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

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
Godless libs are at least as bad as the Spanish Inquisition
 
The 15 µm photon only excites the molecule once ... and the molecule stays in his exited until it re-emits a 15µm photon ... any collision would have to be exactly 0.08 eV, or the specific vibration won't drop back to his ground state ... the energy has to be exact ... Greenhouse Theory says this new photon has a 50% of returning to the surface and adding back to GMST ... the energy transferred to the N2/O2 is uplifted away from the surface ... simple buoyancy ...

Or the CO2 molecule just holds the energy ... 0.08 eV is very little energy and that might have brought the molecule to his equilirium temperature of the environment ... the molecule stays in his exited state not releasing any energy ... any and all future 15 µm bombardment will pass by unhindered ... and for comparison, water vapor's analogous vibration is reactive at 6 µm, four times as much energy ...

My claim is carbon dioxide doesn't effect temperature enough to change climate, nor can this temperature increase be measured with our current array of thermometers ... concentration does matter ... you don't have enough carbon dioxide, and it looks like you never will ...

You still haven't explained how you're cooking the books to include latent heat in your temperature readings ... latent heat can't be recorded with thermometers ... so it's not included in GMST ... duh ...

I'm not reading all the back and forth in this thread ... and I do apologies if you'vbe already posted this ... but which version of the Earth's energy budget are you using? ... does it list a specific number for convection? ...
You’re off about how energy transfer works at the molecular level.

A CO2 molecule absorbing a 15 µm photon doesn’t just sit there in isolation. Once excited, it collides with N2, O2, and other air molecules billions of times per second. Each collision redistributes energy statistically. You don’t need a perfect 0.08 eV match for heat to flow. That’s how the bulk air warms: through the average kinetic energy of molecules. Radiative forcing isn’t about tracking single photons; it’s about how the absorbed energy increases the temperature of the air ensemble.

Latent heat isn’t measured directly by thermometers, true, but thermometers do record temperature changes that occur as energy is added or removed from the system, and the energy required to overcome phase changes affects the temperature evolution. GMST reflects all of this. The instrument responds to the kinetic energy of molecules, which is the net result of radiative input, conduction, convection, and latent energy exchanges. Latent heat is part of the energy budget, not a separate invisible addition. They’re already implicitly included because the energy has to come from somewhere to raise the temperature.

Standard Earth energy budgets include estimates for convection, latent heat, and radiation. They sum to the total net flux that governs surface warming. The effect of CO2 doesn’t require photons to bounce exactly back to the surface; increasing atmospheric CO2 changes how much IR escapes to space versus gets absorbed, which shifts the equilibrium temperature. That’s measurable in satellite data, ocean heat content, and surface temperature trends.

CO2 doesn’t need to act alone or in absurd isolation. Its energy gets fully mixed into the atmosphere through molecular motion and convection, and the cumulative effect is entirely measurable. The quantum details don’t invalidate the bulk thermodynamics or the observed warming.
 


Please articulate a principled epistemological distinction between...

"I reject climate consensus because [X]"

"I accept gravity consensus because [Y]"

What makes your standard for rejecting one consensus different from the other?
 
Last edited:
Please articulate a principled epistemological distinction between...

"I reject climate consensus because [X]"

"I accept gravity consensus because [Y]"

What makes your standard for rejecting one consensus different from the other?
There is no valid science that proves humans change the climate. There is no consensus in science. Reality invalidated every prediction made by climate change fanatics. They never come true
I can test for gravity.
 
There is no valid science that proves humans change the climate. There is no consensus in science. Reality invalidated every prediction made by climate change fanatics. They never come true
I can test for gravity.

You didn’t actually answer the epistemological question I posed. I wasn’t asking whether you think climate predictions are accurate, or whether gravity can be measured. I was asking you to justify why you accept one scientific consensus but reject the other. Your response simply asserts your disbelief in climate science, but it doesn’t explain why your standard for accepting gravity wouldn’t also apply to climate.

Using your own logic, you could just as easily deny gravity: “I’ve never measured every instance of falling objects perfectly; maybe gravity isn’t real.”

You test for it, you say, but the same goes for climate: measurements exist across oceans, the atmosphere, ice cores, satellites, and thousands of independent studies. Rejecting the climate consensus while accepting gravity without articulating why your epistemic standard differs is arbitrary, not principled.

In other words, you’ve restated your skepticism but haven’t addressed the double standard your framework creates.
 
You didn’t actually answer the epistemological question I posed. I wasn’t asking whether you think climate predictions are accurate, or whether gravity can be measured. I was asking you to justify why you accept one scientific consensus but reject the other. Your response simply asserts your disbelief in climate science, but it doesn’t explain why your standard for accepting gravity wouldn’t also apply to climate.

Using your own logic, you could just as easily deny gravity: “I’ve never measured every instance of falling objects perfectly; maybe gravity isn’t real.”

You test for it, you say, but the same goes for climate: measurements exist across oceans, the atmosphere, ice cores, satellites, and thousands of independent studies. Rejecting the climate consensus while accepting gravity without articulating why your epistemic standard differs is arbitrary, not principled.

In other words, you’ve restated your skepticism but haven’t addressed the double standard your framework creates.
You just dont like the answer and your questions are flawed. There is no consensus in science. You should know that.
There is no evidence humans change the climate only that climate changes. You back to circular logic again.
Gravity is easily tested my cat does it every day when he knocks stuff off the table. I can see it happen.
 
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.
Ahhhh yes, the ever popular logic fail of APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.
 
Ahhhh yes, the ever popular logic fail of APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.
He argues climate change is real but he cant prove humans are the cause. Sure the climate changes so what.
 
You just dont like the answer and your questions are flawed. There is no consensus in science. You should know that.
There is no evidence humans change the climate only that climate changes. You back to circular logic again.
Gravity is easily tested my cat does it every day when he knocks stuff off the table. I can see it happen.

You’re dodging the epistemological issue I raised. I’m not asking you to argue predictions or anecdotes. I’m asking why your standard for rejecting one consensus differs from another. You accept gravity because you see your cat knock things over, but that’s just a single type of observation.

The same logic could be applied to climate: look at Earth’s oceans, atmosphere, ice cores, satellites, and thousands of independent measurements. Rejecting climate consensus while accepting gravity without explaining why one kind of evidence convinces you but another does not is a double standard.

Pointing to isolated observations doesn’t address the broader question of how you justify accepting some scientific conclusions and dismissing others.
 
You’re dodging the epistemological issue I raised. I’m not asking you to argue predictions or anecdotes. I’m asking why your standard for rejecting one consensus differs from another. You accept gravity because you see your cat knock things over, but that’s just a single type of observation.

The same logic could be applied to climate: look at Earth’s oceans, atmosphere, ice cores, satellites, and thousands of independent measurements. Rejecting climate consensus while accepting gravity without explaining why one kind of evidence convinces you but another does not is a double standard.

Pointing to isolated observations doesn’t address the broader question of how you justify accepting some scientific conclusions and dismissing others.
Gravity is proven empirically by direct observation cause and effect
Human caused climate change has no such proof

18 Reasons why humans dont cause climate change. Its called youre wrong

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.”
American Enterprise Institute – AEI

About​

Scholars​

Find a scholar by policy area:

Policy Areas​

Contact​

American Enterprise Institute
1789 Massachusetts Avenue,
NW Washington, DC 20036
Main telephone: 202.862.5800
Main fax: 202.862.7177


DonateSubscribe
© 2026 American Enterprise Insitute
 
You’re dodging the epistemological issue I raised. I’m not asking you to argue predictions or anecdotes. I’m asking why your standard for rejecting one consensus differs from another. You accept gravity because you see your cat knock things over, but that’s just a single type of observation.

The same logic could be applied to climate: look at Earth’s oceans, atmosphere, ice cores, satellites, and thousands of independent measurements. Rejecting climate consensus while accepting gravity without explaining why one kind of evidence convinces you but another does not is a double standard.

Pointing to isolated observations doesn’t address the broader question of how you justify accepting some scientific conclusions and dismissing others.
You're trying to use religion to argue about science.

That's absurd and shows two things, you're not serious about scientific enquiry, and you are intellectually dishonest.
 
You're trying to use religion to argue about science.

That's absurd and shows two things, you're not serious about scientific enquiry, and you are intellectually dishonest.
He knows nothing about science or research methods thats clear from his points.
 
Gravity is proven empirically by direct observation cause and effect
Human caused climate change has no such proof

18 Reasons why humans dont cause climate change. Its called youre wrong

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.”
American Enterprise Institute – AEI

About​

Scholars​

Find a scholar by policy area:

Policy Areas​

Contact​

American Enterprise Institute
1789 Massachusetts Avenue,
NW Washington, DC 20036
Main telephone: 202.862.5800
Main fax: 202.862.7177


DonateSubscribe
© 2026 American Enterprise Insitute

You’re still avoiding the core epistemological question. You’re saying gravity is proven by direct observation, but that’s exactly the same kind of reasoning climate science uses: direct measurements of cause and effect. We can measure rising CO2, the radiative forcing it produces, heat uptake in oceans, melting ice, and temperature changes in the atmosphere, all empirically observed.

You accept gravity based on repeated observations and predictable effects; the same is true for human caused climate change. Saying “climate change has no proof” ignores that climate science relies on direct, reproducible measurements across multiple independent systems, not just models. The question isn’t whether it’s obvious in a single glance; it’s why you accept one body of evidence but reject another that follows the same principles.
 
You’re still avoiding the core epistemological question. You’re saying gravity is proven by direct observation, but that’s exactly the same kind of reasoning climate science uses: direct measurements of cause and effect. We can measure rising CO2, the radiative forcing it produces, heat uptake in oceans, melting ice, and temperature changes in the atmosphere, all empirically observed.

You accept gravity based on repeated observations and predictable effects; the same is true for human caused climate change. Saying “climate change has no proof” ignores that climate science relies on direct, reproducible measurements across multiple independent systems, not just models. The question isn’t whether it’s obvious in a single glance; it’s why you accept one body of evidence but reject another that follows the same principles.
My cat is smarter then you are. You dont know the difference between cause and effect and correlation.
Cite the study that proves humans cause climate change. State the alpha values and correlational coefficient
 
You're trying to use religion to argue about science.

That's absurd and shows two things, you're not serious about scientific enquiry, and you are intellectually dishonest.

Calling an epistemological question religion doesn’t engage with the issue. I’m not appealing to belief; I’m asking you to clarify why your standard for accepting one scientific conclusion differs from another. Science is about evidence and reproducibility. You accept gravity because repeated measurements and predictable effects confirm it. The same principle applies to climate: independent, reproducible measurements across oceans, ice cores, atmosphere, and satellites confirm human driven warming.
 
15th post
Calling an epistemological question religion doesn’t engage with the issue. I’m not appealing to belief; I’m asking you to clarify why your standard for accepting one scientific conclusion differs from another. Science is about evidence and reproducibility. You accept gravity because repeated measurements and predictable effects confirm it. The same principle applies to climate: independent, reproducible measurements across oceans, ice cores, atmosphere, and satellites confirm human driven warming.
In your mind science is your religion hats because your life has no meaning
 
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.


Greg
 
My cat is smarter then you are. You dont know the difference between cause and effect and correlation.
Cite the study that proves humans cause climate change. State the alpha values and correlational coefficient

A defensive dodge. What you’re doing is projecting frustration and trying to assert dominance through absurdity rather than addressing the epistemological point.

That energy isn’t about intelligence; it’s about avoiding the uncomfortable spotlight on your reasoning while signaling bravado.
 


Greg
Is there something specific from that blog website you'd like to discuss?
 
Back
Top Bottom