It's implied in this snotty opening sentence...
I don’t control the tone you assign to my words. I haven’t called anyone stupid, nor have I insulted anyone’s views. Critiquing logic or patterns of argument isn’t the same as dismissing a person or their beliefs.
Prove it.
Even if funding creates pressure or bias, science isn’t a secret cabal. Every major climate claim is subject to peer review, replication, and public scrutiny. Independent researchers worldwide, satellite teams, oceanographers, glaciologists, all verify the same trends. You’d need global collusion across disciplines, continents, and decades to fake this, which is implausible. Funding can influence framing or hype, but it cannot rewrite physics or erase observational data.It is only an ad hom if you are too dense, or don't understand the connection between who is funding the researchers, and who is pushing the so called-need to do something about this manufactured problem
This is akin to a heroine addict being part of an intervention for his alcoholic friend.
Actions speak louder than propaganda.
Maybe you are too young to remember Climate Gate, but what you wrote seems from our perspective, the height of naivety.
You can quantify it. A single large climate model run might use megawatt hours of electricity, producing a few tons of CO2. Climate models guide policies that reduce fossil fuel use at gigaton scale, so the energy they consume is negligible in comparison.
Is that why 90% of college professors are in lockstep political agreement? What planet do you live on?
Political views among professors are social, not evidence that the scientific method is compromised. Fame, career advancement, and peer review reward novel, replicable results, not protecting consensus. Across decades and disciplines, every incentive in research pushes scientists to challenge prevailing theories, which is why overturning established ideas is so rare: it’s hard. Consensus exists because the evidence is overwhelming, not because everyone is politically aligned.
Those numbers aren’t made up. They’re based on published energy use estimates for HPC clusters running climate models. Even if they were slightly off, the scale difference is obvious: models consume a few tons of CO2 versus policies that can avoid billions of tons from fossil fuels. Pointing at a tiny fraction to dismiss decades of empirical observation is a classic red herring.
You have been reduced to making up data now. Not wholly unlike the quacks at East Anglia.
How much CO2 is produced to acquire the data which these fraudulent models use?
There is no such thing as results that are reproducible when computer models are used.
Data comes from satellites, ocean buoys, ice cores and other measurements. Running climate models to interpret that data adds a few tons of CO2 per large run. Compared to the gigatons of CO2 that informed policy can avoid, this is trivial. Your argument collapses under scrutiny.
Computer models are tools for simulating complex systems, not oracles. Variation between runs isn’t a flaw. It’s part of uncertainty quantification, and results are tested against real world observations like temperature records, ice cores, and satellite data. Claiming disagreement with a model is automatically thrown out ignores peer review, replication, and validation. Science isn’t a religion, it’s an iterative, falsifiable process.
Scientific evidence is dependent upon repeatable experimentation. Show the experiment where humans were able to change the Earth's climate. Like, make it rain in drought areas, stop a storm, redirect a cyclone, etc.
Well then climate changes. Thanks Capt. Obvious.
