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

[Anomalism]

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

Claiming none of the predictions came true ignores how science actually works. Models are conditional projections, not crystal balls. When a projection is refined or updated, it’s self-correction, not fraud.

Disagreeing with policies, exaggerations, or failed projections doesn’t disprove the decades of independent, cross‑checked measurements. Sweeping statements like “all research is manipulated” replaces reasoning with narrative and identity signaling, not evidence.

 

[Hafar1014]

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

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

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

Let me know when the sun will shine at night. You have made biased research your religion.
Lets apply some critical thinking. CO2 is converted to O2 by green plants and algae in the oceans. Plants grow exponentially, I assume you know what that means. So then consideing the exponential increase in green plants to remove CO2 we couldnt produce enough to effect the climate. The more we make the more its converted at fatser rate then we can produce it. We need more not less.
Look the green energy climate change fraud is DOA in America. Nuclear and fossil fuels will replace most renewable energy. EV cars are in decline no one wants them.

 

[Anomalism]

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

What did I preach, exactly? Your demand for my lifestyle has zero bearing on the logic I laid out.

 

[Manonthestreet]

What did I preach, exactly? Your demand for my lifestyle has zero bearing on the logic I laid out.

You don't understand what you wrote......LLMMAAOOOO.......better get a cognitive test for dementia

 

[Anomalism]

You don't understand what you wrote......LLMMAAOOOO.......better get a cognitive test for dementia

You're starting to react emotionally. I wonder why.

You didn't answer my question, or deal with the logic of the statement after. This response is just noise.

 

[Manonthestreet]

You're starting to react emotionally. I wonder why.

You didn't answer my question, or deal with the logic of the statement after. This response is just noise.

So ya don't live what ya preach....duly noted.....another Green hypocrite

 

[Anomalism]

So ya don't live what ya preach....duly noted.....another Green hypocrite

Feel free to do a victory lap. Lol

So are you going to actually engage with the arguments being made now?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Every scientific institution on Earth says climate change is real and human caused.

And every leftard thinks the solution is more expensive, less reliable wind and solar.

If leftards were serious about reducing CO2 without destroying our economy, they'd support nuclear.

Let me know when they do.

In the meantime, I'm not going to lose any sleep because it might be a bit warmer in the year 2100.

 

[Anomalism]

Every scientific institution on Earth says climate change is real and human caused.

And every leftard thinks the solution is more expensive, less reliable wind and solar.

If leftards were serious about reducing CO2 without destroying our economy, they'd support nuclear.

Let me know when they do.

In the meantime, I'm not going to lose any sleep because it might be a bit warmer in the year 2100.

Just for the record, I wholeheartedly support nuclear energy, and I believe anybody that doesn't isn't serious about this.

 

[Anomalism]

Let me know when the sun will shine at night. You have made biased research your religion.
Lets apply some critical thinking. CO2 is converted to O2 by green plants and algae in the oceans. Plants grow exponentially, I assume you know what that means. So then consideing the exponential increase in green plants to remove CO2 we couldnt produce enough to effect the climate. The more we make the more its converted at fatser rate then we can produce it. We need more not less.
Look the green energy climate change fraud is DOA in America. Nuclear and fossil fuels will replace most renewable energy. EV cars are in decline no one wants them.

Whether plants convert CO2, whether renewables succeed, or whether policies fail doesn’t change reality. Physics and measurements operate independently of ideology, policy, or market trends. Economic or technological struggles don’t magically undo decades of independent, replicated research. Criticizing implementation is fine, but denying the evidence is not reasonable.

 

[task0778]

Every scientific institution on Earth says climate change is real and human caused.

This part is a lie. No one denies that the climate does change, the question is by how much and what are the causes. There are legions of answers (actually theories) on other sides of the issue over the last several decades that have never been proven one way or the other. But has been proven is that the hysterical prophesies of impeding doom from GW/CC have been wrong. Every time. And these people want trillions spent on various proposals that so far have not fixed the problem. What we have here is a giant, very expensive hoax perpetrated by the democrats for political purposes.

To this day there is no proof that humanity has caused GW/CC enough to be a major factor that warrants huge expenditures. Scientists and scientific institutions with any credibility will say maybe and could be a major factor but nobody can prove how much of a factor it actually is. Most of them (and I) will agree that GW/CC could have anthropogenic causes to some degree but then you get into a disagreement over what to do about it. Nothing wrong about that, but don't ask me to sink trillions of taxpayer dollars into unproven and unrealistic policies that haven't been proven to work.

 

[Oddball]

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

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

Boilerplate from the orthodoxy.

What they show is their duplicity, fudging of numbers, and the willingness to destroy anyone who dares to disagree with their scam.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This one’s a classic. You posted less of an argument and more of a cosmic villain narrative. Your claim is built entirely on assumptions about “The State” and imagined motives, rather than evidence.

You’re arguing that climate science is a hoax because scientists take government grants. That’s like saying every engineer is a fraud because the city paid them to build bridges. Funding does not dictate outcomes; reality does. A grant only buys effort, not a change in physics, chemistry, or thermodynamics.

Claiming climate science is a hoax requires imagining every major government on Earth coordinating a lie. The US, China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, the EU, and more, for decades, across rivalries, regime changes, wars, and ideological divides. That’s a superhero-level global conspiracy.

Reality check: governments can barely agree on trade, pandemic responses, or drone strikes, let alone a unified, multi-decade scientific deception. Some of these countries are economically dependent on fossil fuels, and some would gain geopolitical leverage by exposing the lie — yet none defected, leaked, or exploited it. Not once.
Meanwhile, science is adversarial by design. Thousands of researchers in dozens of countries, competing for funding, prestige, and fame, replicate experiments, challenge each other, and publish contrary results whenever possible. If anthropogenic climate change weren’t real, a single defector could become instantly famous, fabulously funded, and historically immortal. That opportunity exists everywhere, and yet no one has succeeded.

Cherry-picking emails or claiming “state funding corrupts outcomes” doesn’t change physics. Laws of thermodynamics, atmospheric chemistry, and ocean heat content don’t negotiate. Funding only buys effort, not different outcomes. The East Anglia emails, for example, do not falsify decades of independent, multi-national data collection from satellites, ocean buoys, ice cores, and countless peer-reviewed papers.

You can smear motives all you want, but reality doesn’t negotiate. If climate change were fake, it would already be debunked, with a mountain of fame, funding, and career success waiting for the person who did it. Believing otherwise requires imagining the first perfectly unified global political system in history, secretly coordinated for decades, inside a species that can’t even reliably agree on daylight savings. That’s myth-making.

Funding does not dictate outcomes; reality does.

The quickest way to lose funding is to say you're an AGW skeptic.

Cherry-picking emails or claiming “state funding corrupts outcomes” doesn’t change physics.

Is that why Michael Mann refused to release his data during his lawsuit against National Review?
Because his state funded results weren't corrupt? He just followed the physics.

DURR

 

[Oddball]

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

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

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

"My flooding the zone with massive verbosity: good...Your flooding the zone with massive verbosity: bad".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just for the record, I wholeheartedly support nuclear energy, and I believe anybody that doesn't isn't serious about this.

Tell the honest greens they should as well.
The other 98% should go **** themselves, right?

 

[Anomalism]

This part is a lie. No one denies that the climate does change, the question is by how much and what are the causes. There are legions of answers (actually theories) on other sides of the issue over the last several decades that have never been proven one way or the other. But has been proven is that the hysterical prophesies of impeding doom from GW/CC have been wrong. Every time. And these people want trillions spent on various proposals that so far have not fixed the problem. What we have here is a giant, very expensive hoax perpetrated by the democrats for political purposes.

To this day there is no proof that humanity has caused GW/CC enough to be a major factor that warrants huge expenditures. Scientists and scientific institutions with any credibility will say maybe and could be a major factor but nobody can prove how much of a factor it actually is. Most of them (and I) will agree that GW/CC could have anthropogenic causes to some degree but then you get into a disagreement over what to do about it. Nothing wrong about that, but don't ask me to sink trillions of taxpayer dollars into unproven and unrealistic policies that haven't been proven to work.

Calling the statement a lie is inaccurate. Every major scientific institution has reviewed decades of data and concluded that human activity is a significant driver of climate change. That’s a consensus on cause, not prophecy or policy. Please prove me wrong if that is a lie, and I will update my beliefs.

Disagreeing about how much humans contribute, or which policies to adopt, is fine. That’s a policy and uncertainty discussion. But claiming the science itself is a political hoax ignores incentives: thousands of independent researchers across countries, competing for funding and prestige, would have exposed a false claim if it existed. Policy debate ≠ global scientific fraud.

 

[Hafar1014]

Whether plants convert CO2, whether renewables succeed, or whether policies fail doesn’t change reality. Physics and measurements operate independently of ideology, policy, or market trends. Economic or technological struggles don’t magically undo decades of independent, replicated research. Criticizing implementation is fine, but denying the evidence is not reasonable.

The reality is that human caused climate change is a fraud. The research predictions has never come true. Realty invalidated the research. Do you even know how to read a research paper? Did you study research methods in graduate school. Do you know what an alpha value is?
I showed you research that proves 40% of all research is invalid. Here is research that proves you wrong so based on your beliefs you must accopt ot

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - PMC

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

---

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, says Ioannidis, with ensuing confusion and disappointment.

---

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof.

 

[Anomalism]

"My flooding the zone with massive verbosity: good...Your flooding the zone with massive verbosity: bad".

I toned it down intentionally just for you. Misdirection and obfuscation aren't my goal here. If you actually read my earlier posts in their entirety, which I doubt, that would be obvious.

 

[Oddball]

The fact that solutions involve taxes or imperfect implementation doesn’t change reality. Messy policies or toxic byproducts are a political problem, not a scientific one.

No, this is the reality....Every "remedy" leads directly back to more power and money for The State, less for the peasants....This isn't happenstance.

That you blithely poo-poo the one entity responsible for more violence, death, destruction, and misery than any pathogen or natural disaster, short of a meteor impact, reveals the complete impotence of your text bricks.

Rejecting the evidence because governments struggle to respond is like refusing to treat cancer because chemotherapy is expensive and has side effects.

Now we can add false equivalence to your already extensive invocations of logical fallacy.

 

[Oddball]

I toned it down intentionally just for you. Misdirection and obfuscation aren't my goal here. If you actually read my earlier posts in their entirety, which I doubt, that would be obvious.

pfffft

You can't baffle me with your bullshit.....Been at this faaaar too long.

In fact, I started on your side and sought to debunk the debunkers...Spoiler alert: the debunkers are right.