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

[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 ...
You’re misunderstanding how molecular physics works in gases. That single CO2 molecule absorbing a 15 µm photon doesn’t cook the atmosphere; it excites the vibrational mode of the molecule. That energy is almost immediately redistributed through collisions with N2 and O2 molecules billions of times per second. The energy isn’t lost, and the bulk air warms statistically; you don’t track it molecule by molecule, you track the average kinetic energy, which defines temperature. That’s exactly how radiative forcing operates in the troposphere.

Regarding GMST and latent heat, global mean surface temperature represents the average kinetic energy of molecules at the surface, not the total energy in phase changes, but latent heat is part of the energy budget, affecting how much energy must be added to actually raise the temperature. Instrument readings incorporate kinetic energy, not the latent heat directly, but ignoring latent energy would misrepresent how energy flows in the system. Everything you’re claiming about “cooking numbers” or “energy aloft” shows a misunderstanding of thermodynamics, heat transfer, and radiative physics, not an error in the data.
 
You’re misunderstanding how molecular physics works in gases. That single CO2 molecule absorbing a 15 µm photon doesn’t cook the atmosphere; it excites the vibrational mode of the molecule. That energy is almost immediately redistributed through collisions with N2 and O2 molecules billions of times per second. The energy isn’t lost, and the bulk air warms statistically; you don’t track it molecule by molecule, you track the average kinetic energy, whichdefines temperature. That’s exactly how radiative forcing operates in the troposphere.

Regarding GMST and latent heat, global mean surface temperature represents the average kinetic energy of molecules at the surface, not the total energy in phase changes, but latent heat is part of the energy budget, affecting how much energy must be added to actually raise the temperature. Instrument readings incorporate kinetic energy, not the latent heat directly, but ignoring latent energy would misrepresent how energy flows in the system. Everything you’re claiming about “cooking numbers” or “energy aloft” shows a misunderstanding of thermodynamics, heat transfer, and radiative physics, not an error in the data.
So then why hasnt reality validated the science?
 
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.
I seem to recall established science once believing that the sun orbits the earth
 
I seem to recall established science once believing that the sun orbits the earth
Yes and smoking was good for you
Polls are science nuff said about them
You control science by funding it and you will get the results you want
Look at all the fake trans gender science they advocate child abuse
 
So then why hasnt reality validated the science?
Reality has validated the science. Every independent dataset shows the predicted patterns of warming, radiative trapping, and energy accumulation.

The fact that you don’t see it in storms, hurricanes, or other short term, chaotic weather isn’t a refutation; it’s a misunderstanding of timescales and system behavior.
 
I seem to recall established science once believing that the sun orbits the earth
Exactly. The heliocentric example shows how science corrects itself when evidence is strong, not that science is infallible. Back then, the mechanisms for observation, measurement, and cross verification were limited. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, they all challenged existing frameworks, but they had independent observations, reproducible math, and ultimately evidence that couldn’t be ignored.

Modern climate science operates on orders of magnitude more data, better instruments, and a massively distributed peer-review system. The same principle applies. If the consensus were wrong or information was fudged, someone with data, credibility, and the motivation to overturn it would already have done so. Instead, what you see is thousands of independent measurements all converging on the same conclusion. The sun doesn’t orbit the Earth, and CO2 doesn’t not warm the planet. Both are validated by repeated, independent, and globally consistent evidence.

If it happened though, that scientist would be Galileo level famous. Probably bigger than that. They'd become a household name, like Einstein. Scientists have every incentive to be the one that proves AGW isn't real.

You're actually helping me make my point.
 
Reality has validated the science. Every independent dataset shows the predicted patterns of warming, radiative trapping, and energy accumulation.

The fact that you don’t see it in storms, hurricanes, or other short term, chaotic weather isn’t a refutation; it’s a misunderstanding of timescales and system behavior.



Tomorrow is Earth Day 2022 and marks the 52nd anniversary of Earth Day, so it’s time for my annual CD post on the spectacularly wrong predictions that were made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970…..

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 51st anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 21 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Note: The prediction of famine in South America is partly true, but only in Venezuela and only because of socialism, not for environmental reasons.

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Note: Global oil production last year at about 95M barrels per day (bpd) was double the global oil output of 48M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.”

MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded again this year with dire predictions of “gloom and doom” and “existential threats” due to climate change. And let’s think about the question posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, longer life expectancy, and lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future – and the present – never looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria, and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by virtue-signaling “environmental grievance hustlers” like AOC, who said several years ago that we have “only 12 years left to stop the worst impacts of climate change.”
========================================================================
=======================================================================
 


Tomorrow is Earth Day 2022 and marks the 52nd anniversary of Earth Day, so it’s time for my annual CD post on the spectacularly wrong predictions that were made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970…..

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 51st anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 21 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Note: The prediction of famine in South America is partly true, but only in Venezuela and only because of socialism, not for environmental reasons.

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Note: Global oil production last year at about 95M barrels per day (bpd) was double the global oil output of 48M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.”

MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded again this year with dire predictions of “gloom and doom” and “existential threats” due to climate change. And let’s think about the question posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, longer life expectancy, and lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future – and the present – never looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria, and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by virtue-signaling “environmental grievance hustlers” like AOC, who said several years ago that we have “only 12 years left to stop the worst impacts of climate change.”
========================================================================
=======================================================================
Those Earth Day predictions from the 1970s are mostly speculative essays, journalistic opinions, and alarmist guesses, not peer-reviewed science or validated climate projections. Modern climate science doesn’t rely on cherry picked quotes; it relies on direct, independent measurements: atmospheric CO2 from Mauna Loa, ocean temperatures from Argo floats, satellite infrared data, and radiosonde profiles. These datasets are empirical, reproducible, and globally consistent. Failing to predict social outcomes or local conditions decades ago doesn’t invalidate the physics of greenhouse gases, the observed warming trends, or the energy balance of the climate system. Speculative predictions ≠ empirical science.
 
And only right if it achieves something he approves of. If the results are something he does not approve of it's dismissed.
The amount of projection in this thread is astounding.
 
I seem to recall established science once believing that the sun orbits the earth

And the Milky Way encompassed all of the universe. And that universe was static and unchanging. Or that certain races were "genetically" superior to others. Or the "expanding Earth" theory, which posited that the continents did not shift, the planet expanded like a balloon which caused them (like South America and Africa) to move apart.

There are tons of such discarded scientific theories which are now only brought up by pseudoscience junkies.

Even in the 20th century such discoveries as multiple ice ages and multiple galaxies were dismissed as frauds, and only later finally accepted by the majority of scientists. Kinda like how it was just five decades ago that the very thought that birds are dinosaurs and many dinosaurs had feathers as well as were warm blooded was dismissed as a fantasy.

That is why I reject the religious zealots. They are so lost in their orthodoxy that they see anything that dares to challenge it as heresy. And we all know how heretics have traditionally been dealt with.

spanish-inquisition-large.gif
 
14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Note: Global oil production last year at about 95M barrels per day (bpd) was double the global oil output of 48M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.”

Kenneth Watt is one of my favorite snake oil salesmen among the Climate Disaster fraudsters.

And yes, I remember when he was everywhere in the 1970s. Trying to frighten everyone about the "New Ice Age". Is no surprise to me at all when he completely flipped around a few years later and started to do the same thing about "global warming".

And yes, of course he also bought into the largely busted "Peak Oil" nonsense. That has been floating around since 1956 when it was first claimed that oil production would peak between 1965 and 1971, and supplies would rapidly shrink to almost nothing. And here we are over five decades later, and it still has not happened yet.

Of course, it should be no surprise that oil production has doubled since 1970. The human population has more than doubled since then (up from 3.6 to 8.3 billion).

I actually am not joking when I say that if these people really want to "see change", the solution is simple. Simply kill off about 3/5 of the human population globally and return the technology to 1900 levels. I have long seen almost everything they whine endlessly about is simply symptoms of overpopulation.

Of course, most of them are also the same people that lost their minds 6 years ago when an almost insignificant number of people died from a rather minor disease. Go back two centuries ago and something like COVID would have been seen as almost completely meaningless.
 
And the Milky Way encompassed all of the universe. And that universe was static and unchanging. Or that certain races were "genetically" superior to others. Or the "expanding Earth" theory, which posited that the continents did not shift, the planet expanded like a balloon which caused them (like South America and Africa) to move apart.

There are tons of such discarded scientific theories which are now only brought up by pseudoscience junkies.

Even in the 20th century such discoveries as multiple ice ages and multiple galaxies were dismissed as frauds, and only later finally accepted by the majority of scientists. Kinda like how it was just five decades ago that the very thought that birds are dinosaurs and many dinosaurs had feathers as well as were warm blooded was dismissed as a fantasy.

That is why I reject the religious zealots. They are so lost in their orthodoxy that they see anything that dares to challenge it as heresy. And we all know how heretics have traditionally been dealt with.

spanish-inquisition-large.gif
Kenneth Watt is one of my favorite snake oil salesmen among the Climate Disaster fraudsters.

And yes, I remember when he was everywhere in the 1970s. Trying to frighten everyone about the "New Ice Age". Is no surprise to me at all when he completely flipped around a few years later and started to do the same thing about "global warming".

And yes, of course he also bought into the largely busted "Peak Oil" nonsense. That has been floating around since 1956 when it was first claimed that oil production would peak between 1965 and 1971, and supplies would rapidly shrink to almost nothing. And here we are over five decades later, and it still has not happened yet.

Of course, it should be no surprise that oil production has doubled since 1970. The human population has more than doubled since then (up from 3.6 to 8.3 billion).

I actually am not joking when I say that if these people really want to "see change", the solution is simple. Simply kill off about 3/5 of the human population globally and return the technology to 1900 levels. I have long seen almost everything they whine endlessly about is simply symptoms of overpopulation.

Of course, most of them are also the same people that lost their minds 6 years ago when an almost insignificant number of people died from a rather minor disease. Go back two centuries ago and something like COVID would have been seen as almost completely meaningless.
What you’re doing is a rhetorical shell game: you list historical cases where science corrected itself, then pretend that means any current consensus is suspect by default. That’s backwards. Those examples didn’t undermine science; they validated it, because they were overturned by new empirical evidence, not by vibes or ideology.

Modern climate science is built on direct measurements, not philosophical assumptions. Comparing it to 17th century astronomy or 1970s media hype about cooling is a category error: today we have global instrumentation, petabytes of data, independent replication, and physics that literally runs inside every weather and satellite system on Earth.

The Kenneth Watt / “New Ice Age” trope is also dishonest. There was never a scientific consensus on global cooling; it was a media narrative, while the peer-reviewed literature of the 1970s already leaned toward warming. “Peak oil failed” is equally wrong: peak oil was about conventional crude, and it was largely correct. Production only continued via fracking, tar sands, deepwater drilling, and massive new tech and capital. That’s not a refutation; that’s exactly what the theory predicted would be required.

Environmental impact scales with technology and consumption, not raw headcount; one American emits more than dozens of people in poor countries. Suggesting mass death as a “solution” isn’t analysis, it’s moral bankruptcy with a calculator.

Invoking past scientific errors doesn’t weaken modern science, it proves the method works. The only reason we know those old ideas were wrong is because science corrected them. What you’re offering instead is not new evidence, not new physics, and not new data, just a pile of historical anecdotes, media myths, and ideological resentment, none of which overturn a single equation in radiative transfer or a single satellite measurement of Earth’s energy imbalance.
 
 
Congratulations. 🎉

But this isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
 
15th post
Congratulations. 🎉

But this isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
Of course it is.

You have made the claim that because so many scientists are on board with this narrative, it necessarilky has to be true. The included content I posted proved the fraud of the system, and yoar weak ass band-wagon fallacy.

Here is another one;



Is the IPCC Rigged? – Questions For Corbett #096​

by Corbett | Feb 20, 2023 | Questions For Corbett, Videos | 21 comments
"Today James demonstrates the proper way to formulate a question about someone’s research if you want to get a useful answer. And, as an added bonus, you’ll learn how the UNFCCC was rigged from the outset and how the much-ballyhooed IPCC report is nothing but a negotiated political document!"

 
Of course it is.

You have made the claim that because so many scientists are on board with this narrative, it necessarilky has to be true. The included content I posted proved the fraud of the system, and yoar weak ass band-wagon fallacy.

Here is another one;



Is the IPCC Rigged? – Questions For Corbett #096​

by Corbett | Feb 20, 2023 | Questions For Corbett, Videos | 21 comments
"Today James demonstrates the proper way to formulate a question about someone’s research if you want to get a useful answer. And, as an added bonus, you’ll learn how the UNFCCC was rigged from the outset and how the much-ballyhooed IPCC report is nothing but a negotiated political document!"


Do you have an actual position on the science, or is everything just fake and a sham?
 
There is no such thing as. . . .



Science is not a religious dogma. It is an investigative process. . . something you clearly do not understand.
Okay. Scientists all over the world are lying.

Explain to me what's really happening, in detail. I want to hear your version.
 
Back
Top Bottom