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

[Anomalism]

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

Yes, research needs funding. But funding does not control reality. Grants pay for time, equipment, and people, they don’t change physics, chemistry, or data. If climate change were false, a single scientist with enough resources could disprove it, instantly gain fame, funding, and influence worldwide.

That hasn’t happened because the evidence is real, not because someone didn’t write a check. Money can accelerate research, but it cannot manufacture or erase facts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global Warming Net Zero is an attack on Western Civilization with not a single shred of science and even less logic

 

[Manonthestreet]

Can the thread author please tell us how green they are? What kind of vehicle do you have and how many miles per week do you drive? How large is your abode. Do you have solar panels? Do you use A/C....and everything else that greenies preach

 

[Anomalism]

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

The fact that solutions involve taxes or imperfect implementation doesn’t change reality. Messy policies or toxic byproducts are a political problem, not a scientific one. Rejecting the evidence because governments struggle to respond is like refusing to treat cancer because chemotherapy is expensive and has side effects.

 

[Hafar1014]

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.

===========================================================================
Nearly half of all research is invalid, fake or wrong
The claim that "half of all research is invalid" stems from studies and experts, notably Dr. John Ioannidis, highlighting that many published findings are irreproducible, false positives, or biased, particularly in biomedicine. Key issues include small sample sizes, flawed designs, pressure to publish, and lack of replication.
Here is a deeper breakdown of this issue:

Key Reasons Behind the Claim

• Irreproducibility Crisis: A significant portion of research results cannot be replicated by other scientists, a hallmark of scientific validity.
• Ioannidis' Argument: In his famous 2005 paper, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", Dr. John Ioannidis argued that, due to biases, small study sizes, and statistical issues, it is often more likely for a research claim to be false than true.
• Prevalence of False Positives: Many studies highlight "significant" results that are actually just noise, especially when researchers test many hypotheses.
• Incentive Structure: Researchers are often rewarded for innovation and productivity rather than accuracy, leading to a focus on novel, flashy results over solid, replicable ones.

Key Context and Nuances

• Not Necessarily "Fraud": When experts say research is "false" or "invalid," they usually mean it is unconfirmed, unreplicable, or lacks sufficient evidence, rather than outright fabricated.
• Field Variations: Problems are particularly acute in fields like biomedicine, psychology, and social sciences.
• Improvements Underway: Increased focus on pre-registering trials, opening data sets, and funding replication studies aims to fix these issues.

In summary, while the "50% or more" figure is a provocative estimate rather than a hard, universal statistic, evidence strongly suggests a major portion of scientific literature is unreliable.
===========================================================================
In December 2025, the journal Nature retracted a major 2024 study by Potsdam Institute researchers that predicted severe, 19% global income drops by 2050 due to climate change. The retraction followed the discovery of data inaccuracies, specifically flawed economic data from Uzbekistan, and underestimated statistical uncertainties, rendering the original findings unreliable.
Here are the key details regarding this and other notable climate retractions:

Key Details of the Retracted Nature Study (2025)

• Original Claim: Climate change would slash global income by 19% by 2050 and cost more to manage than fix.
• Why it was withdrawn: The authors found errors in underlying economic data, particularly for Uzbekistan (1995–1999), and acknowledged the statistical uncertainty was too high.
• Outcome: The authors are working on a revised version, but the original paper was officially retracted.

Other Notable Climate Study Retractions/Controversies

• "No Climate Emergency" Study (2023): Springer Nature retracted a 2022 article that claimed no evidence of a climate emergency, citing a loss of confidence in the results and conclusions.
• Federal Report Criticism (2025): Scientists criticized a draft DOE report for "cherry-picked" evidence and fundamentally incorrect claims, though this was more about scientific integrity than a formal, widespread retraction of a single peer-reviewed paper.

Context on Scientific Integrity

• Retractions occur when errors, flawed methodologies, or data issues are discovered post-publication, which is a standard, self-correcting part of the scientific process.
• The vast consensus remains that human-induced climate change is occurring.

 

[Anomalism]

Global Warming Net Zero is an attack on Western Civilization with not a single shred of science and even less logic

Net zero is a policy goal, not science. Climate science doesn’t care about civilization, politics or ideology. It just measures reality. Claiming policy goals equal a “scientific attack” confuses evidence with political debate. You can argue about implementation all you want, but that doesn’t erase decades of global measurements and independent research.

 

[Hafar1014]

Yes, research needs funding. But funding does not control reality. Grants pay for time, equipment, and people, they don’t change physics, chemistry, or data. If climate change were false, a single scientist with enough resources could disprove it, instantly gain fame, funding, and influence worldwide.

That hasn’t happened because the evidence is real, not because someone didn’t write a check. Money can accelerate research, but it cannot manufacture or erase facts.

exposedFake Climate change study
In December 2025, the journal Nature retracted a major 2024 study by Potsdam Institute researchers that predicted severe, 19% global income drops by 2050 due to climate change. The retraction followed the discovery of data inaccuracies, specifically flawed economic data from Uzbekistan, and underestimated statistical uncertainties, rendering the original findings unreliable.
Here are the key details regarding this and other notable climate retractions:

Key Details of the Retracted Nature Study (2025)

• Original Claim: Climate change would slash global income by 19% by 2050 and cost more to manage than fix.
• Why it was withdrawn: The authors found errors in underlying economic data, particularly for Uzbekistan (1995–1999), and acknowledged the statistical uncertainty was too high.
• Outcome: The authors are working on a revised version, but the original paper was officially retracted.

Other Notable Climate Study Retractions/Controversies

• "No Climate Emergency" Study (2023): Springer Nature retracted a 2022 article that claimed no evidence of a climate emergency, citing a loss of confidence in the results and conclusions.
• Federal Report Criticism (2025): Scientists criticized a draft DOE report for "cherry-picked" evidence and fundamentally incorrect claims, though this was more about scientific integrity than a formal, widespread retraction of a single peer-reviewed paper.

Context on Scientific Integrity

• Retractions occur when errors, flawed methodologies, or data issues are discovered post-publication, which is a standard, self-correcting part of the scientific process.
• The vast consensus remains that human-induced climate change is occurring.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Hmmm...So many fallacies, such little time...Starting with...

• Appeal to authority
• Begging the question
• Proof by verbocity
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc
• Red herring
• Broad brush

History is replete with the villainy of The State...To deny that is to deny human nature.

You obviously haven't read the East Anglia emails.

 

[Hafar1014]

Net zero is a policy goal, not science. Climate science doesn’t care about civilization, politics or ideology. It just measures reality. Claiming policy goals equal a “scientific attack” confuses evidence with political debate. You can argue about implementation all you want, but that doesn’t erase decades of global measurements and independent research.

25 failed global warming predictions: for all the cultists who are always demanding peer reviewed "scientific" papers.
1. Gore, A. et al., Complete Dissociation of All Earth’s Molecules Will Definitively Happen by 2010. Journal of Climate Science That Never Happened, Vol. 23, pp. 34–374 (2002).
2. Hansen, J., Manhattan to Be Permanently Underwater by 2015: Real Estate Listings Included. Transactions of Tidal Panic, Vol. 7, pp. 101–118 (1988).
3. IPCC, Every Glacier on Earth Gone by Friday Afternoon. Bulletin of Overconfident Forecasts, Vol. 2, pp. 56–60 (1990).
4. Lovelock, J., Britain Will Be a Desert by 2005 Except for Tea Shops. Proceedings of Drastic Overstatements, Vol. 14, pp. 88–96 (1993).
5. Suzuki, D., Children Will Never Build Snowmen Again After 2012. Canadian Journal of Totally Wrong Winters, Vol. 19, pp. 201–212 (2001).
6. Anonymous (cited in cable news), Global Cooling to Begin at Precisely Noon on January 1, 1980. Annals of Selectively Remembered Science, Vol. 3, pp. 404–410 (1974).
7. Hansen, J., New Ice Age Guaranteed Unless You Ban Hairspray by 1979. Journal of Frosty Prophecies, Vol. 66, pp. 13–17 (1971).
8. Pachauri, R., The Himalayas Will Melt Faster Than Ice Cubes in a Cocktail Shaker. Bulletin of Himalayan Exaggerations, Vol. 21, pp. 314–322 (2007).
9. Gore, A. & DiCaprio, L., Hollywood Stars to Sublimate into Pure Carbon by 2017. Proceedings of the Academy of Alarmist Arts, Vol. 3, pp. 88–97 (2006).
10. EPA (fictional memo), Bananas Will Replace Corn in Nebraska by 1995. Midwestern Journal of Tropical Agriculture, Vol. 5, pp. 55–66 (1983).
11. Mann, M., The Hockey Stick Will Literally Poke You in the Eye by 2007. Journal of Overextended Metaphors, Vol. 12, pp. 121–128 (1999).
12. Hansen, J. & Schmidt, G., CO₂ Will Reach 1000 ppm and Summon Godzilla by 2012. Transactions of Cinematic Climate Science, Vol. 44, pp. 88–103 (2005).
13. Lovins, A., Entire U.S. Economy to Collapse from Light Bulb Shortage by 2009. Journal of Panic Buying Studies, Vol. 8, pp. 72–81 (1995).
14. Greenpeace, Arctic Ice to Vanish by the Time You Finish Reading This Sentence. Proceedings of Premature Declarations, Vol. 9, pp. 1–2 (2007).
15. Hansen, J., Earth to Spin Out of Orbit by 2011 Due to Prius Emissions. Journal of Orbital Nonsense, Vol. 22, pp. 199–205 (2004).
16. Anonymous Columnist, Volcanoes Prove CO₂ Isn’t Real, Also Dinosaurs Never Died. Daily Journal of Denier Folklore, Vol. 1, pp. 1–∞ (2010).
17. Ehrlich, P., All Fish Will Be Extinct by 1990 Except for Canned Tuna. Journal of Seafood That Got Away, Vol. 7, pp. 177–184 (1972).
18. Hansen, J., The Statue of Liberty to Require Snorkel by 2006. Proceedings of Aquatic Iconography, Vol. 11, pp. 34–38 (1989).
19. IPCC, Hurricane Season to Last Forever Starting in 2001. Annals of Eternal Storms, Vol. 6, pp. 444–452 (1995).
20. Anonymous Think Tank, Global Warming to End All Sports by 2015 Except Extreme Curling. Journal of Athletic Alarmism, Vol. 3, pp. 90–94 (2000).
21. Gore, A., Earth Will Be Completely Smooth (No Mountains) by 2018. Bulletin of Flattened Landscapes, Vol. 4, pp. 23–31 (2002).
22. Mann, M., Pumpkin Spice Lattes Causing Catastrophic Feedback Loops. Seasonal Journal of Climate Overreach, Vol. 1, pp. 88–93 (2014).
23. Hansen, J., New York Will Require Gondolas for Transportation by 2005. Journal of Venetian Futures, Vol. 9, pp. 101–111 (1986).
24. Pachauri, R., The Sun Will Literally Explode from Global Warming by 2020. Bulletin of Stellar Exaggerations, Vol. 42, pp. 999–1007 (2008).
25. Fox, J., Snow in Texas Proves Climate Scientists Wrong Forever. Proceedings of One Weather Event Disproves Everything, Vol. 1, pp. 1–1 (2011).

 

[Oddball]

Climate science doesn’t care about civilization, politics or ideology.

The East Anglia emails prove this claim to be 100% horseshit.

 

[Anomalism]

Can the thread author please tell us how green they are? What kind of vehicle do you have and how many miles per week do you drive? How large is your abode. Do you have solar panels? Do you use A/C....and everything else that greenies preach

Whether someone drives a car, uses A/C, or has solar panels has zero bearing on the reliability of decades of independent measurements and global research. Personal behavior doesn’t determine truth.

 

[Hafar1014]

Net zero is a policy goal, not a scientific law. Climate science doesn’t care about civilization, politics or ideology. It just measures reality. Claiming policy goals equal a “scientific attack” confuses evidence with political debate. You can argue about implementation all you want, but that doesn’t erase decades of global measurements and independent research.

Retractions don’t prove science is fake. They prove the system works. Consensus in science isn’t a single paper or model; it’s the pattern that emerges across thousands of independent studies, datasets, and methods. Retractions tweak details, refine models, and discard what doesn’t hold up. That’s not evidence of uncertainty at the core; it’s evidence that science is adversarial and self-correcting.

Climate change research is all fake. They use insignificant correlations and predictions that never come true. It drives the green energy industrial complex that is now in decline in America but is destroying the economies in Europe. Any research that opposes the human cause of climate change will never be funded. Renewable energy cant eet the demand of AI and data centers cost too much and is unreliable. Manufacturers are leaving Europe to come to America which is now using nuclear and fossil fuels. Wind turbines have been canceled all over the country. In 10 years they will all be scrap. The green energy movement is in decline now as it has failed in the worst way. Its only supported by toxic ideology

 

[Anomalism]

exposedFake Climate change study
In December 2025, the journal Nature retracted a major 2024 study by Potsdam Institute researchers that predicted severe, 19% global income drops by 2050 due to climate change. The retraction followed the discovery of data inaccuracies, specifically flawed economic data from Uzbekistan, and underestimated statistical uncertainties, rendering the original findings unreliable.
Here are the key details regarding this and other notable climate retractions:

Key Details of the Retracted Nature Study (2025)

• Original Claim: Climate change would slash global income by 19% by 2050 and cost more to manage than fix.
• Why it was withdrawn: The authors found errors in underlying economic data, particularly for Uzbekistan (1995–1999), and acknowledged the statistical uncertainty was too high.
• Outcome: The authors are working on a revised version, but the original paper was officially retracted.

Other Notable Climate Study Retractions/Controversies

• "No Climate Emergency" Study (2023): Springer Nature retracted a 2022 article that claimed no evidence of a climate emergency, citing a loss of confidence in the results and conclusions.
• Federal Report Criticism (2025): Scientists criticized a draft DOE report for "cherry-picked" evidence and fundamentally incorrect claims, though this was more about scientific integrity than a formal, widespread retraction of a single peer-reviewed paper.

Context on Scientific Integrity

• Retractions occur when errors, flawed methodologies, or data issues are discovered post-publication, which is a standard, self-correcting part of the scientific process.
• The vast consensus remains that human-induced climate change is occurring.

Yes, individual studies get retracted. That’s how science works. It’s supposed to self-correct. Retractions, errors, and replication issues are not evidence that the entire field is a hoax. They’re evidence that scientists are human.

The retracted Potsdam study and others don’t change the underlying measurements of the atmosphere, oceans, ice cores, or global temperature trends. Independent teams across decades, continents, and political systems all reach the same conclusion.

Pointing to a retraction to discredit climate science is like pointing to a single bad engineering report to claim bridges don’t actually hold weight. Errors exist, but the system is adversarial, transparent, and cross-checked constantly. That’s why consensus emerges despite mistakes, not in spite of it.

You're actually showing us how science works the way it's supposed to, but framing it as proof that it's fake.

 

[Hafar1014]

Whether someone drives a car, uses A/C, or has solar panels has zero bearing on the reliability of decades of independent measurements and global research. Personal behavior doesn’t determine truth.

None of the predictions ever came true which means they are frauds or incompetent. Most of the research was manipulated to create the outcome they wanted. CO2 doesnt make the earth warm it makes it green and we dont have enough. The sun creates climate not human activity

 

[Anomalism]

25 failed global warming predictions: for all the cultists who are always demanding peer reviewed "scientific" papers.
1. Gore, A. et al., Complete Dissociation of All Earth’s Molecules Will Definitively Happen by 2010. Journal of Climate Science That Never Happened, Vol. 23, pp. 34–374 (2002).
2. Hansen, J., Manhattan to Be Permanently Underwater by 2015: Real Estate Listings Included. Transactions of Tidal Panic, Vol. 7, pp. 101–118 (1988).
3. IPCC, Every Glacier on Earth Gone by Friday Afternoon. Bulletin of Overconfident Forecasts, Vol. 2, pp. 56–60 (1990).
4. Lovelock, J., Britain Will Be a Desert by 2005 Except for Tea Shops. Proceedings of Drastic Overstatements, Vol. 14, pp. 88–96 (1993).
5. Suzuki, D., Children Will Never Build Snowmen Again After 2012. Canadian Journal of Totally Wrong Winters, Vol. 19, pp. 201–212 (2001).
6. Anonymous (cited in cable news), Global Cooling to Begin at Precisely Noon on January 1, 1980. Annals of Selectively Remembered Science, Vol. 3, pp. 404–410 (1974).
7. Hansen, J., New Ice Age Guaranteed Unless You Ban Hairspray by 1979. Journal of Frosty Prophecies, Vol. 66, pp. 13–17 (1971).
8. Pachauri, R., The Himalayas Will Melt Faster Than Ice Cubes in a Cocktail Shaker. Bulletin of Himalayan Exaggerations, Vol. 21, pp. 314–322 (2007).
9. Gore, A. & DiCaprio, L., Hollywood Stars to Sublimate into Pure Carbon by 2017. Proceedings of the Academy of Alarmist Arts, Vol. 3, pp. 88–97 (2006).
10. EPA (fictional memo), Bananas Will Replace Corn in Nebraska by 1995. Midwestern Journal of Tropical Agriculture, Vol. 5, pp. 55–66 (1983).
11. Mann, M., The Hockey Stick Will Literally Poke You in the Eye by 2007. Journal of Overextended Metaphors, Vol. 12, pp. 121–128 (1999).
12. Hansen, J. & Schmidt, G., CO₂ Will Reach 1000 ppm and Summon Godzilla by 2012. Transactions of Cinematic Climate Science, Vol. 44, pp. 88–103 (2005).
13. Lovins, A., Entire U.S. Economy to Collapse from Light Bulb Shortage by 2009. Journal of Panic Buying Studies, Vol. 8, pp. 72–81 (1995).
14. Greenpeace, Arctic Ice to Vanish by the Time You Finish Reading This Sentence. Proceedings of Premature Declarations, Vol. 9, pp. 1–2 (2007).
15. Hansen, J., Earth to Spin Out of Orbit by 2011 Due to Prius Emissions. Journal of Orbital Nonsense, Vol. 22, pp. 199–205 (2004).
16. Anonymous Columnist, Volcanoes Prove CO₂ Isn’t Real, Also Dinosaurs Never Died. Daily Journal of Denier Folklore, Vol. 1, pp. 1–∞ (2010).
17. Ehrlich, P., All Fish Will Be Extinct by 1990 Except for Canned Tuna. Journal of Seafood That Got Away, Vol. 7, pp. 177–184 (1972).
18. Hansen, J., The Statue of Liberty to Require Snorkel by 2006. Proceedings of Aquatic Iconography, Vol. 11, pp. 34–38 (1989).
19. IPCC, Hurricane Season to Last Forever Starting in 2001. Annals of Eternal Storms, Vol. 6, pp. 444–452 (1995).
20. Anonymous Think Tank, Global Warming to End All Sports by 2015 Except Extreme Curling. Journal of Athletic Alarmism, Vol. 3, pp. 90–94 (2000).
21. Gore, A., Earth Will Be Completely Smooth (No Mountains) by 2018. Bulletin of Flattened Landscapes, Vol. 4, pp. 23–31 (2002).
22. Mann, M., Pumpkin Spice Lattes Causing Catastrophic Feedback Loops. Seasonal Journal of Climate Overreach, Vol. 1, pp. 88–93 (2014).
23. Hansen, J., New York Will Require Gondolas for Transportation by 2005. Journal of Venetian Futures, Vol. 9, pp. 101–111 (1986).
24. Pachauri, R., The Sun Will Literally Explode from Global Warming by 2020. Bulletin of Stellar Exaggerations, Vol. 42, pp. 999–1007 (2008).
25. Fox, J., Snow in Texas Proves Climate Scientists Wrong Forever. Proceedings of One Weather Event Disproves Everything, Vol. 1, pp. 1–1 (2011).

Ah, now we’re firmly in “list every exaggerated claim and call it proof of hoax” territory. That’s pure misdirection.

Nice list, but it proves nothing about the core of climate science. Cherry-picking sensational claims, misremembered predictions, or satirical articles doesn’t change the facts measured across decades by thousands of independent teams worldwide.

Science isn’t built on press releases, op-eds, or exaggerations; it’s built on replicated measurements, verified data, and reproducible results. One overstatement or mistake doesn’t invalidate the entire body of evidence. The failed predictions you cite are distractions from the reality.

 

[Anomalism]

The East Anglia emails prove this claim to be 100% horseshit.

The East Anglia emails don’t “disprove” climate science. They show private frustration and debate among scientists, exactly what happens in any adversarial field. Missteps, snark, and heated discussion don’t invalidate decades of independent measurements, replication, or global datasets.

Science is messy and human, but consensus emerges from what survives repeated scrutiny, not from the tone of private emails. Using a few unflattering messages to dismiss an entire field is illogical.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Whether someone drives a car, uses A/C, or has solar panels has zero bearing on the reliability of decades of independent measurements and global research. Personal behavior doesn’t determine truth.

So you wont disclose how green you are.........ooooooops

 

[Anomalism]

None of the predictions ever came true which means they are frauds or incompetent. Most of the research was manipulated to create the outcome they wanted. CO2 doesnt make the earth warm it makes it green and we dont have enough. The sun creates climate not human activity

“Blame the policy and the industry, therefore the science is fake." Nope, sorry.

Even if renewable energy policies struggle or some industries falter, that doesn’t disprove decades of independent, adversarial climate research. Economic failures, unreliable tech, or declining subsidies are implementation issues, not evidence that the measurements of CO₂, global temperatures, and human impact are wrong.

Funding bias only limits what gets studied. It doesn’t rewrite physics. If someone could show humans aren’t driving warming, fame, grants, and historical recognition would be waiting. That hasn’t happened. Policies may fail. Industries may flounder. Reality doesn’t negotiate with ideology or profit margins.

 

[Anomalism]

So you wont disclose how green you are.........ooooooops

I'm refusing to participate in your misdirection attempt. It's irrelevant and has nothing to do with the actual discussion.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I'm refusing to participate in your misdirection attempt. It's irrelevant and has nothing to do with the actual discussion.

Not misdirection at all......if ya preach it ya better live it so show your creds dumbass.......