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

[Anomalism]

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

It's basic thermo and hydrodynamics that's not even controversial or strictly tied to climate science. That's the part you seem to either not understand or intentionally ignore. You're not denying climate science anymore. You're dying basic properties of dynamics.

I literally already showed you the math, multiple times. I guess you'll pretend that never happened.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

And what did they do with the proxy data? Spell it out.

And no, replacing a known faulty proxy segment with direct instrumental measurements is not inherently unscientific

They replaced all of it or some of it?

The core dispute is whether some presentations made that transition sufficiently clear to non-specialist audiences.

Did they make it clear, or did they "hide" it?

You are trying to turn one controversial presentation choice involving one proxy into evidence that the entire field is fraudulent.

Well, you fake enough data and sabotage enough skeptics, what else am I supposed to think about the field?