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

[Anomalism]

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.

You keep pointing to Ioannidis and retractions as evidence that all climate research is invalid. That’s a misinterpretation. Yes, some studies are flawed or later corrected, that’s how science works. Self-correction, debate, and re-evaluation are features, not evidence of a conspiracy or fraud. Individual errors don’t invalidate thousands of independent measurements, cross-checked models, and global data.

Insisting that all research is fake because some findings are refuted is a logical circle: it treats nuance and uncertainty as proof of a global hoax. We’ve already addressed this, pointing to publication issues or failed predictions repeatedly doesn’t create new evidence, it just recycles the same argument in a loop.

If your goal is to challenge the science, the burden is to point to specific, reproducible evidence that humans aren’t affecting the climate, not to cite generalized concerns about research reliability.

TLDR: You're going in circles now.

 

[task0778]

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.

That's just it, there is no real proof either way, other than looking at what was stated 40 years ago that turned out to be false. You are making a statement that I believe is a lie; I do not believe that every major scientific institution has reviewed decades of data and concluded that human activity is a significant driver of climate change. I dispute that, and since you posted it, it's up to you to defend it. No doubt you can find somebody to support that hypothesis, just as I can that denies it. Which proves nothing either way.

In science, just like every other human endeavor, politics has intruded and to deny that is to deny reality. Some scientists and institutions will issue reports and studies that will support the desires of their benefactors, one way or the other, but you evidently cannot accept that. Scientific research depends on funding, and the results will usually defend the position the benefactors desire, otherwise funding kinda dries up. How else can you explain the research that came out in the 90s that favored GW/CC that turned out to be utterly wrong? You remember the hysterical claims back then, right? Politicians used that research to support proposals to fight CC/GW, some of which were adopted and subsequently failed to move the needle. And that is where the problem really lies. I don't care how much you think CC/GW is affected by humanity, but I sure as hell care when you want to spend trillions on projects that have not worked at a time when we don't have the ******* money.

 

[Anomalism]

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.

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

A false equivalence occurs when two things are presented as logically the same, even though they aren’t. In my statement I'm making an analogy, not claiming they are literally identical. I'm showing that rejecting something important due to messy implementation or political complications is irrational. It’s a comparison of reasoning errors, not an equivalence fallacy.

You missed the point. Critiquing policy or governance is valid, but it doesn’t make decades of independent research invalid. Reality isn’t contingent on the efficiency or morality of those in power.

 

[task0778]

but it doesn’t make decades of independent research invalid.

Doesn't make it true either and independent? BS. And here's the thing, everything the CC/GW crowd has presented as scientific evidence over the years has been proven to be wrong. Invalid, didn't happen. Every freakin' time. Don't tell me I gotta prove anything was invalid, history has already done that.

 

[Hafar1014]

You keep pointing to Ioannidis and retractions as evidence that all climate research is invalid. That’s a misinterpretation. Yes, some studies are flawed or later corrected, that’s how science works. Self-correction, debate, and re-evaluation are features, not evidence of a conspiracy or fraud. Individual errors don’t invalidate thousands of independent measurements, cross-checked models, and global data.

Insisting that all research is fake because some findings are refuted is a logical circle: it treats nuance and uncertainty as proof of a global hoax. We’ve already addressed this, pointing to publication issues or failed predictions repeatedly doesn’t create new evidence, it just recycles the same argument in a loop.

If your goal is to challenge the science, the burden is to point to specific, reproducible evidence that humans aren’t affecting the climate, not to cite generalized concerns about research reliability.

TLDR: You're going in circles now.

Try looking out the window

 

[Anomalism]

That's just it, there is no real proof either way, other than looking at what was stated 40 years ago that turned out to be false. You are making a statement that I believe is a lie; I do not believe that every major scientific institution has reviewed decades of data and concluded that human activity is a significant driver of climate change. I dispute that, and since you posted it, it's up to you to defend it. No doubt you can find somebody to support that hypothesis, just as I can that denies it. Which proves nothing either way.

In science, just like every other human endeavor, politics has intruded and to deny that is to deny reality. Some scientists and institutions will issue reports and studies that will support the desires of their benefactors, one way or the other, but you evidently cannot accept that. Scientific research depends on funding, and the results will usually defend the position the benefactors desire, otherwise funding kinda dries up. How else can you explain the research that came out in the 90s that favored GW/CC that turned out to be utterly wrong? You remember the hysterical claims back then, right? Politicians used that research to support proposals to fight CC/GW, some of which were adopted and subsequently failed to move the needle. And that is where the problem really lies. I don't care how much you think CC/GW is affected by humanity, but I sure as hell care when you want to spend trillions on projects that have not worked at a time when we don't have the ******* money.

You asked me to defend the claim that major scientific institutions agree humans are driving climate change. Here’s the simplest proof: there isn’t a single major, credible scientific institution anywhere in the world that officially disputes it. National academies, leading universities, and international bodies all agree humans are a significant driver. Individual scientists debate details like timelines, feedbacks, and regional impacts, but the foundational premise is uncontested.

Yes, politics, funding, and policy failures exist. Mistakes happen. Predictions sometimes miss the mark. That doesn’t change the underlying measurements from satellites, ice cores, ocean chemistry, and other independent data. Science is self-correcting; errors don’t equal fraud.

If the consensus were false, a single scientist proving it would become instantly famous and historically remembered. That hasn’t happened. Rehashing political failures or past mistakes doesn’t create new evidence. Reality isn’t negotiable.

 

[Hafar1014]

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.

Your posts dont show a great deal of intelligence so I dont think you could tone them down. You show a religious worship of science with no real scientific knowledge or ability for critical thinking.

 

[Anomalism]

Doesn't make it true either and independent? BS. And here's the thing, everything the CC/GW crowd has presented as scientific evidence over the years has been proven to be wrong. Invalid, didn't happen. Every freakin' time. Don't tell me I gotta prove anything was invalid, history has already done that.

History doesn’t automatically invalidate independent research. Climate science isn’t built on a single prediction. It’s built on multiple, independent lines of evidence. Some models or predictions from decades ago were off, yes, that’s science being messy and self-correcting, not evidence that the phenomenon itself is fake.

If decades of data were wrong about human influence, a single scientist could have exposed it and become historically famous. That hasn’t happened.

 

[Anomalism]

Try looking out the window

A conversation ending dodge disguised as an argument. You're appealing to “what you can see right now” instead of engaging with decades of global data.

Looking out my window won’t tell me what’s happening to the atmosphere, oceans, or ice sheets across the globe, and neither will yours. Climate science isn’t local anecdotes; it’s thousands of independent measurements, repeated experiments, and long-term trends. If seeing a single place in real time were sufficient, decades of research wouldn’t exist.

 

[Anomalism]

Your posts dont show a great deal of intelligence so I dont think you could tone them down. You show a religious worship of science with no real scientific knowledge or ability for critical thinking.

Classic ad hominem deflection. Attacking the person instead of the points.

Dismissing decades of independent, cross-checked research as “religious worship” doesn’t actually engage with the evidence.

 

[Hafar1014]

You asked me to defend the claim that major scientific institutions agree humans are driving climate change. Here’s the simplest proof: there isn’t a single major, credible scientific institution anywhere in the world that officially disputes it. National academies, leading universities, and international bodies all agree humans are a significant driver. Individual scientists debate details like timelines, feedbacks, and regional impacts, but the foundational premise is uncontested.

Yes, politics, funding, and policy failures exist. Mistakes happen. Predictions sometimes miss the mark. That doesn’t change the underlying measurements from satellites, ice cores, ocean chemistry, and other independent data. Science is self-correcting; errors don’t equal fraud.

If the consensus were false, a single scientist proving it would become instantly famous and historically remembered. That hasn’t happened. Rehashing political failures or past mistakes doesn’t create new evidence. Reality isn’t negotiable.

There is no consensus in science. That single e=scientist would become attacked and blackballed.

False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet​

As an Amazon Associate Copenhagen Consensus earns from qualifying purchases if you use the book links below.

Hurricanes batter our coasts. Wildfires rage across the American West. Glaciers collapse in the Artic. Politicians, activists, and the media espouse a common message: climate change is destroying the planet, and we must take drastic action immediately to stop it. Children panic about their future, and adults wonder if it is even ethical to bring new life into the world.

Enough, argues bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. Climate change is real, but it’s not the apocalyptic threat that we’ve been told it is. Projections of Earth’s imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics. In panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive but largely ineffective policies that hamper growth and crowd out more pressing investments in human capital, from immunization to education.
============================================================================
False Alarm will convince you that everything you think about climate change is wrong — and points the way toward making the world a vastly better, if slightly warmer, place for us all.
The 2025 Atlantic hurricane season ended on Sunday, and not a single hurricane made landfall in the continental U.S. this year. This is the first such quiet year since 2015; an average of around two hurricanes strike the U.S. mainland annually. You’d think this would be cause for celebration—or at least curiosity about what role, if any, glo
============================================================================
At the Sept. 23, 2025, U.N. General Assembly, President Donald Trump drew global headlines by blasting what he called the "extreme cost" of the green transition, arguing that climate alarmism is impoverishing ordinary people while enriching elites. Whatever one thinks of Trump’s rhetoric, he touched on an inconvenient truth: despite endless assurances from campaigners and institutions like the U.N., World Bank, and World Economic Forum, wind and solar are still not delivering cheap energy. In fact, they are making electricity more expensive.
============================================================================
Copenhagen Consensus President Bjorn Lomborg joined 'Varney & Co.' to argue that U.N. climate policies punish the world’s poor, warning that costly energy mandates and forced EV adoption ignore economic realities and hinder global development.
============================================================================
Over the past half-century, environmentalists have predicted countless calamities. Their extreme predictions were typically wrong, their draconian countermeasures turned out to be mostly misguided, and we should be grateful we didn’t follow their harmful advice. We need to keep this history in mind as we are inundated with stories of climate Armageddon.

 

[Hafar1014]

Classic ad hominem deflection. Attacking the person instead of the points.

Dismissing decades of independent, cross-checked research as “religious worship” doesn’t actually engage with the evidence.

Over the past half-century, environmentalists have predicted countless calamities. Their extreme predictions were typically wrong, their draconian countermeasures turned out to be mostly misguided, and we should be grateful we didn’t follow their harmful advice. We need to keep this history in mind as we are inundated with stories of climate Armageddon.
Bjorn Lomborg Climate Scientist

 

[Hafar1014]

A conversation ending dodge disguised as an argument. You're appealing to “what you can see right now” instead of engaging with decades of global data.

Looking out my window won’t tell me what’s happening to the atmosphere, oceans, or ice sheets across the globe, and neither will yours. Climate science isn’t local anecdotes; it’s thousands of independent measurements, repeated experiments, and long-term trends. If seeing a single place in real time were sufficient, decades of research wouldn’t exist.

Over the past half-century, environmentalists have predicted countless calamities. Their extreme predictions were typically wrong, their draconian countermeasures turned out to be mostly misguided, and we should be grateful we didn’t follow their harmful advice. We need to keep this history in mind as we are inundated with stories of climate Armageddon.
Bjorn Lomborg

 

[Anomalism]

There is no consensus in science. That single e=scientist would become attacked and blackballed.

False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet​

As an Amazon Associate Copenhagen Consensus earns from qualifying purchases if you use the book links below.

Hurricanes batter our coasts. Wildfires rage across the American West. Glaciers collapse in the Artic. Politicians, activists, and the media espouse a common message: climate change is destroying the planet, and we must take drastic action immediately to stop it. Children panic about their future, and adults wonder if it is even ethical to bring new life into the world.

Enough, argues bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. Climate change is real, but it’s not the apocalyptic threat that we’ve been told it is. Projections of Earth’s imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics. In panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive but largely ineffective policies that hamper growth and crowd out more pressing investments in human capital, from immunization to education.
============================================================================
False Alarm will convince you that everything you think about climate change is wrong — and points the way toward making the world a vastly better, if slightly warmer, place for us all.
The 2025 Atlantic hurricane season ended on Sunday, and not a single hurricane made landfall in the continental U.S. this year. This is the first such quiet year since 2015; an average of around two hurricanes strike the U.S. mainland annually. You’d think this would be cause for celebration—or at least curiosity about what role, if any, glo
============================================================================
At the Sept. 23, 2025, U.N. General Assembly, President Donald Trump drew global headlines by blasting what he called the "extreme cost" of the green transition, arguing that climate alarmism is impoverishing ordinary people while enriching elites. Whatever one thinks of Trump’s rhetoric, he touched on an inconvenient truth: despite endless assurances from campaigners and institutions like the U.N., World Bank, and World Economic Forum, wind and solar are still not delivering cheap energy. In fact, they are making electricity more expensive.
============================================================================
Copenhagen Consensus President Bjorn Lomborg joined 'Varney & Co.' to argue that U.N. climate policies punish the world’s poor, warning that costly energy mandates and forced EV adoption ignore economic realities and hinder global development.
============================================================================
Over the past half-century, environmentalists have predicted countless calamities. Their extreme predictions were typically wrong, their draconian countermeasures turned out to be mostly misguided, and we should be grateful we didn’t follow their harmful advice. We need to keep this history in mind as we are inundated with stories of climate Armageddon.

You’ve moved the conversation from the science itself to the cost, effectiveness, and ideology of climate policies. That’s a goalpost shift. Debating policy failures or economic impacts doesn’t disprove the decades of independent, global research. Highlighting quiet hurricane seasons, failed predictions, or the cost of green energy is not evidence.

You’re also circling back to arguments we’ve already addressed: bad models, historical mistakes, and selective anecdotes. Repeating them as proof doesn’t create new evidence. It just keeps you spinning in the same logical loop. If the scientific consensus were false, a single defector could expose it and become historically famous. That hasn’t happened. Reality doesn’t negotiate with policy failures or political narratives.

 

[Oddball]

A false equivalence occurs when two things are presented as logically the same, even though they aren’t

Exactly...Making your cancer analogy completely irrelevant and fallacious....There's actual documentary evidence of those techniques curing cancer, whereas no evidence that any of your touted climate "remedies" will have any effect whatsoever.

You missed the point. Critiquing policy or governance is valid, but it doesn’t make decades of independent research invalid.

The research is neither independent (one need look no further than the "I" in IPCC to recognize that), nor valid (as the aforementioned East Anglia emails reveal).

Reality isn’t contingent on the efficiency or morality of those in power.

The first time you swerve into reality on this ridiculous thread will be the first time....The morality (or more correctly the lack thereof) of those in power is more than certainly at issue.

 

[Anomalism]

Over the past half-century, environmentalists have predicted countless calamities. Their extreme predictions were typically wrong, their draconian countermeasures turned out to be mostly misguided, and we should be grateful we didn’t follow their harmful advice. We need to keep this history in mind as we are inundated with stories of climate Armageddon.
Bjorn Lomborg Climate Scientist

You're going in circles and regurgitating the same illogical stances.

Would you like to actually continue the discussion? Because to me it seems like the discussion is over. Lol

 

[Anomalism]

Exactly...Making your cancer analogy completely irrelevant and fallacious....There's actual documentary evidence of those techniques curing cancer, whereas no evidence that any of your touted climate "remedies" will have any effect whatsoever.

The research is neither independent (one need look no further than the "I" in IPCC to recognize that), nor valid (as the aforementioned East Anglia emails reveal).

The first time you swerve into reality on this ridiculous thread will be the first time....The morality (or more correctly the lack thereof) of those in power is more than certainly at issue.

You’re mixing separate claims and treating them as evidence against the science. First, your attack on my analogy is a false accusation of false equivalence: comparing policy or governance challenges to physics measurements wasn’t meant to equate them. It was a metaphor to illustrate that cost or inefficiency doesn’t invalidate the underlying reality. Calling it a “false equivalence” here is itself a misdirection.

Messy policy, government corruption, or ethical failings do not refute decades of independent climate measurements. The “I” in IPCC coordinates research. It doesn’t invalidate it. Thousands of scientists across continents, universities, and independent institutions reproduce and cross-check results worldwide.

The East Anglia emails were embarrassing but they do not actually refute any of the science.

Bottom line: you’re going in circles, attacking funding, coordination, and policy instead of the measurements themselves. If you want to dispute human-driven climate change, the burden is to show reproducible evidence, not recycled complaints about ethics, policy, or past mistakes.

 

[Hafar1014]

You're going in circles and regurgitating the same illogical stances.

Would you like to actually continue the discussion? Because to me it seems like the discussion is over. Lol

Climate change ideology is over

 

[Oddball]

You’re mixing separate claims and treating them as evidence against the science.

No, there is NO science.

First, your attack on my analogy is a false accusation of false equivalence: comparing policy or governance challenges to physics measurements wasn’t meant to equate them. It was a metaphor to illustrate that cost or inefficiency doesn’t invalidate the underlying reality. Calling it a “false equivalence” here is itself a misdirection.

Moving the goalposts....That particular question was on the efficacy of any reputed "remedy" to alleged man made climate coolerwarmeringchange, not any alleged physics measurements

Messy policy, government corruption, or ethical failings do not refute decades of independent climate measurements. The “I” in IPCC coordinates research. It doesn’t invalidate it.

Moving the goalposts again....The question was one if independence, not validation...A cartel of governments is the farthest thing from independence as you're going to get.

Thousands of scientists across continents, universities, and independent institutions reproduce and cross-check results worldwide.

Thousands of scientists also signed the Oregon petition, but they don't count, huh?

The East Anglia emails were embarrassing but they do not actually refute any of the science.

Indeed...They undercut the silly notion that there's ANY valid science at all.

Bottom line: you’re going in circles, attacking funding, coordination, and policy instead of the measurements themselves. If you want to dispute human-driven climate change, the burden is to show reproducible evidence, not recycled complaints about ethics, policy, or past mistakes.

The "science" is inarguable and settled as the premise for the whole thread...There's no greater affront to anything resembling applied epistemology than that.

There are no "mistakes"...The entire mess is the greatest sham ever perpetrated on the people of the world.

This thread is a gigantic fail.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Net zero is a policy goal, not science. Climate science doesn’t care about civilization, politics or ideology. It just measures reality. Claiming policy goals equal a “scientific attack” confuses evidence with political debate. You can argue about implementation all you want, but that doesn’t erase decades of global measurements and independent research.

The policy is directed solely at Western civilization. The fake "Science" has convinced stupid leaders that it's a "real problem" and they need to destroy their economy to get a thumbs from from Greta & the Stupids.

CO2 doesn't drive a thing on planet Earth and certainly not the climate