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

[Anomalism]

Did you read mine why not explain all those failed predictions.

I've already addressed the points you’re rehashing in my earlier post. I explained why failed predictions, cherry-picked examples, or retracted papers don’t invalidate the broader patterns observed across decades of independent research. If you didn’t catch that, I suggest rereading carefully. If you did, then it looks like you’re not engaging with the argument honestly and are just repeating talking points.

At this point I'm starting to think you're not actually listening, and are just trying to inject noise.

 

[Hafar1014]

I never said I know nothing. I said I’m not a climate scientist. That distinction matters if you actually want a productive discussion instead of tossing strawmen around.

As for your latitude and longitude request...

Climate change isn’t a single point on a map. It’s a statistical shift across the globe, ocean temperatures, atmospheric composition, ice mass, and weather patterns. Every major dataset literally comes from millions of geo-tagged measurements. Asking for a single GPS coordinate is a misunderstanding of the field.

If your goal is to challenge the science, the question isn’t “where exactly did it change?” It’s “can you show reproducible data that humans aren’t affecting these global systems?” No one has done that.

Climate Change is the term used when Global warming failed. Its a fraud because what it means is human caused climate change. There is no research or proof that human activity changes the climate. Climate is created by two things the sun and tilt of the earths axis.

 

[MisterBeale]

Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Oddball]

Labeling something “fallacious” doesn’t magically refute the underlying evidence. At best it critiques the argument, not the data. You keep talking about logical errors in how people talk about climate as if it's proof that the measurements themselves are invalid.

That’s a category mistake. Bad reasoning about a topic doesn’t invalidate research.

And calling science a “cult” because core conclusions persist through corrections is backwards. That’s literally how cumulative science works: individual papers get revised, models get tuned, error bars shrink, but the signal remains because it’s supported by independent lines of evidence. A cult protects beliefs from revision; climate science constantly revises methods while the empirical pattern stays consistent.

Models also converge on gravity being real.

Why?

Because...

Convergence is a normal feature of mature science.

You really are quite thick, aren't you?

One more time: Your flaws in reasoning (i.e. logical fallacies) give away the flawed "science" behind them, like a ******* rotating beacon at an airport....One begets and is a result of the other.

If the science was sound, you wouldn't need to keep resorting to them...But just like your argumentation, the goalposts of the "science" keep moving.

Truly, you have NFI what you're blabbering about.

 

[Anomalism]

All real scientific theories are falsifiable. Tell me what type of experiments can be run to prove or disprove AGW.

For years, these same quacks have been telling us the Arctic Ice will be gone, or the Ocean's will rise X amount over a certain period, all predictions turn out wrong.

You’re right that scientific theories need to be falsifiable. Climate science isn’t immune to that. It makes predictions about temperatures, ice coverage, sea levels, and other measurable variables. The challenge is that these systems are complex and influenced by many factors, so individual predictions can miss the mark without invalidating the overall theory.

Failed or overly specific predictions, like “Arctic ice gone by year X” don’t automatically disprove anthropogenic climate change. They show the limits of particular models or assumptions.

Scientists continuously refine models as new data comes in, which is exactly what a self-correcting, falsifiable system does.

Off the top of my head...

A falsifiable test of AGW could be framed around atmospheric CO2 forcing. AGW predicts that if CO2 levels rise significantly due to human activity, measurable global temperature increases should follow over time, following known radiative physics.

Concrete falsification scenario:
CO2 concentrations rise sharply for decades.

Global average temperatures do not increase, or the pattern is completely inconsistent with greenhouse physics (upper atmosphere cools instead of warming).

This occurs reproducibly across independent measurement systems: satellites, ocean buoys, weather stations, ice cores, etc.

If all that happened, the core prediction of AGW would be proven wrong.

 

[Hafar1014]

I've already addressed the points you’re rehashing in my earlier post. I explained why failed predictions, cherry-picked examples, or retracted papers don’t invalidate the broader patterns observed across decades of independent research. If you didn’t catch that, I suggest rereading carefully. If you did, then it looks like you’re not engaging with the argument honestly and are just repeating talking points.

At this point I'm starting to think you're not actually listening, and are just trying to inject noise and there is no independent research.

When predictions fail at the level they have failed that proves the hypothesis is wrong. What patterns, everything is within the normal changes in climate. There have been no significant changes. Well how about zero hurricanes this year and record cold on the east coast. Where is all this global warming? Its not happening. Do you even know how to read research? Can you interoperate a correlational study? Because thats all climate research is. Insignificant correlations invalidated by outcomes in real life

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You’re still collapsing three different layers into one and assuming that makes a scientific argument.

Policy ≠ science
Net zero is a policy goal. That part is just descriptively true. Governments choose targets, timelines, taxes, bans, subsidies. None of that is a measurement of atmospheric physics. You can argue (reasonably) that net zero is economically destructive, selectively applied to the West, or politically motivated, but none of that is evidence that refutes what climate scientists are saying.

When you say “the policy is directed at Western civilization, therefore the science is fake” you are treating political incentives as if they invalidate physical observations. That’s not skepticism, that’s a non sequitur. Even if every climate policy were evil, corrupt, and stupid (plausible), it still wouldn’t logically imply that the underlying measurements are fabricated.

You’re just asserting a conclusion. You're circling back to politics, Greta, Western decline, and corruption. None of that touches the physics.

The loop is

Institutions are political

Therefore science is fake

Therefore policy is evil

Therefore institutions are political

That’s a closed ideological circuit. No possible data could ever enter that loop, because everything gets reclassified as “part of the sham” by definition.

The real issue isn’t religious worship of science. It’s the opposite: you’ve replaced empirical claims with a fully immunized belief system. Every error proves fraud, every correction proves conspiracy, every measurement proves manipulation.
That’s not skepticism.

You have NO SCIENCE!!

Consensus =/= Science!!

 

[Hafar1014]

You’re right that scientific theories need to be falsifiable. Climate science isn’t immune to that. It makes predictions about temperatures, ice coverage, sea levels, and other measurable variables. The challenge is that these systems are complex and influenced by many factors, so individual predictions can miss the mark without invalidating the overall theory.

Failed or overly specific predictions, like “Arctic ice gone by year X” don’t automatically disprove anthropogenic climate change. They show the limits of particular models or assumptions.

Scientists continuously refine models as new data comes in, which is exactly what a self-correcting, falsifiable system does.

Off the top of my head...

A falsifiable test of AGW could be framed around atmospheric CO2 forcing. AGW predicts that if CO2 levels rise significantly due to human activity, measurable global temperature increases should follow over time, following known radiative physics.

Concrete falsification scenario:
CO2 concentrations rise sharply for decades.

Global average temperatures do not increase, or the pattern is completely inconsistent with greenhouse physics (upper atmosphere cools instead of warming).

This occurs reproducibly across independent measurement systems: satellites, ocean buoys, weather stations, ice cores, etc.

If all that happened, the core prediction of AGW would be proven wrong.

The people who fund the science have vested a interest in the outcome which will support what they are getting paid for. Then the hype starts and they exaggerate the results. Remember the polar bears are going to be extinct due to global warming. Well their population increased. Everywhere you look at a scientific prediction we see it never came true.
CO2 does not make the earth warm and all the attempts to reduce it have had no effect on temperature. Its big lie to eapand the power of government control people raise taxes and feed a green energy industry who kicks back money to democrats to keep the money flowing. The result unreliable expensive energy that cant meet demand. The solution is worse then the problem which doesnt exist in the first place

 

[Anomalism]

I want to clarify something I haven’t mentioned yet. I’m fully aware that not all scientists agree on exact timelines or projections. The “99% of scientists agree” talking point was intentionally misleading. It was presented to the public as if everyone agreed we were on the brink of catastrophe. In reality, the consensus is simply that AGW is happening to some extent, not that it will destroy our lives imminently. Personally, I lean toward it not being an existential threat in the near term.

 

[Hafar1014]

I want to clarify something I haven’t mentioned yet. I’m fully aware that not all scientists agree on exact timelines or projections. The “99% of scientists agree” talking point was intentionally misleading. It was presented to the public as if everyone agreed we were on the brink of catastrophe. In reality, the consensus is simply that AGW is happening to some extent, not that it will destroy our lives imminently. Personally, I lean toward it not being an existential threat in the near term.

Or ever its a fraud and you fell for it

 

[Anomalism]

The people who fund the science have vested a interest in the outcome which will support what they are getting paid for. Then the hype starts and they exaggerate the results. Remember the polar bears are going to be extinct due to global warming. Well their population increased. Everywhere you look at a scientific prediction we see it never came true.
CO2 does not make the earth warm and all the attempts to reduce it have had no effect on temperature. Its big lie to eapand the power of government control people raise taxes and feed a green energy industry who kicks back money to democrats to keep the money flowing. The result unreliable expensive energy that cant meet demand. The solution is worse then the problem which doesnt exist in the first place

You’re framing all of climate science as driven solely by funding and politics, but that oversimplifies things. Funding and incentives absolutely shape what gets studied, but independent measurements, satellites, ocean temperatures, ice cores, tree rings, don’t care about politics. They exist whether anyone funds a study or not.

Yes, predictions have often missed exact timelines or magnitudes, and some hyperbolic claims, like the “polar bears will go extinct this year" have been wrong. That doesn’t invalidate the broader observations being made. Science is inherently iterative: models are revised, error bars updated, and hypotheses tested.

The economic and political failures of renewable energy policy, or the fact that governments mismanage funds, are real, but they are implementation problems, not evidence that CO2 doesn’t trap heat or that humans don’t influence climate. You're conflating bad policy with bad science, again.

 

[Anomalism]

You have NO SCIENCE!!

Consensus =/= Science!!

Consensus isn’t science, but neither is saying “I don’t believe it because I don’t like it.” Science is about measurement, replication, and testable hypotheses. Decades of independent temperature records, ice cores, satellite data, and CO2 measurements exist regardless of what anyone believes or what the consensus says. You can reject consensus, but you can’t logically reject the empirical data without showing reproducible evidence to the contrary.

 

[Anomalism]

You really are quite thick, aren't you?

One more time: Your flaws in reasoning (i.e. logical fallacies) give away the flawed "science" behind them, like a ******* rotating beacon at an airport....One begets and is a result of the other.

If the science was sound, you wouldn't need to keep resorting to them...But just like your argumentation, the goalposts of the "science" keep moving.

Truly, you have NFI what you're blabbering about.

Your argument still conflates critique of rhetoric with critique of data. Pointing out “logical fallacies” in someone’s phrasing doesn’t invalidate decades of measurements across independent datasets. Calling repeated adjustments “moving goalposts” is missing how science actually works.

Models improve, error bars tighten, and methods evolve, but the underlying signal is consistently supported. Convergence is literally a hallmark of mature science, not evidence of a cult or a hoax.

Also, the repeated insults, name calling, and proclamations of my ignorance suggest frustration, probably because the usual tactics of ad hominem and circular reasoning aren’t working on someone who is parsing the argument carefully. Classic sign of someone doubling down emotionally when reason alone isn’t getting traction.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Atmosphere Evaporation Will Oscillating Vacillating Magnetosphere Suffice "

* Statistical Requirements For Runaway Immolation *

Labeling something “fallacious” doesn’t magically refute the underlying evidence. At best it critiques the argument, not the data. You keep talking about logical errors in how people talk about climate as if it's proof that the measurements themselves are invalid.
That’s a category mistake. Bad reasoning about a topic doesn’t invalidate research.
And calling science a “cult” because core conclusions persist through corrections is backwards. That’s literally how cumulative science works: individual papers get revised, models get tuned, error bars shrink, but the signal remains because it’s supported by independent lines of evidence. A cult protects beliefs from revision; climate science constantly revises methods while the empirical pattern stays consistent.
Models also converge on gravity being real.
Why?
Because...
Convergence is a normal feature of mature science.

Which is data supporting a premise that climate change will cause earth to enter immolation as became of planet venus fiery hells ?

Somewhere from within celestial mythologies an allegory was contrived and interrelating the apparent brightness' between planets venus and jupiter , which led to a fable where the deity of planet venus was cast down from high heaven ( outside orbit of earth ) into the under world ( within orbit of earth ) for arrogance and rivalry against a more supreme celestial deity of planet jupiter , respectively personified as lucifer and zeus .

An alternative to the previous celestial mythology would be an allegory contriving an interrelationship between the apparent brightness' of planet venus and saturn , which led to a fable where planet venus was cast down from high heaven ( outside orbit of earth ) into the under world ( within earth orbit ) for arrogance and rivalry against supreme celestial deity of planet saturn , respectively personified as lucifer and saturnalis .

The sin mythology extensions into a dichotomy between good versus evil and personification of arrogance against goad would be more closely associated with hexagram of saturnalis , which once held a stature as king of celestial deities .

The oversimplified good versus evil paradigm of sin mythology regarding lucifer versus goad would do well to enlighten its selves by considering other cosmogony - especially that of prometheus - . Zone1 - Should Prometheus Be Viewed As Villainous Or Valiant ? .

. Saturn's hexagon - Wikipedia .

. Google Search .
Saturn (Latin: Saturnus) is the Roman god of agriculture, civilization, and time, closely identified with the Greek Titan Cronus. Regarded as a deity of renewal and liberation, he ruled a "Golden Age" of peace and prosperity. He was associated with the planet named after him, which in antiquity was the farthest visible to the naked eye.
Key Aspects of the Deity Saturn:

• Mythology: Known as the son of Caelus (Sky) and Terra (Earth), he overthrew his father but was eventually displaced by his own son, Jupiter.
• Attributes: Often depicted wielding a sickle or scythe, symbolizing agriculture and harvest.
• Saturnalia: His festival, held in December, was a period of reversal of social roles, feasting, and gift-giving.
• Temple and Treasury: His temple, located in the Roman Forum, also served as the aerarium (state treasury).
• Consort: Married to Ops, the goddess of abundance.

Though often confused with the Greek Cronus, Saturn held a distinct place in Roman religion as a deity of the sowing of seeds, from which his name likely derives.

 

[Anomalism]

Here’s a question for everyone arguing against what I'm saying. How much of your stance is actually just "I don’t give a damn." versus actually not believing AGW is happening? Be honest, are you objecting because of evidence, or because it’s potentially expensive and inconvenient in the short term, and you really just don't care what happens down the road?

What about God? How many think something like "It doesn't matter because God will take care of it." when having this conversation?

No judgment, just curious who’s willing to admit it.

 

[MisterBeale]

The challenge is that these systems are complex and influenced by many factors, so individual predictions can miss the mark without invalidating the overall theory.

This is a laugh. One of the main models used to predict this came out of the Imperial London College. Go back and look at their predictions for death and disease of the Covid virus.



Computer models are not a reliable measure of anything. Garbage in, garbage out.

Scientists continuously refine models as new data comes in, which is exactly what a self-correcting, falsifiable system does.

The data is manipulated, and the computer models assume the humans cause the majority of CO2 increases.

Concrete falsification scenario:
CO2 concentrations rise sharply for decades.

That doesn't proved AGW though.

Unless the folks manipulating the data want it to.





Your entire thread is a "band-wagon," fallacy, that is the logic you are employing.

I really thought you were smarter than this, TBH.

 

[Anomalism]

This is a laugh. One of the main models used to predict this came out of the Imperial London College. Go back and look at their predictions for death and disease of the Covid virus.



Computer models are not a reliable measure of anything. Garbage in, garbage out.



The data is manipulated, and the computer models assume the humans cause the majority of CO2 increases.




That doesn't proved AGW though.

Unless the folks manipulating the data want it to.





Your entire thread is a "band-wagon," fallacy, that is the logic you are employing.

I really thought you were smarter than this, TBH.

Sure, computer models can be wrong. That’s true for Covid and for climate. Garbage in, garbage out. But the difference is in scale, transparency, and the timescale of testing. Climate models are tested over decades, peer-reviewed, and refined against actual atmospheric and oceanic measurements, not rolling pandemic data from a single year.

Also, rapid CO2 rise alone doesn’t “prove” AGW. But rapid CO2 rise plus measurable warming, ocean acidification, ice sheet melt, and shifts in weather patterns is exactly the sort of testable, observable prediction climate science makes, and it keeps coming true.

 

[MisterBeale]

If the numb skulls were actually competent in their roles and concerns for investigation , discovery and recommendation , why has it not been suggested to divert some of fresh water from nothern regions , such as great lakes , to western regions of etas unis to prevent them from burning and allow them to consume carbon dioxide ?

Indeed, if the entire climate narrative were true, why do the folks in charge appear to not care about their own CO2 production?

I remember quite a while ago the investigation the confirmed for me that reality of this hoax. One of the independent journalists who represented native American interests of Canada attended one of the very first UN COP conferences. What she learned made her realize the entire thing was about controlling the planets resources.

The problem here? Crypo currencies don't use a fraction of the energy that cloud computing and data meta processing for the fourth industrial revolution use. All these global oligarchs crow about what they can do with meta-data, smart devices, smart cities, etc. and all the manipulation of our data, but it takes HUGE amounts of data, more than crypto currencies, MORE than even entire nations.

If these oligarchs were really serious about climate change, then the major tech companies would stop using ads to track our every move, where we go, what we look at, and making profiles of everyone, and every thing, and all the world's intelligence agencies would stop doing the same. They are creating entire virtual worlds. These take way more energy, and produce way more CO2 than ICE Vehicles, but switching the population over to EVs that use these data centers to create self driving vehicle produce far more CO2. It is obvious this is all about control, and making money for investors.


Any person that will sit and lecture the public about resource over use, and energy over use? If they haven't ditched their smart phones or EVs, they aren't really that serious.

But I agree with Corey Morningstar on this issue.


By agreeing to have a smart phone? You are agreeing to be part of the problem. Smart devices and their attendant technologies, are a bigger contributor to energy use than crypos, and so called, "green house gases," than even internal combustion engines.

Though crypo currencies and CBDCs are a big part of the problem, but the establishment has no problem with these???

Now, naturally the global ruling elites don't want anyone to know this, because this tech is used to track, trace, and profile every bit of information about the populations they want to control. And really, that is what the AGW narrative is really about, global elites control of everything.

So if you don't need it? It would be like buying a car, or wrapping your house in plastic if you don't need to.

Of course, if you had unlimited amount of money, sure it would be nice to have multiple types of cars, a private jet, several houses, and maybe a couple yachts. But is that socially responsible, if you don't need it?

The Great Reset: The Final Assault on the Living Planet [It’s Not a Social Dilemma – It’s the Calculated Destruction of the Social, Part III]​

Wrong Kind of Green Nov 28, 2020 Foundations, Non-Profit Industrial Complex, Social Engineering, United Nations, Whiteness & Aversive Racism
November 28, 2020


By Cory Morningstar

Part three. This is the final segment of a three-part investigative series. [Part 1] [Part 2]

The Great Reset: The Final Assault on the Living Planet [It’s Not a Social Dilemma – It’s the Calculated Destruction of the Social, Part III] - Wrong Kind of Green

"Social license is being harvested to reset the capitalist system – under the guise of a climate emergency and saving the planet. This we know: the planet will not be saved by those that have destroyed it."

www.wrongkindofgreen.org

She recommends not having a smart device if you don't need one.

You Should Question Climate Change! Here’s Why. w/Dr. Drew​

 

[Hafar1014]

You’re framing all of climate science as driven solely by funding and politics, but that oversimplifies things. Funding and incentives absolutely shape what gets studied, but independent measurements, satellites, ocean temperatures, ice cores, tree rings, don’t care about politics. They exist whether anyone funds a study or not.

Yes, predictions have often missed exact timelines or magnitudes, and some hyperbolic claims, like the “polar bears will go extinct this year" have been wrong. That doesn’t invalidate the broader observations being made. Science is inherently iterative: models are revised, error bars updated, and hypotheses tested.

The economic and political failures of renewable energy policy, or the fact that governments mismanage funds, are real, but they are implementation problems, not evidence that CO2 doesn’t trap heat or that humans don’t influence climate. You're conflating bad policy with bad science, again.

It is driven by funding and politicks. Look how much power it dragged int the government. It created an industry when there was no demand so they had to mandate its use. What we got was energy thats unreliable very expensive and cant meet the future or current demand. Low cost reliable energy is the foundation of a good economy. Wind and solar cant meet that demand the cpst is too high and will create an energy shortage catastrophe. Bill Gates and Zuckerberb have invested in nuclear power
The science is weak. You have to ask yourself why youre so invested in an idea that has no foundation in fact or even truth. Its a belief a religion. Does your life have no meaning other then this fraud. When people have lives without meaning they will believe anything. What does your life mean?

 

[MisterBeale]

Sure, computer models can be wrong. That’s true for Covid and for climate. Garbage in, garbage out. But the difference is in scale, transparency, and the timescale of testing. Climate models are tested over decades, peer-reviewed, and refined against actual atmospheric and oceanic measurements, not rolling pandemic data from a single year.

Also, rapid CO2 rise alone doesn’t “prove” AGW. But rapid CO2 rise plus measurable warming, ocean acidification, ice sheet melt, and shifts in weather patterns is exactly the sort of testable, observable prediction climate science makes, and it keeps coming true.

The irony here, of course, is that advanced computer models are huge hogs of energy, and thus produce more CO2 than most folks produce.

That you are sitting here recommending the production of CO2 to run machines that are trying to get you to believe the global rules actually care about CO2?

That's just hilarious.