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

[Calypso Jones]

This is a religion. Nothing anyone says will destroy their faith in this new age religion.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fake science paid for by the green energy indistrual complex

LOL Green energy industrial complex? LOL You silly ass, the petro-chemical industrial complex represents a thousand times what the green energy complex has in funds. Probably more like ten thousand times. But fools like you will blab their lies without a single thought in your little head.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is a religion. Nothing anyone says will destroy their faith in this new age religion.

The religion is the cult of Trump, people that elevate a 34 count convicted felon and child rapist to the status of saint. The fact of climate change is based on observation from ground level to satellite data. And every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Sciences, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Against that we have the statements of willfully ignorant fools that probably never took a single science class in high school.

 

[Hafar1014]

LOL Green energy industrial complex? LOL You silly ass, the petro-chemical industrial complex represents a thousand times what the green energy complex has in funds. Probably more like ten thousand times. But fools like you will blab their lies without a single thought in your little head.

And they do a better job lower cost reliable energy andsnow that Trump has killed the green gas BS rule gas energy will drop.
Remember Solyndra. Green energy kicks back money to dencrats who force us toi use their overpriced eneregy and then they go broke

 

[Anomalism]

This is a religion. Nothing anyone says will destroy their faith in this new age religion.

Calling empirically testable claims a religion is the last refuge of someone who’s run out of arguments. It’s pure projection. I'm the one pointing to measurements, instruments, equations, and independent lines of evidence; you’re the one operating on vibes, suspicion, and a blanket claim that science is corrupted. That’s epistemic nihilism. If you throw out all empirical methods, you don’t get a better theory, you get astrology with anger issues. The irony is thick. You accuse me of faith while you're the one believing, without evidence, that everything inconvenient is fake.

 

[Calypso Jones]

You can't argue with these people. Their faith is strong and it is pointless to try to reason with them.

 

[Anomalism]

You can't argue with these people. Their faith is strong and it is pointless to try to reason with them.

You can't argue because the empirical evidence contradicts everything you're suggesting.

 

[Mushroom]

I've given lots of references across multiple threads.

No, you have made endless statements. But I have not seen you make a single reference. There is a major freaking difference between the two.

Jesus is your Lord and Savoir.

There, that's an example of a "statement". It has no reference, nothing behind it to back it up other than what you are saying.

The Yellowstone Caldera is seeing an increase in pressure build up again, as can be seen in ongoing evidence.

There’s a Chicago-sized bulge in Yellowstone National Park, and it’s still rising.

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem remains one of the most dynamic places on the planet. This is largely due to the ongoing volcanic, geothermal, and hydrothermal activity that keeps the park’s geysers erupting and hot springs bubbling.

Mike Poland, scientist-in-charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, and other scientists are monitoring an area of ongoing uplift on the northern rim of the Yellowstone Caldera, near Gibbon Falls.

Yellowstone Scientists Monitor Chicago-Sized Bulge Along Volcano's North Rim

Scientists are monitoring a city of Chicago-sized swath of rising ground at the northern volcanic rim of the Yellowstone Caldera in Yellowstone National…

cowboystatedaily.com

Now the above, that is a reference.

Hell, even this at least is a reference.

Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 2:11 - New International Version

Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.

www.biblegateway.com

You do not make references, I have never seen you make a reference. All you do is make statements, as if your "Trust me, Bro" is enough. It is not enough, all I see you do ad nauseum is apparently quoting the IPCC, as if that is the only source that you will accept and everybody should just bow down to the White Paper of the IPCC. And you can't even bother to show everybody where you got the statements so we can verify if you are quoting them correctly and not taking them out of context.

Myself, I tend to favor the APA Reference format, which is what I use when I make a reference. I suggest you take the time to learn it, and actually start to use it. Because what you do is nothing at all like a reference.

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples

And no, it is not "observably false", because I just scrolled through pages of your endless statements. No references, just statements.

And a statement is not a reference.

And finally, if you are the one making the claim, it is up to you to do the homework and provide the reference. You do not demand that others take the time and as for one, you provide one in your post. If you notice, I do that all the damned time. As does Ding and many others.

You, you just reject anything you do not agree with, ignore anything you can not answer, and make more statements. As I said, it is like trying to have a debate about science with a religious fanatic.

So are you going to actually start using references? Or just endlessly making statements?

 

[Anomalism]

No, you have made endless statements. But I have not seen you make a single reference. There is a major freaking difference between the two.

Jesus is your Lord and Savoir.

There, that's an example of a "statement". It has no reference, nothing behind it to back it up other than what you are saying.

The Yellowstone Caldera is seeing an increase in pressure build up again, as can be seen in ongoing evidence.

Yellowstone Scientists Monitor Chicago-Sized Bulge Along Volcano's North Rim

Scientists are monitoring a city of Chicago-sized swath of rising ground at the northern volcanic rim of the Yellowstone Caldera in Yellowstone National…

cowboystatedaily.com

Now the above, that is a reference.

Hell, even this at least is a reference.

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 2:11 - New International Version

Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.

www.biblegateway.com

You do not make references, I have never seen you make a reference. All you do is make statements, as if your "Trust me, Bro" is enough. It is not enough, all I see you do ad nauseum is apparently quoting the IPCC, as if that is the only source that you will accept and everybody should just bow down to the White Paper of the IPCC. And you can't even bother to show everybody where you got the statements so we can verify if you are quoting them correctly and not taking them out of context.

Myself, I tend to favor the APA Reference format, which is what I use when I make a reference. I suggest you take the time to learn it, and actually start to use it. Because what you do is nothing at all like a reference.

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/references/examples

And no, it is not "observably false", because I just scrolled through pages of your endless statements. No references, just statements.

And a statement is not a reference.

And finally, if you are the one making the claim, it is up to you to do the homework and provide the reference. You do not demand that others take the time and as for one, you provide one in your post. If you notice, I do that all the damned time. As does Ding and many others.

You, you just reject anything you do not agree with, ignore anything you can not answer, and make more statements. As I said, it is like trying to have a debate about science with a religious fanatic.

I've definitely given references, a bunch of them. Which claims would you like a reference for? Be specific.

 

[Mushroom]

I've definitely given references, a bunch of them. Which claims would you like a reference for? Be specific.

Well, let's see.

Page 1, no references.
Page 2, no references.
Page 3, no references.
Page 4, no references.

In fact, I see references from Hafar1014, from Ding, from myself, even from MisterBeale, Monk-Eye, Oddball and others.

But want to know what I have not seen you make a single time in 26 pages of discussion?

A single frigging reference. Just endless statements.

And it is not up to others to demand you give sources of your statements, that is just freaking how things are. Try what you are doing in a scholarly setting and you would be bounced right the hell out. Hell, I'm just a "dumb Marine bullet catcher"", but even I know to use references and how to do it.

 

[Anomalism]

Well, let's see.

Page 1, no references.
Page 2, no references.
Page 3, no references.
Page 4, no references.

In fact, I see references from Hafar1014, from Ding, from myself, even from MisterBeale, Monk-Eye, Oddball and others.

But want to know what I have not seen you make a single time in 26 pages of discussion?

A single frigging reference. Just endless statements.

Which claims would you like a reference for? Be specific. I can provide a source for literally everything I have said. Call my bluff.

Go on...

 

[Mushroom]

Which claims would you like a reference for? Be specific. I can provide a source for literally everything I have said. Call my bluff.

Go on...

Got it, in other words you are not willing to provide references, therefore I will largely ignore anything you say. Because you refuse to reference anything, and act all offended because they dared to even ask you to provide a reference.

OK, let me call your silly bluff. I want to see specific references to every one of your posts in this thread. Not just you vomiting up "Look at this 300 page document", quote the specific segment of that which was applicable and the link to where it is in said document.

Bluff called, now it's your turn.

 

[Anomalism]

Got it, in other words you are not willing to provide references, therefore I will largely ignore anything you say. Because you refuse to reference anything, and act all offended because they dared to even ask you to provide a reference.

OK, let me call your silly bluff. I want to see specific references to every one of your posts in this thread. Not just you vomiting up "Look at this 300 page document", quote the specific segment of that which was applicable and the link to where it is in said document.

Bluff called, now it's your turn.

I've said a lot of things in this thread. You're intentionally obfuscating now because you're backed into a corner. Give me one specific claim you want referenced, or multiple, that's fine too. Make a list if you want. I know you won't give me any though, because you know I can and will source them.

You won't get specific because you know I'll deliver.

One claim. Any claim. Go on. What needs clarification?

You won't give me anything specific, because that's not your game. You're not interested in the science.

 

[Stryder50]

Yes, CO2 and temperature have influenced each other over geological time. Past warming often led to CO2 increases from oceans and biosphere feedbacks.

That doesn’t contradict the current situation. Today, we have direct, measured emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels, rising faster than natural processes can absorb, and a quantified radiative forcing that matches the observed warming. The difference is causation is now observable, not inferred indirectly from paleoclimate. CO2 isn’t just a follower of temperature anymore; it’s an active driver, pushing the Earth’s energy balance upward, which is why modern warming aligns closely with human emissions rather than natural cycles.

You over look the factor of volume/mass on net effect.
That one molecule of CO2 IS NOT going to transfer a large equal amount of it's retained heat to the other relative 2,499 (dry) air molecules. That one molecule can only "radiative force" another neighboring molecule, or two at best. But not all the other 2,499 that compose the total share of the atmosphere.

Current align is coincidence not cause, AND many charts/graphs show the CO2 increase lags after the temperature increase has occurred.

Nor does rate of increase matter significantly when the driver, if any, would be volume of mass/quantity.

When you blow up a balloon and fill it to the point of bursting, it bursts due to the pressure from the volume/mass of the air inside it, but the rate of filling isn't a factor. It will burst when threshold is met, whether it was a slow process or a quick one of inflation.

As the chart I showed, the historical data records of past millions of years show that often when CO2 was several times current concentrations, there were periods when the temperatures were lower than what your fake models suggest.

 

[Anomalism]

You over look the factor of volume/mass on net effect.
That one molecule of CO2 IS NOT going to transfer a large equal amount of it's retained heat to the other relative 2,499 (dry) air molecules. That one molecule can only "radiative force" another neighboring molecule, or two at best. But not all the other 2,499 that compose the total share of the atmosphere.

Current align is coincidence not cause, AND many charts/graphs show the CO2 increase lags after the temperature increase has occurred.

Nor does rate of increase matter significantly when the driver, if any, would be volume of mass/quantity.

When you blow up a balloon and fill it to the point of bursting, it bursts due to the pressure from the volume/mass of the air inside it, but the rate of filling isn't a factor. It will burst when threshold is met, whether it was a slow process or a quick one of inflation.

As the chart I showed, the historical data records of past millions of years show that often when CO2 was several times current concentrations, there were periods when the temperatures were lower than what your fake models suggest.

CO2’s effect isn’t about counting molecules one by one like billiard balls. It’s about energy transfer across the system. Each CO2 molecule absorbs infrared radiation at specific wavelengths, then re-emits it, distributing energy to surrounding molecules through collisions. That’s how a trace gas can measurably alter the bulk energy of the atmosphere. You don’t need 50% of the molecules to be CO2 for radiative forcing to matter; the physics is about absorption/emission probabilities and energy flux, which are directly measured in labs and by satellites.

As for the lag in paleoclimate records: yes, temperature changes initially triggered CO2 release from oceans or biosphere feedbacks, but that’s feedback, not forcing. Today the causation is flipped: we’re injecting CO2 into the atmosphere at rates far faster than natural absorption, and the radiative forcing is measurable and matches the warming trend. Past coincidences don’t negate the physics; the system’s sensitivity to CO2 is quantified and observed, not inferred from models alone. Higher past CO2 didn’t always warm the planet more because the climate system’s boundary conditions were different, not because CO2 is powerless.

This isn’t opinion or fake models. It’s radiative transfer, conservation of energy, and verified observations all lining up. You can’t just dismiss it with volume analogies or selective paleodata.

 

[Hafar1014]

Calling empirically testable claims a religion is the last refuge of someone who’s run out of arguments. It’s pure projection. I'm the one pointing to measurements, instruments, equations, and independent lines of evidence; you’re the one operating on vibes, suspicion, and a blanket claim that science is corrupted. That’s epistemic nihilism. If you throw out all empirical methods, you don’t get a better theory, you get astrology with anger issues. The irony is thick. You accuse me of faith while you're the one believing, without evidence, that everything inconvenient is fake.

Your belief in science is a religion in your case. You use it to create reality that doesnt exist

 

[Anomalism]

Your belief in science is a religion in your case. You use it to create reality that doesnt exist

Science is just science. You have no argument at all other than "This is a religion!"

You don't understand high school level science, let alone the intricacies of the subject at hand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL Green energy industrial complex? LOL You silly ass, the petro-chemical industrial complex represents a thousand times what the green energy complex has in funds. Probably more like ten thousand times. But fools like you will blab their lies without a single thought in your little head.

It's true, petroleum is actually profitable.

 

[Mushroom]

One claim. Any claim. Go on. What needs clarification?

I did ask you already about one that I asked for a reference for, which is what led us down this rabbit hole when I asked you for a reference. And I'm done with it as you will not provide any and just expect people to believe anything you say.

That's religion, not science. They actually expect people to be compliant little sheep and believe anything they are told. Where as real science thrives on skepticism and to be taken seriously demands to be challenged.

That's the difference between religion and science. One demands challenges, the other gets angry at challenges and demands acceptance.

It's alright, I accept that you will not provide references, and act all belligerent when asked for them.

 

[Anomalism]

I did ask you already about one that I asked for a reference for, which is what led us down this rabbit hole when I asked you for a reference. And I'm done with it as you will not provide any and just expect people to believe anything you say.

That's religion, not science. They actually expect people to be compliant little sheep and believe anything they are told. Where as real science thrives on skepticism and to be taken seriously demands to be challenged.

That's the difference between religion and science. One demands challenges, the other gets angry at challenges and demands acceptance.

It's alright, I accept that you will not provide references, and act all belligerent when asked for them.

I have not been stingy about sources or references. There is no rabbit hole. Absolutely everything I've said has a source, and I am willing to provide those sources.

You are straight up lying now, though it's not surprising.

Anytime you are ready I will source absolutely anything I've said.

Literally any claim I've made I will source. You have completely abandoned honesty and exposed your true nature.

Again, which claims would you like sourced? If you're not being dishonest you'll provide them.

Whenever you're ready, I'm ready. You know you're being dishonest though, so you won't get specific just like I said you wouldn't.