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

[Anomalism]

LOL!!!

No, it is proof they were planted.

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





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.

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.

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

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).

You’re conflating separate concepts again. Saying “they were planted because they’re wrong” is circular reasoning; your conclusion is baked into your premise. The Exxon documents report internal corporate research; questioning methodology or conclusions doesn’t magically make them fabricated. That’s not evidence; it’s assertion.

Greenhouse physics isn’t “the larger the atmosphere, the warmer the planet.” It’s about radiative transfer: certain gases absorb specific IR wavelengths emitted by Earth’s surface. CO2 is measurable in its effect because those wavelengths are absorbed and re emitted, increasing energy in the lower atmosphere. Surface pressure simply measures the weight of the air column. It doesn’t quantify radiative energy or ocean heat uptake. Temperature near the surface doesn’t vanish; energy is redistributed via molecular collisions and convection. That’s basic thermodynamics and fluid dynamics.

Ozone absorbs UV, yes, but that energy primarily stays in the stratosphere. UV doesn’t drive lower atmospheric warming or ocean heat content. CO2 absorbs IR right in the troposphere where it matters. That’s what satellites, radiosondes, and surface instruments observe.

Hurricanes and surface weather are chaotic, regional phenomena. The requirement for >80°F surface water is true for storm formation locally, but that doesn’t tell you anything about global planetary energy balance. Ocean heat content, measured by Argo floats and ship profiles, rises consistently even when hurricane counts vary from decade to decade. Hurricanes are an effect of energy already in the system, not a calorimeter for CO2 forcing.

CO2 forcing is about energy addition via IR absorption, not mass, not hurricanes, and not surface pressure. All these concepts are measured and observed directly, not invented in climate models. Disagreeing with that requires rejecting decades of physics, not just climate science.

 

[EMH]

Saying “they were planted because they’re wrong” is circular reasoning; your conclusion is baked into your premise

A fraud that knows it is a fraud doesn't stop lying. It "creates evidence" like planting docs on Exxon.

Greenhouse physics isn’t “the larger the atmosphere, the warmer the planet.”

Are you disputing that?

That's pretty funny.

The "greenhouse effect" is not about specific gasses, it is about the quantity of the gas. The more gas in a planet's atmosphere, the more heat it will retain, and the warmer it gets.

Venus vs Mercury is a great example

 

[EMH]

certain gases absorb specific IR wavelengths emitted by Earth’s surface

yawn, atmosphere not warming...

sincerely

satellites
balloons
surface air pressure




So this guy is arguing...

oceans are warming, but it doesn't matter there is no increase in cane activity, never mind canes don't form unless the water is 80F, so in theory a warming ocean would have more water 80F or warmer.... but that wouldn't cause more canes because there aren't more canes, and that pretty much refutes the claim of "ocean warming."


atmosphere is warming, never mind the actual data from satellites, balloons and surface air pressure all refute that, only FUDGE shows "warming."

 

[Anomalism]

A fraud that knows it is a fraud doesn't stop lying. It "creates evidence" like planting docs on Exxon.





Are you disputing that?

That's pretty funny.

The "greenhouse effect" is not about specific gasses, it is about the quantity of the gas. The more gas in a planet's atmosphere, the more heat it will retain, and the warmer it gets.

Venus vs Mercury is a great example

yawn, atmosphere not warming...

sincerely

satellites
balloons
surface air pressure




So this guy is arguing...

oceans are warming, but it doesn't matter there is no increase in cane activity, never mind canes don't form unless the water is 80F, so in theory a warming ocean would have more water 80F or warmer.... but that wouldn't cause more canes because there aren't more canes, and that pretty much refutes the claim of "ocean warming."


atmosphere is warming, never mind the actual data from satellites, balloons and surface air pressure all refute that, only FUDGE shows "warming."

You’re still fundamentally misrepresenting how climate science works. Satellites, radiosondes, and surface instruments all independently show tropospheric warming. That’s direct measurement, not models. Corrections for orbital decay or sensor drift aren’t fudging. They’re standard experimental calibration, the same thing any physicist does.

Ocean heat content is measured directly by Argo floats, ships, and buoys; it shows a steady increase over decades. You're dismissing decades of independent instrumentation just because it doesn’t match your expectations.

Hurricanes aren’t a global calorimeter. Their frequency and intensity depends on stochastic variability. Warming oceans increase the potential energy available for cyclones, but averages and local conditions determine actual storm formation. Surface pressure and hurricane counts cannot disprove measured global warming; your argument treats selective outcomes as if they override continuous, independently verified physical measurements.

 

[EMH]

^^^^^^^

"fudge is real" "actual data is to be ignored" - the sum total of what this poster has to say...

 

[HikerGuy83]

If you think climate science is wrong,

That's a vague statement.

I believe what you are saying is that if you believe the conclusions that climate scientists are reaching are wrong.

That being that man is causing an "unnatural" warming of the globe.

And just saying it like that isn't giving me much to go on.

Am I missing something in what you are saying?

 

[HikerGuy83]

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.

Maybe I am missing something, but I believe your claim was that you think you "killed" the this idea:

But you're using it to defend the wrong side. You seem to be implying that scientific consensus is the product of converging interests rather than converging evidence. That scientists all agree because they share some common incentive to agree, not because the data points in one direction.

And my point would be that you are wrong to ignore the fact that both might be taking place. And that has been one of the issues people have with climate science. Yes, they have data. They argue over the data as they should. But they clearly detect a trend that most agree with.

But, go against that and you'll feel their wrath. I've already pointed out the tactics of one of the Weather Channel's chief "technical" people.

If you don't believe there has been a pretty robust internal effort to cesure deniers then I think you've not been paying attention. And as you pointed out, many are underpaid (I will say that what they are often paid comes from governments...how much and percentages I don't have...and I am not sure it exists). So you do have a dynamic that could lead to some form of corruption. I am not saying that is reason to throw out all the work they've done.

But it doesn't give a good look.

And ultimately, it's the response that scientists (like Al Gore) were insisting on that gave rise to them being attacked. The whole argument left the lab books and landed in people's checkbooks. But that response has been changing as the movement against what they call "alarmists" has grown. (an internal movement).

 

[Anomalism]

That's a vague statement.

I believe what you are saying is that if you believe the conclusions that climate scientists are reaching are wrong.

That being that man is causing an "unnatural" warming of the globe.

And just saying it like that isn't giving me much to go on.

Am I missing something in what you are saying?

I have made my positions abundantly clear throughout the thread.

 

[Anomalism]

Maybe I am missing something, but I believe your claim was that you think you "killed" the this idea:

But you're using it to defend the wrong side. You seem to be implying that scientific consensus is the product of converging interests rather than converging evidence. That scientists all agree because they share some common incentive to agree, not because the data points in one direction.

And my point would be that you are wrong to ignore the fact that both might be taking place. And that has been one of the issues people have with climate science. Yes, they have data. They argue over the data as they should. But they clearly detect a trend that most agree with.

But, go against that and you'll feel their wrath. I've already pointed out the tactics of one of the Weather Channel's chief "technical" people.

If you don't believe there has been a pretty robust internal effort to cesure deniers then I think you've not been paying attention. And as you pointed out, many are underpaid (I will say that what they are often paid comes from governments...how much and percentages I don't have...and I am not sure it exists). So you do have a dynamic that could lead to some form of corruption. I am not saying that is reason to throw out all the work they've done.

But it doesn't give a good look.

And ultimately, it's the response that scientists (like Al Gore) were insisting on that gave rise to them being attacked. The whole argument left the lab books and landed in people's checkbooks. But that response has been changing as the movement against what they call "alarmists" has grown. (an internal movement).

You’re conflating the social dynamics with the empirical evidence. Curry’s case shows that social and political pressures can be enormous, but her quitting wasn’t because the physics or data failed.

None of this invalidates tropospheric warming, ocean heat accumulation, radiative forcing measurements, or observed sea level rise. Incentives in science favor novelty and replication, not protecting consensus. Evidence stands independently of peer pressure or career risk.

 

[Calypso Jones]

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.

LOLOLOL.... what did I say.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You’re conflating the social dynamics with the empirical evidence.

That's not true. I said nothing about the empirical evidence.

Curry’s case shows that social and political pressures can be enormous, but her quitting wasn’t because the physics or data failed.

And I never argued otherwise. I simply used her example as a counter to (what I percieved to be) your argument that there would a high level of motivation to step away from the "pack" and take a counter position.

Maybe I misread your post.

None of this invalidates tropospheric warming, ocean heat accumulation, radiative forcing measurements, or observed sea level rise.

I never said it did. I was talking strictly human factors....which you said were completely different when you made your argument.....again.....maybe I misunderstood.

Incentives in science favor novelty and replication, not protecting consensus.

When I read that I see something different than your original statement. At the same time, it's hard for me to believe you think that people don't fight like crazy (and this thread might be an example) to protect consensus. Curry is not a true denier, but she's certainly labeled as one....by some inside and many outside the science who believe the world absolutley has to take big steps (something she disagrees with....and some scientists have joined with her) to combat this.

Those are different issues.....I know.

But, in the end that is what drives this.

You only get to tell so many "inconvenient truths" that require people to do things they don't want to do before the microscope you come under get's pretty big.

And all the pros and cons do become conflated in the arguments that follow.

 

[Anomalism]

That's not true. I said nothing about the empirical evidence.


And I never argued otherwise. I simply used her example as a counter to (what I percieved to be) your argument that there would a high level of motivation to step away from the "pack" and take a counter position.

Maybe I misread your post.


I never said it did. I was talking strictly human factors....which you said were completely different when you made your argument.....again.....maybe I misunderstood.

When I read that I see something different than your original statement. At the same time, it's hard for me to believe you think that people don't fight like crazy (and this thread might be an example) to protect consensus. Curry is not a true denier, but she's certainly labeled as one....by some inside and many outside the science who believe the world absolutley has to take big steps (something she disagrees with....and some scientists have joined with her) to combat this.

Those are different issues.....I know.

But, in the end that is what drives this.

You only get to tell so many "inconvenient truths" that require people to do things they don't want to do before the microscope you come under get's pretty big.

And all the pros and cons do become conflated in the arguments that follow.

So you don't deny the empirical evidence or the findings of climate scientists the world over?

It seems like you're dancing around saying what you actually believe, which is boring.

 

[HikerGuy83]

So you don't deny the empirical evidence or the findings of climate scientists the world over?

It seems like you're dancing around saying what you actually believe, which is boring.

I have not denied anything. I have not claimed anything.

I am examining your arguments (your thread title seemed to indicate that is what you were after).

If that isn't your objective, let me know.

 

[Hafar1014]

I have not denied anything. I have not claimed anything.

I am examining your arguments (your thread title seemed to indicate that is what you were after).

If that isn't your objective, let me know.

His argument is science is always right because its science. Thats circular logic

 

[Anomalism]

I have not denied anything. I have not claimed anything.

I am examining your arguments (your thread title seemed to indicate that is what you were after).

If that isn't your objective, let me know.

Okay.

And after examining my arguments, what is your position currently?

 

[ReinyDays]

CO2’s radiative effect isn’t magical, it’s physics. Its absorption bands in the infrared are well measured in the lab and atmosphere, independent of concentration, and it directly traps outgoing longwave radiation ...

[Emphasis mine]

"One molecule, one photon" in this universe ... there's your mistake ...

... or explain the physics ... use the absorption band at 15 µm as an example ... where does the energy go? ...

And you didn't answer my question ... how are you demonstrating this? ... and you still haven't explained why you are including energy aloft in your GMST ... adding latent heat to the system doesn't change it's temperature ... and it can't be "cooked" into the numbers ... or the numbers wouldn't be scientifically accurate ...

... I know ... you don't now how to read a scientific instrument ... sucks to be you I guess ...

 

[HikerGuy83]

His argument is science is always right because its science. Thats circular logic

I don't agree with that assessment.

I think, however, that we are in a bit of an apples to oranges situation.

There is:

What is going on.
What needs to be done about it.

His argument is about the first.

He has data
Some people don't agree with the data (happens in all areas).
Some people think the data is manufactured.
Some believe the measurements are wrong.

So, before you go any further....you have to decide or agree on what is going to be the data used as the basis of the discussion.

Or do you?

Since the greater concern is about how to address what is happening.....can you backtrack into just how important it is to be working from agreed upon data.

If NOBODY wanted to respond or felt it was necessary, then there would be no discussion.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Okay.

And after examining my arguments, what is your position currently?

My position on AGW or my position on your epistemological approach to the argument?

 

[Anomalism]

My position on AGW or my position on your epistemological approach to the argument?

Both.

 

[Hafar1014]

I don't agree with that assessment.

I think, however, that we are in a bit of an apples to oranges situation.

There is:

What is going on.
What needs to be done about it.

His argument is about the first.

He has data
Some people don't agree with the data (happens in all areas).
Some people think the data is manufactured.
Some believe the measurements are wrong.

So, before you go any further....you have to decide or agree on what is going to be the data used as the basis of the discussion.

Or do you?

Since the greater concern is about how to address what is happening.....can you backtrack into just how important it is to be working from agreed upon data.

If NOBODY wanted to respond or felt it was necessary, then there would be no discussion.

The so called data does not prove human activity changes the climate.
Science can be manipulated easily by who funds it.

• The "False" Claim: A seminal 2005 paper by John Ioannidis argued that the majority of current published research findings are likely false, particularly in fields with small studies, small effect sizes, or high financial interests.
• Replication Crisis: Many studies fail to replicate, meaning independent researchers cannot obtain the same results, undermining scientific credibility. For example, a 2015 study found that over half of psychology studies failed to replicate.
• Factors Leading to Invalidity:
  • Publication Bias: Journals often prefer novel, positive results over replication studies or negative results.
  • Misconduct: While rare, outright fraud (fabrication or falsification of data) exists, with one study indicating about 2% of scientists admitted to it.
  • Methodological Flaws: Inadequate study design, low power, and P-hacking (manipulating data analysis to get significant results) contribute to false findings.
• Field Differences: The issue is particularly pronounced in fields like psychology, biomedicine, and cancer biology, though it affects others as well.