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

[EMH]

Exxon's own internal research confirmed climate change in the 1970s

That was planted by CO2 FRAUD because CO2 FRAUD has ZERO actual evidence to back itself up. Once you establish increasing atmospheric CO2 does not warm atmosphere, the planted docs on Exxon get exposed....


Actual data from satellites and balloons, before being FUDGED, and Surface Air Pressure all prove atmosphere has not warmed at all despite rising CO2. So the allegation that "Exxon knew" fails the first smell test, they "knew" something that is now empirically proven as complete bullshit.

 

[EMH]

And the OP is trying to get away with blurring

Climate Change

and

Global Warming


Climate Change is a science, like chemistry, and Earth's climate does change, nobody disputes that.

Global Warming is a completely faux "theory" that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming. There is NO ACTUAL DATA backing up that claim, only FUDGE.

 

[Anomalism]

That was planted by CO2 FRAUD because CO2 FRAUD has ZERO actual evidence to back itself up. Once you establish increasing atmospheric CO2 does not warm atmosphere, the planted docs on Exxon get exposed....


Actual data from satellites and balloons, before being FUDGED, and Surface Air Pressure all prove atmosphere has not warmed at all despite rising CO2. So the allegation that "Exxon knew" fails the first smell test, they "knew" something that is now empirically proven as complete bullshit.

And the OP is trying to get away with blurring

Climate Change

and

Global Warming


Climate Change is a science, like chemistry, and Earth's climate does change, nobody disputes that.

Global Warming is a completely faux "theory" that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes warming. There is NO ACTUAL DATA backing up that claim, only FUDGE.

This is just assertion stacking. You keep saying “fraud” and “fudged” as if repetition substitutes for evidence. It doesn’t. The Exxon documents weren’t planted; they were internal memos, models, and presentations created by Exxon’s own scientists, using the same radiative transfer physics published in open literature decades earlier. They predicted 0.2C warming per decade and Arctic amplification, which is almost exactly what was later observed. If the entire physical basis were fake, you’d have to explain how Exxon independently reproduced the same equations and results as academic climate physics in the 1950s–70s. Conspiracy theories don’t get to ignore internal corporate research just because it’s inconvenient.

The “satellites and balloons show no warming” line is an outdated zombie argument from the early 2000s that died after calibration errors were fixed. Modern satellite datasets both show clear tropospheric warming, and radiosondes agree. On top of that, ocean heat content, which satellites don’t even measure, shows massive, monotonic energy gain. That alone kills the no warming claim, because energy conservation is not optional. And surface air pressure is physically irrelevant to greenhouse theory; radiative forcing is about photon absorption and emission spectra, not how heavy the atmosphere is.

Saying climate change is real but global warming is fake is semantic gymnastics: global warming is one specific, well defined component of climate change, predicted by first-principles physics and confirmed by multiple independent measurement systems. What you’re offering isn’t skepticism; it’s just denial wrapped in capital letters.

 

[Mushroom]

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.

Then do it. There is no "willing", you should be doing that as routine. And as I said, you have never given a single reference in this entire thread.

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

Lying? Go back to post 476.

Got any kind of reference to back up that claim?

That was the first (but not the last) time I challenged you for a reference. That was 4 pages ago, and you still have never provided one, and are now attacking me and calling me a liar, I guess because you believe I have never asked for a reference.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The religion is the cult of Trump, people that elevate a 34 count convicted felon and child rapist to the status of saint.

And elect him president, which is pretty embarrassing for your side.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You just connected climate science to transgender issues with zero logical throughline.

Well, actually, when you are accusing the experts of being corrupt, there is some connection.

How much, I don't know. But it is quite clear that what once was (in terms of where the medical field was) is no longer.

 

[EMH]

The Exxon documents weren’t planted

OH yes they were, because they are completely WRONG... LOL!!!

This is what happens when government is allowed to do more than just publish data. CO2 FRAUD is a conspiracy which includes growing the size and scope of government, and creating a new class of lawsuits for the parasitic legal profession, not to mention enriching and empowering Communist China.

Since it always was a fraud and knew all along it was a fraud, it had to "manufacture" "evidence" and the Exxon docs are just that. Exxon and the oil industry need to sue every attorney who ever sued them for climate BS, and DOJ needs to charge each one with a count of treason per lawsuit.

 

[EMH]

that died after calibration errors were fixed.

So that's the excuse for the 2005 fudge job now.

Funny, it has changed...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

original excuses

orbit wobble of satellites, wouldn't change the readings at all
a shade issue for the balloons, which would require a one time constant added to each data, keeping a flat line a flat line, but somehow this changed a flat line into an upward slope...

 

[EMH]

ocean heat content, which satellites don’t even measure, shows massive, monotonic energy gain.

which, if true, would result in a massive increase in cane activity, which hasn't happened, not at all, strongest decade for canes still the 1940s, second place 1890s...

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

 

[EMH]

And surface air pressure is physically irrelevant to greenhouse theory; radiative forcing is about photon absorption and emission spectra, not how heavy the atmosphere is.

The "greenhouse gas" argument was always bullshit. All gasses absorb some part of Sun EM.

Surface Air Pressure not going up on Earth proves

1. Earth is not warming
2. Earth is not experiencing an ongoing net ice melt

 

[HikerGuy83]

I already killed that argument in my post. I laid out exactly why the incentive structure for scientists points toward breaking consensus, not maintaining it. Fame, career advancement, peer review, replication challenges, every incentive a scientist has rewards them for proving the consensus wrong, not for protecting it.

I am not so sure you killed anything.

If you are saying that bucking the trend is a glory mount, I think you might want to reconsider.

Judith Curry certainly got fame alright....to the point she quit a very good job.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on alleged 97% climate ‘consensus’: It’s ‘a big joke’ – ‘Scientists do not agree on the most consequential issues’

“ ?” . … pic.twitter.com/B4KkcqnJT4 — Freedom Research (@freedom_rsrch) August 21, 2025 Dr. Judith Curry on Global Warming: Where Is the Danger? Renowned climatologist Dr. Judith Curry says …

www.climatedepot.com

Now you can spare me the claim that she's just one example.

She reputable and she doesn't even dispute the science. She disputes the claim that there is all this "unity".

The Politics of Climate Change with Dr. Judith Curry

Mike interviews Dr. Judith Curry, a prominent climate scientist, about her views on climate change, the politicization of climate science, and the challenges of transitioning to renewable energy. D…

iowaclimate.org

 

[Anomalism]

Got any kind of reference to back up that claim?

A scientific analysis of Holocene sea level change notes that between roughly 4,200 years ago and the beginning of the industrial era, global mean sea level showed only minor centennial-scale variability of a few centimeters, and that the 20th century rise (∼1.5–1.7 mm/yr) was the fastest in at least the past several thousand years.

Ancient Sea Level as Key to the Future | Oceanography

tos.org

Another geological summary shows how early Holocene rise was dominated by meltwater pulses, followed by much slower rates over the last several thousand years, until the modern acceleration accelerated beyond that baseline.

USGS Publications Warehouse

We reconstructed the last 10,000 years of Holocene relative sea-level rise (RSLR) from sediment core records in near Chesapeake Bay, eastern U.S.A., including new marsh records from the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers, Virginia. Results show mean RSLR rates of 2.6 mm yr-1 from 10 to 8 kilo-annum...

pubs.usgs.gov

 

[Anomalism]

Well, actually, when you are accusing the experts of being corrupt, there is some connection.

How much, I don't know. But it is quite clear that what once was (in terms of where the medical field was) is no longer.

You didn’t answer the point. You're asserting a vague cultural suspicion and called it a connection.

“Experts can be corrupt sometimes” is not a logical bridge between climate physics and transgender politics. That’s just generalized institutional distrust, which could be used to connect literally any two topics on Earth. By that standard, dentistry is connected to quantum mechanics and aviation safety is connected to astrology.

If you think climate science is wrong, you need to argue about radiative transfer, spectroscopy, energy balance, ocean heat content, or paleoclimate data. Not “the vibe of modern medicine feels different than it used to.”

What you’re doing is substituting epistemic cynicism for an actual argument. It’s not a throughline, it’s a fog machine: “things feel off, therefore everything is suspect.”

That’s just distrust with no mechanism, no evidence, and no explanatory power. It explains nothing and connects nothing. It just gestures at corruption as a universal solvent and hopes the audience fills in the blanks. Which is convenient, because blanks don’t require you to understand any actual science.

 

[Anomalism]

OH yes they were, because they are completely WRONG... LOL!!!

This is what happens when government is allowed to do more than just publish data. CO2 FRAUD is a conspiracy which includes growing the size and scope of government, and creating a new class of lawsuits for the parasitic legal profession, not to mention enriching and empowering Communist China.

Since it always was a fraud and knew all along it was a fraud, it had to "manufacture" "evidence" and the Exxon docs are just that. Exxon and the oil industry need to sue every attorney who ever sued them for climate BS, and DOJ needs to charge each one with a count of treason per lawsuit.

You’re not refuting the Exxon documents, you’re asserting they’re false by ideology. “They’re wrong, therefore they were planted” is circular reasoning. The documents are internal technical memos written by Exxon’s own scientists, and they describe standard greenhouse physics that’s been established since the 19th century. They also correctly projected warming trends that later appeared in independent datasets.

If they were manufactured, they would fail basic cross-checks. Instead, their conclusions align with measurements from multiple independent systems: surface temperature records, ocean heat content, and satellite radiation budgets. A fake would diverge from external data; these don’t. Claiming a global conspiracy involving thousands of independent research groups isn’t an evidentiary argument. It avoids engaging with the actual physics.

 

[Anomalism]

So that's the excuse for the 2005 fudge job now.

Funny, it has changed...

Key claim against global warming evaporates

Satellite and weather balloon data used to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening turns out to be based on faulty analyses, according to three new studies.

www.nbcnews.com

original excuses

orbit wobble of satellites, wouldn't change the readings at all
a shade issue for the balloons, which would require a one time constant added to each data, keeping a flat line a flat line, but somehow this changed a flat line into an upward slope...

which, if true, would result in a massive increase in cane activity, which hasn't happened, not at all, strongest decade for canes still the 1940s, second place 1890s...

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

The "greenhouse gas" argument was always bullshit. All gasses absorb some part of Sun EM.

Surface Air Pressure not going up on Earth proves

1. Earth is not warming
2. Earth is not experiencing an ongoing net ice melt

Satellites and surface air pressure are different physical measures entirely. Surface pressure tells you the weight of the atmosphere at a given location, not how much energy the planet is absorbing or emitting. Greenhouse forcing isn’t about adding mass to the atmosphere. It’s about the interaction of infrared radiation with greenhouse gases. CO2 absorbs outgoing longwave radiation at specific wavelengths, trapping energy and slowing the planet’s radiative cooling.

Ocean heat content is a more direct measure of net energy gain because over 90% of excess energy from radiative forcing goes into the oceans. Hurricanes and surface weather are chaotic, short-term manifestations of energy redistribution, they don’t directly track cumulative planetary energy imbalance. You can have rising ocean heat content and still see variability in storms; the lack of an increase in hurricane strikes doesn’t invalidate greenhouse physics or ongoing ice melt.

 

[Anomalism]

I am not so sure you killed anything.

If you are saying that bucking the trend is a glory mount, I think you might want to reconsider.

Judith Curry certainly got fame alright....to the point she quit a very good job.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on alleged 97% climate ‘consensus’: It’s ‘a big joke’ – ‘Scientists do not agree on the most consequential issues’

“ ?” . … pic.twitter.com/B4KkcqnJT4 — Freedom Research (@freedom_rsrch) August 21, 2025 Dr. Judith Curry on Global Warming: Where Is the Danger? Renowned climatologist Dr. Judith Curry says …

www.climatedepot.com

Now you can spare me the claim that she's just one example.

She reputable and she doesn't even dispute the science. She disputes the claim that there is all this "unity".

The Politics of Climate Change with Dr. Judith Curry

Mike interviews Dr. Judith Curry, a prominent climate scientist, about her views on climate change, the politicization of climate science, and the challenges of transitioning to renewable energy. D…

iowaclimate.org

Curry’s case actually reinforces the point. She didn’t quit because the consensus science was wrong. She quit because she ran headlong into the social and political machinery around climate research. Peer pressure doesn't invalidate the underlying physics or observational evidence, it illustrates exactly why breaking consensus is hard, not easy. Incentives in science reward novelty and replication. Curry’s experience shows cultural friction, not empirical fragility.

 

[EMH]

“They’re wrong, therefore they were planted” is circular reasoning.

LOL!!!

No, it is proof they were planted.

If what they said was real, they'd be real, nobody is that stupid.

they describe standard greenhouse physics

Greenhouse physics = the larger the atmosphere, the warmer the planet, all else constant

Your side claims CO2 is the variable and you have NO unFUDGED data showing that.

 

[EMH]

Surface pressure tells you the weight of the atmosphere at a given location, not how much energy the planet is absorbing or emitting

Actually false, there is a temperature component.

Your argument there is that temperature matters down to 0.0000000001 millimeter above sea level and then vanishes at sea level, which is laughable. Air pressure is a force by gas, and force by gas is correlated with temperature.

 

[EMH]

Greenhouse forcing isn’t about adding mass to the atmosphere. It’s about the interaction of infrared radiation with greenhouse gases.

One of the more hilarious lies of CO2 FRAUD, that only IR in EM spectrum matters. O3 Ozone absorbs UV.... for example...

 

[EMH]

Hurricanes and surface weather are chaotic, short-term manifestations

Can't stop lying, can you...


GoogAI

80° Fahrenheit

In order for a hurricane to form, two things must be present: a weather disturbance, such as a thunderstorm, that pulls in warm surface air from all directions and water at the ocean's surface that is at least 80° Fahrenheit (27° Celsius).