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

[Oddball]

I think you're an ideologue in denial. None of this science is actually controversial in settings where people understand what they're talking about.

Not at all.

The "science" isn't in controversy where all the "peers" scratch one another's backs...It's all one big happy circle jerk.

Oh, and I see what you did there... You couldn't refute my point, so you made it about me.

 

[MisterBeale]

The latest Theo Von interview of RFKjr a few days ago regarding how this academic system of fraud works was very good.

Of course, it had to so with "health," but the mechanisms of academic corruption are the same.

 

[Oddball]

The latest Theo Von interview of RFKjr a few days ago regarding how this academic system of fraud works was very good.

Of course, it had to so with "health," but the mechanisms of academic corruption are the same.

It happens in colleges in disciplines like economics...That's one of the many reasons they're pumping out such dopes.

Does anyone honestly think a hack like Paul Krugman is going to give high marks to a dissertation on the successes of the Austrian school?

 

[The Duke]

I've made zero policy suggestions. I'm simply defending physics.

Okay, so that doesn't require any money going to climate kooks, right? Because no money for that garbage.

 

[Anomalism]

Not at all.

The "science" isn't in controversy where all the "peers" scratch one another's backs...It's all one big happy circle jerk.

Oh, and I see what you did there... You couldn't refute my point, so you made it about me.

That's not how it works, and I already explained why. Science rewards novelty. Science rewards people that disprove what is believed by the majority.

Every scientist on Earth would love to be the one that proves AGW isn't actually happening. That person would be famous, rich, and would go down in history. They would become just about as immortal as a human can become.

 

[Anomalism]

Okay, so that doesn't require any money going to climate kooks, right? Because no money for that garbage.

I am strictly not taking a position on policy, only science.

 

[MisterBeale]

That's not how it works, and I already explained why. Science rewards novelty. Science rewards people that disprove what is believed by the majority.

Every scientist on Earth would love to be the one that proves AGW isn't actually happening. That person would be famous, rich, and would go down in history. They would become just about as immortal as a human can become.

Tell that to Graham Hancock.

 

[Oddball]

That's not how it works...

Yes, it is how it works.

It's a closed system circle jerk....Another thing that the East Anglia emails demonstrated in spades.

 

[Anomalism]

Tell that to Graham Hancock.

Graham Hancock isn’t an example of mainstream science rejecting evidence. He’s a popular author and journalist who advances speculative theories, not a climate scientist working with empirical measurements.

The point about science rewarding novelty applies to researchers who actually engage in rigorous, peer-reviewed work. Someone who could credibly disprove anthropogenic warming would publish their data, methods, and analysis, and the scientific community would scrutinize it intensely.

They would gain recognition precisely because overturning a fundamental assumption would be revolutionary. Popularity outside science, conspiracy claims, or books sold to the public don’t alter the incentives that drive actual scientific progress.

 

[The Duke]

I am strictly not taking a position on policy, only science.

Okay, so what's so sciency?

 

[Anomalism]

Yes, it is how it works.

It's a closed system circle jerk....Another thing that the East Anglia emails demonstrated in spades.

What the East Anglia emails actually show is internal frustration over methods, communication, and how to respond to critics. They don’t prove that decades of independent, reproducible measurements were fabricated.

Science is an adversarial system designed to break consensus when the data doesn't hold. Peer review, replication, competing datasets, and independent labs exist precisely to prevent the kind of self-reinforcing loop you’re describing. A handful of emails about strategy or tone does not overturn thousands of studies confirming warming across oceans, atmosphere, and ice.

Also, scientists do still disagree on the specifics of AGW, constantly in fact. The consensus isn't universal across every detail. The consensus is that it's happening to some extent. There is no consensus on many of the specifics.

 

[Oddball]

What the East Anglia emails actually show is internal frustration over methods, communication, and how to respond to critics. They don’t prove that decades of independent, reproducible measurements were fabricated.

It's beyond obvious that you've never read them nor the "Harry read me" file, where their number fudging was laid bare....You look like the fool you are barfing out that apologist pap.

Science is an adversarial system designed to break consensus when the data doesn't hold. Peer review, replication, competing datasets, and independent labs exist precisely to prevent the kind of self-reinforcing loop you’re describing. A handful of emails about strategy or tone does not overturn thousands of studies confirming warming across oceans, atmosphere, and ice.

Also, scientists do still disagree on the specifics of AGW, constantly in fact. The consensus isn't universal across every detail. The consensus is that's it's happening to some extent. There is no consensus on many of the specifics.

As the great Crash Davis said: It's like a Martian trying to talk to a fungo.

 

[The Duke]

What the East Anglia emails actually show is internal frustration over methods, communication, and how to respond to critics. They don’t prove that decades of independent, reproducible measurements were fabricated.

Science is an adversarial system designed to break consensus when the data doesn't hold. Peer review, replication, competing datasets, and independent labs exist precisely to prevent the kind of self-reinforcing loop you’re describing. A handful of emails about strategy or tone does not overturn thousands of studies confirming warming across oceans, atmosphere, and ice.

Also, scientists do still disagree on the specifics of AGW, constantly in fact. The consensus isn't universal across every detail. The consensus is that's it's happening to some extent. There is no consensus on many of the specifics.

I'm going to break this down to you fairly easy, cupcake.
Outside of contrails,( Dale Smith was right )and HAARP weapons,
man cannot influence the weather beyond those 2 things.
And both of those are not altogether that effective.

 

[Oddball]

I'm going to break this down to you fairly easy, cupcake.
Outside of contrails,( Dale Smith was right )and HAARP weapons,
man cannot influence the weather beyond those 2 things.
And both of those are not altogether that effective.

Dale can't respond to the tag.

 

[The Duke]

Dale can't respond to the tag.

I know, but he was right about the ******* contrails.
Idk if he ever got to see that, so it is what it is and I am who I am.
Also by me tagging him, people could see his stuff, and Hossfly too.

He was quality.
Yes, I lub me some Hossfly and Dale Smith.
Many others, too.
I don't wanna get into that right now.

 

[Anomalism]

It's beyond obvious that you've never read them nor the "Harry read me" file, where their number fudging was laid bare....You look like the fool you are barfing out that apologist pap.

As the great Crash Davis said: It's like a Martian trying to talk to a fungo.

Exactly. That’s the right analogy. Trying to explain decades of global, independently verified climate science to someone who’s focused on a few emails or anecdotes is like throwing fungos to a Martian. The context, scale, and mechanics are completely alien.

The emails are a tiny, human-side snapshot of frustration, not a refutation of physics or measurements spanning satellites, Argo floats, and ice cores.

 

[Oddball]

Exactly. That’s the right analogy. Trying to explain decades of global, independently verified climate science to someone who’s focused on a few emails or anecdotes is like throwing fungos to a Martian. The context, scale, and mechanics are completely alien.

The emails are a tiny, human-side snapshot of frustration, not a refutation of physics or measurements spanning satellites, Argo floats, and ice cores.

STFU, boy....You're in so far over your head that you might get the ******* bends,

 

[Anomalism]

I'm going to break this down to you fairly easy, cupcake.
Outside of contrails,( Dale Smith was right )and HAARP weapons,
man cannot influence the weather beyond those 2 things.
And both of those are not altogether that effective.

You're just wrong. Lol

Sorry.

 

[The Duke]

You're just wrong. Lol

Sorry.

Okay, explain how so-?

 

[Anomalism]

STFU, boy....You're in so far over your head that you might get the ******* bends,

What you’re doing right now is lashing out and trying to assert control because the cognitive dissonance of having decades of empirical, independently verified science laid out in front of you is triggering.

All the caps and profanity are classic signals of someone whose internal narrative feels under attack; it’s defensive aggression substituting as an argument. You’re not engaging with the content. You’re trying to escalate and reclaim a sense of power in a space where your ideas aren’t holding up. The energy here isn’t debate; it’s ego-protection in full display.