you both essentially do the exact same thing.

 

[Anomalism]

you both essentially do the exact same thing.

Oh? Lol