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

[MisterBeale]

 

[MisterBeale]

They admit it was BS all along

Climate change hysteria has been a thing for decades, and I’ll admit that a younger and dumber me completely bought into not just the idea that the climate was changing, but that it was our fault.

tomknighton.substack.com

 

[Anomalism]

Hmmm, climategate 1.0 and 2.0 showed climatologists badgering Journal editors to not allow skeptical papers to be published. Then there was that whole thing about climatologists not revealing their conflicts of interest.

And then there was that scientist who presented a paper that challenged a climatologists paper, but the journal editors allowed the challenged scientist to review that paper, which is highly unethical.

The reports are all out there if you choose to be informed .

But we all know that you will ignore anything that challenges your high priests.

The emails were investigated by eight independent inquiries across multiple countries, including by people who had every incentive to find misconduct if it existed. All of them concluded that while some language was poor and some data management practices needed improvement, there was no evidence of fraud, no manipulation of data to fabricate warming, and no conspiracy to suppress dissenting research. The science itself was sound..The "hide the decline" phrase that got the most attention wasn't about hiding temperature decline, it was about a known divergence problem in tree ring data after 1960 where proxy measurements stopped tracking instrumental temperatures accurately. That divergence was published and discussed openly in the literature before the emails leaked. It wasn't a secret.

On journal editors blocking skeptical papers: If you're referring to the Soon and Baliunas paper, that's actually a good example of the peer review process working. The paper had serious methodological problems. It mischaracterized the conclusions of many studies it cited, conflated regional temperature changes with global patterns, and used inconsistent standards for what counted as Medieval Warm Period evidence. Multiple editors and half the editorial board of climate research resigned over it being published. That's scientists holding the process accountable.

As for conflicts of interest, climate scientists disclose funding sources and affiliations in their papers, which is standard practice across all scientific fields. If you have specific examples of undisclosed conflicts that invalidated research findings, cite them. But "they get research grants" isn't a conflict of interest, it's how academic science works.

You keep saying "the reports are all out there" but you haven't cited a single specific example. Which paper was rejected for non-scientific reasons? Which natural mechanism is being systematically ignored? Which conflict of interest invalidated which finding?

I'm asking for specifics because "do your own research" isn't an argument. If these examples are so clear and damning, it should be easy to point to one.

 

[westwall]

The emails were investigated by eight independent inquiries across multiple countries, including by people who had every incentive to find misconduct if it existed. All of them concluded that while some language was poor and some data management practices needed improvement, there was no evidence of fraud, no manipulation of data to fabricate warming, and no conspiracy to suppress dissenting research. The science itself was sound..The "hide the decline" phrase that got the most attention wasn't about hiding temperature decline, it was about a known divergence problem in tree ring data after 1960 where proxy measurements stopped tracking instrumental temperatures accurately. That divergence was published and discussed openly in the literature before the emails leaked. It wasn't a secret.

On journal editors blocking skeptical papers: If you're referring to the Soon and Baliunas paper, that's actually a good example of the peer review process working. The paper had serious methodological problems. It mischaracterized the conclusions of many studies it cited, conflated regional temperature changes with global patterns, and used inconsistent standards for what counted as Medieval Warm Period evidence. Multiple editors and half the editorial board of climate research resigned over it being published. That's scientists holding the process accountable.

As for conflicts of interest, climate scientists disclose funding sources and affiliations in their papers, which is standard practice across all scientific fields. If you have specific examples of undisclosed conflicts that invalidated research findings, cite them. But "they get research grants" isn't a conflict of interest, it's how academic science works.

You keep saying "the reports are all out there" but you haven't cited a single specific example. Which paper was rejected for non-scientific reasons? Which natural mechanism is being systematically ignored? Which conflict of interest invalidated which finding?

I'm asking for specifics because "do your own research" isn't an argument. If these examples are so clear and damning, it should be easy to point to one.

No, they weren't. There was no legitimate investigation, if there were, there would have been multiple prosecutions for fraud.

But the politicians benefit from the fraud too, so never once did they engage in a serious investigation.

 

[Anomalism]

No, they weren't. There was no legitimate investigation, if there were, there would have been multiple prosecutions for fraud.

But the politicians benefit from the fraud too, so never once did they engage in a serious investigation.

Yes, they were. You're also still not citing the claims I asked you to cite. You can't provide a single example?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The emails were investigated by eight independent inquiries across multiple countries, including by people who had every incentive to find misconduct if it existed. All of them concluded that while some language was poor and some data management practices needed improvement, there was no evidence of fraud, no manipulation of data to fabricate warming, and no conspiracy to suppress dissenting research. The science itself was sound..The "hide the decline" phrase that got the most attention wasn't about hiding temperature decline, it was about a known divergence problem in tree ring data after 1960 where proxy measurements stopped tracking instrumental temperatures accurately. That divergence was published and discussed openly in the literature before the emails leaked. It wasn't a secret.

On journal editors blocking skeptical papers: If you're referring to the Soon and Baliunas paper, that's actually a good example of the peer review process working. The paper had serious methodological problems. It mischaracterized the conclusions of many studies it cited, conflated regional temperature changes with global patterns, and used inconsistent standards for what counted as Medieval Warm Period evidence. Multiple editors and half the editorial board of climate research resigned over it being published. That's scientists holding the process accountable.

As for conflicts of interest, climate scientists disclose funding sources and affiliations in their papers, which is standard practice across all scientific fields. If you have specific examples of undisclosed conflicts that invalidated research findings, cite them. But "they get research grants" isn't a conflict of interest, it's how academic science works.

You keep saying "the reports are all out there" but you haven't cited a single specific example. Which paper was rejected for non-scientific reasons? Which natural mechanism is being systematically ignored? Which conflict of interest invalidated which finding?

I'm asking for specifics because "do your own research" isn't an argument. If these examples are so clear and damning, it should be easy to point to one.

there was no evidence of fraud, no manipulation of data to fabricate warming, and no conspiracy to suppress dissenting research.

Why were the emails talking about all those things?

Were they typing the emails with their fingers crossed?

The "hide the decline" phrase that got the most attention wasn't about hiding temperature decline, it was about a known divergence problem in tree ring data after 1960 where proxy measurements stopped tracking instrumental temperatures accurately. That divergence was published and discussed openly in the literature before the emails leaked. It wasn't a secret.

Why did they have to "hide it"?

 

[Anomalism]

there was no evidence of fraud, no manipulation of data to fabricate warming, and no conspiracy to suppress dissenting research.

Why were the emails talking about all those things?

Were they typing the emails with their fingers crossed?

The "hide the decline" phrase that got the most attention wasn't about hiding temperature decline, it was about a known divergence problem in tree ring data after 1960 where proxy measurements stopped tracking instrumental temperatures accurately. That divergence was published and discussed openly in the literature before the emails leaked. It wasn't a secret.

Why did they have to "hide it"?

Hide the decline referred to hiding the decline in the reliability of that specific tree ring proxy after 1960 in a graph intended for public presentation, not hiding an actual decline in measured global temperatures.

The instrumental thermometer record showed continued warming. The problem was that some tree ring series stopped matching the thermometer data after 1960, a known issue called the divergence problem. That specific proxy became unreliable for recent temperatures.

So they truncated the faulty proxy portion and replaced it with the directly measured instrumental record for the modern period. You can argue that was visually misleading if not clearly labeled enough, and some critics reasonably did. But that's very different from fabricating warming data.

And the key point is the divergence problem was already openly discussed in published papers before the emails leaked. You cannot simultaneously claim they were secretly hiding a problem that they had already publicly described in the literature.

As for the broader emails, frustrated scientists saying political or unprofessional things in private emails is not the same as evidence of fraud. The investigations looked at the actual data, code, methods, and published work. That's what matters scientifically, not isolated email snippets stripped of context.

If the thermometer record, satellite record, ocean heat content, glacier retreat, sea level rise, and isotope evidence all independently support warming, then disproving one tree ring reconstruction would not collapse the broader case anyway.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hide the decline referred to hiding the decline in the reliability of that specific tree ring proxy after 1960 in a graph intended for public presentation, not hiding an actual decline in measured global temperatures.

The instrumental thermometer record showed continued warming. The problem was that some tree ring series stopped matching the thermometer data after 1960, a known issue called the divergence problem. That specific proxy became unreliable for recent temperatures.

So they truncated the faulty proxy portion and replaced it with the directly measured instrumental record for the modern period. You can argue that was visually misleading if not clearly labeled enough, and some critics reasonably did. But that's very different from fabricating warming data.

And the key point is the divergence problem was already openly discussed in published papers before the emails leaked. You cannot simultaneously claim they were secretly hiding a problem that they had already publicly described in the literature.

As for the broader emails, frustrated scientists saying political or unprofessional things in private emails is not the same as evidence of fraud. The investigations looked at the actual data, code, methods, and published work. That's what matters scientifically, not isolated email snippets stripped of context.

If the thermometer record, satellite record, ocean heat content, glacier retreat, sea level rise, and isotope evidence all independently support warming, then disproving one tree ring reconstruction would not collapse the broader case anyway.

Hide the decline referred to hiding the decline in the reliability of that specific tree ring proxy after 1960 in a graph intended for public presentation, not hiding an actual decline in measured global temperatures.

Did they add the actual "declining data" to other data? Did that unscientific method "hide the decline"?

So they truncated the faulty proxy portion and replaced it with the directly measured instrumental record for the modern period. You can argue that was visually misleading if not clearly labeled enough, and some critics reasonably did. But that's very different from fabricating warming data.

Visually misleading? Is that like faking the data?

And the key point is the divergence problem was already openly discussed in published papers before the emails leaked. You cannot simultaneously claim they were secretly hiding a problem that they had already publicly described in the literature.

Every published graph or article with the new faked data that didn't say, "this data is faked and this is how we faked it" was secretly hiding it from the public.

As for the broader emails, frustrated scientists saying political or unprofessional things in private emails is not the same as evidence of fraud.

Saying political or unprofessional things like how they prevented skeptics from being published or hired is kind of
admitting to their fraud.

If the thermometer record, satellite record, ocean heat content, glacier retreat, sea level rise, and isotope evidence all independently support warming, then disproving one tree ring reconstruction would not collapse the broader case anyway.

If only they had just admitted to it, instead of lying about it, they'd have a better case.

 

[Anomalism]

Hide the decline referred to hiding the decline in the reliability of that specific tree ring proxy after 1960 in a graph intended for public presentation, not hiding an actual decline in measured global temperatures.

Did they add the actual "declining data" to other data? Did that unscientific method "hide the decline"?

So they truncated the faulty proxy portion and replaced it with the directly measured instrumental record for the modern period. You can argue that was visually misleading if not clearly labeled enough, and some critics reasonably did. But that's very different from fabricating warming data.

Visually misleading? Is that like faking the data?

And the key point is the divergence problem was already openly discussed in published papers before the emails leaked. You cannot simultaneously claim they were secretly hiding a problem that they had already publicly described in the literature.

Every published graph or article with the new faked data that didn't say, "this data is faked and this is how we faked it" was secretly hiding it from the public.

As for the broader emails, frustrated scientists saying political or unprofessional things in private emails is not the same as evidence of fraud.

Saying political or unprofessional things like how they prevented skeptics from being published or hired is kind of
admitting to their fraud.

If the thermometer record, satellite record, ocean heat content, glacier retreat, sea level rise, and isotope evidence all independently support warming, then disproving one tree ring reconstruction would not collapse the broader case anyway.

If only they had just admitted to it, instead of lying about it, they'd have a better case.

No, visually misleading is not the same as faking data.

The underlying thermometer data was real. The proxy divergence problem was real. The splice itself was real. The criticism is about presentation and labeling, not fabrication of measurements.

You're acting as though they invented warming that wasn't observed. They didn't. Instrumental records from multiple independent groups, using different methodologies, all showed warming regardless of the tree ring issue.

And no, replacing a known faulty proxy segment with direct instrumental measurements is not inherently unscientific if it's disclosed. The core dispute is whether some presentations made that transition sufficiently clear to non-specialist audiences.

You are trying to turn one controversial presentation choice involving one proxy into evidence that the entire field is fraudulent. That leap does not hold. If there had truly been systemic fabrication, independent observations would not converge.

The strongest critiques from serious climate skeptics are usually about climate sensitivity, attribution confidence, feedback magnitude, regional projections, and policy responses, not "warming is fake." Because the evidence that warming occurred is overwhelmingly robust independent of the tree ring controversy.

 

[westwall]

Yes, they were. You're also still not citing the claims I asked you to cite. You can't provide a single example?

I'm on a phone in the middle of nowhere, I gave you the general info, you have much better access than I do right now.

No, visually misleading is not the same as faking data.

The underlying thermometer data was real. The proxy divergence problem was real. The splice itself was real. The criticism is about presentation and labeling, not fabrication of measurements.

You're acting as though they invented warming that wasn't observed. They didn't. Instrumental records from multiple independent groups, using different methodologies, all showed warming regardless of the tree ring issue.

And no, replacing a known faulty proxy segment with direct instrumental measurements is not inherently unscientific if it's disclosed. The core dispute is whether some presentations made that transition sufficiently clear to non-specialist audiences.

You are trying to turn one controversial presentation choice involving one proxy into evidence that the entire field is fraudulent. That leap does not hold. If there had truly been systemic fabrication, independent observations would not converge.

The strongest critiques from serious climate skeptics are usually about climate sensitivity, attribution confidence, feedback magnitude, regional projections, and policy responses, not "warming is fake." Because the evidence that warming occurred is overwhelmingly robust independent of the tree ring controversy.

Yes, "visually misleading" is EXACTLY the same as faking data.

Listen to you. Just listen to you.

And you wonder why your narrative has failed.

People aren't nearly as stupid as you thought they were.

 

[Anomalism]

I'm on a phone in the middle of nowhere, I gave you the general info, you have much better access than I do right now.

Okay. I'll wait until you're better prepared then.

Yes, "visually misleading" is EXACTLY the same as faking data.

Listen to you. Just listen to you.

And you wonder why your narrative has failed.

No, it's not the same, and I explained why in detail.

People aren't nearly as stupid as you thought they were.

I really wish that were true.

 

[westwall]

No, it's not the same, and I explained why in detail.


I really wish that were true.

Oh, but it is true. Normal people realize that 7 or so "tipping points" have come and gone, and NOTHING HAPPENED!

Not a darned thing. No cities under water, no Maldives disappearing under the waves, no billions dying due to famine.

Nothing.

Every prediction that your highpriests have made, have not happened.

Not even close.

What has happened is they see rich politicians buying beach front homes all over the place.

Hard to fool people when your loudest mouths are living large by the beech without a care in the world.

 

[Anomalism]

Oh, but it is true. Normal people realize that 7 or so "tipping points" have come and gone, and NOTHING HAPPENED!

Not a darned thing. No cities under water, no Maldives disappearing under the waves, no billions dying due to famine.

Nothing.

Every prediction that your highpriests have made, have not happened.

Not even close.

What has happened is they see rich politicians buying beach front homes all over the place.

Hard to fool people when your loudest mouths are living large by the beech without a care in the world.

You're mixing together bad media hype, activist exaggeration, political rhetoric, and actual scientific projections as though they're all the same thing.

Some dramatic public predictions absolutely were overstated or poorly framed. That's true. But it does not follow that nothing is happening.

And tipping points are usually discussed as probabilistic thresholds or nonlinear risks, not movie style instant apocalypse switches. Missing an extreme prediction made by a politician or activist is not equivalent to disproving the underlying physics.

 

[westwall]

You're mixing together bad media hype, activist exaggeration, political rhetoric, and actual scientific projections as though they're all the same thing.

Some dramatic public predictions absolutely were overstated or poorly framed. That's true. But it does not follow that nothing is happening.

And tipping points are usually discussed as probabilistic thresholds or nonlinear risks, not movie style instant apocalypse switches. Missing an extreme prediction made by a politician or activist is not equivalent to disproving the underlying physics.

First off, your highpriests no longer make predictions. Their success rate of 0.0% was causing problems, especially when well known charlatans were capable of 70% success rates.

You continue to parse words, but the "tipping point" sermon has been used for so long that it is now ingrained in the psyche of your highpriests.


The predictions weren't "over stated" they were lies designed to panic the savages into turning over their lives to the highpriests. It's a playbook as old as mankind.

The underlying physics PROVE the theory as wrong. Long have IR is incapable of penetrating more than few microns into water, thus there is NO convection possible.

Remember your basic physics, HEAT RISES.

Your highpriests have tried to convince the world that physics no longer applies.

That's the problem when you're pushing a religious philosophy, and not a scientific one.

 

[Anomalism]

First off, your highpriests no longer make predictions. Their success rate of 0.0% was causing problems, especially when well known charlatans were capable of 70% success rates.

You continue to parse words, but the "tipping point" sermon has been used for so long that it is now ingrained in the psyche of your highpriests.


The predictions weren't "over stated" they were lies designed to panic the savages into turning over their lives to the highpriests. It's a playbook as old as mankind.

The underlying physics PROVE the theory as wrong. Long have IR is incapable of penetrating more than few microns into water, thus there is NO convection possible.

Remember your basic physics, HEAT RISES.

Your highpriests have tried to convince the world that physics no longer applies.

That's the problem when you're pushing a religious philosophy, and not a scientific one.

We've already had the debate about IR and I demonstrated that you lack basic, uncontroversial knowledge about how thermo and hydro dynamics work. With no options left you're willing to deny basic science that's not even limited to climate studies.

 

[westwall]

We've already had the debate about IR and I demonstrated that you lack basic, uncontroversial knowledge about how thermo and hydro dynamics work.

No, you demonstrated that you deny physics.

 

[Anomalism]

No, you demonstrated that you deny physics.

Okay. I'm still waiting for you to source the claims you never sourced in that earlier debate. I provided many sources from multiple places that backed up my claims about how it works. You weren't able to provide one.

Because your opinion is at odds with undisputed, uncontroversial properties of thermo and hydro dynamics. It's not even climate science you disagree with. You dispute the basics of known dynamics. Lol

There's no real conversation to be had there. You just don't understand how things work.

 

[westwall]

Okay. I'm still waiting for you to source the claims you never sourced in that earlier debate. I provided many sources from multiple places that backed up my claims about how it works. You weren't able to provide one.

Because your opinion is at odds with undisputed, uncontroversial properties of thermo and hydro dynamics. It's not even climate science you disagree with. You dispute the basics of known dynamics. Lol

There's no real conversation to be had there. You just don't understand how things work.

No, your sources are simply lying. Physics is physics. It doesn't change based on personal desires.

Heat rises. Thus heat which doesn't penetrate through the skin of water is simply redirected back to the atmosphere.

Period.

End of story.

And that's all your highpriests have are fanciful stories. They are no different than those who convinced the poor savages of long ago to sacrifice their virgin daughter's to the volcano gods.

 

[Anomalism]

No, your sources are simply lying. Physics is physics. It doesn't change based on personal desires.

Heat rises. Thus heat which doesn't penetrate through the skin of water is simply redirected back to the atmosphere.

Period.

End of story.

And that's all your highpriests have are fanciful stories. They are no different than those who convinced the poor savages of long ago to sacrifice their virgin daughter's to the volcano gods.

"I can't source my claims that dispute basic dynamics, but your sources that contradict me are lying."

Okay. Lol

 

[westwall]

"I can't source my claims that dispute basic dynamics, but your sources that contradict me are lying."

Okay. Lol

Yeah, ok. Crack open a CRC and show the math how heat can go down.