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

[ReinyDays]

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.

Your OP claims you speak for all scientists in all fields all around the world ... what's left to discuss? ...

So you admit you have no examples of climate change ... just some statistical mumbo-jumbo ... and weather stations are fixed points on land ... isn't that where you're getting your data? ... every weather map I've every seen always shows fixed points ... and for good reason ...

Go ask all the world's scientists why it's a good reason ... hint: Naviar/Stokes Equations ...

 

[Mushroom]

Every scientific institution on Earth says climate change is real and human caused.

That is what is known as a "lie", and easily proven. And also a logical fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority".

There are a slew of scientific institutions that say that is not true. So when they very first sentence of your diatribe is essentially a lie, it pretty much should be ignored to be honest.

And one of the first things that anybody involved in science should know is that one never makes such absolute statements.

 

[Kruska]

I didn't say the Earth is on the brink of disaster. A lot of scientists aren't actually saying that either. There is no consensus on timelines or the scale of impact.

Climate change becomes largely irreversible on human timescales
once global temperatures surpass 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, a threshold already being breached as of 2025–2026, causing permanent loss of coral reefs, melting ice sheets, and surging sea levels. These impacts will last for over 1,000 years even if emissions stop, due to ocean heat absorption.

How does that fit your comment/conviction, that the earth is not on the brink of disaster?

 

[Kruska]

That is what is known as a "lie", and easily proven. And also a logical fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority".

Rubbish - Science is and has never been an "authority", but a "respected" field of knowledge.

And one of the first things that anybody involved in science should know is that one never makes such absolute statements.

If you continue to fill a glass with water, it eventually will overflow - now that is proven science and an absolute statement.

I Guess your "scientific wisdom" derives from homeschooling, that skipped science entirely.

 

[Anomalism]

Your OP claims you speak for all scientists in all fields all around the world ... what's left to discuss? ...

So you admit you have no examples of climate change ... just some statistical mumbo-jumbo ... and weather stations are fixed points on land ... isn't that where you're getting your data? ... every weather map I've every seen always shows fixed points ... and for good reason ...

Go ask all the world's scientists why it's a good reason ... hint: Naviar/Stokes Equations ...

I never claimed to speak for all scientists in all fields, and pretending I did is just a straw man. Dismissing scientific research as “statistical mumbo-jumbo” isn’t a rebuttal, it’s an evasion.

Statistics is literally how you detect large-scale patterns in complex systems. Without it, you don’t have climate science, epidemiology, or even engineering.

Name dropping Navier–Stokes doesn’t help your case either. Fluid dynamics is exactly why we use distributed measurements and models to study atmospheric behavior over time. You’re not engaging the data, you’re reframing the conversation so my actual claims disappear and can be replaced with caricatures.

 

[Anomalism]

That is what is known as a "lie", and easily proven. And also a logical fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority".

There are a slew of scientific institutions that say that is not true. So when they very first sentence of your diatribe is essentially a lie, it pretty much should be ignored to be honest.

And one of the first things that anybody involved in science should know is that one never makes such absolute statements.

Which scientific institutions take the stance that AGW isn't real?

 

[cnm]

Where like interests converge, no conspiracy is necessary.

The climate scientists after your lunch money are pretty scary all right.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Anomalism]

Climate change becomes largely irreversible on human timescales
once global temperatures surpass 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, a threshold already being breached as of 2025–2026, causing permanent loss of coral reefs, melting ice sheets, and surging sea levels. These impacts will last for over 1,000 years even if emissions stop, due to ocean heat absorption.

How does that fit your comment/conviction, that the earth is not on the brink of disaster?

This is conflating two different claims. “Irreversible on human timescales” is a technical statement about physical inertia in complex systems (ice sheets, oceans, ecosystems), not a claim that Earth is on the brink of sudden collapse or apocalyptic disaster. It means some changes have long memory and won’t quickly revert, even if emissions stopped.

When I say there’s no consensus on timelines or scale of impact, I’m talking about how severe, how fast, and how disruptive those changes will be for human societies. Most climate science describes gradual, path dependent risk accumulation, not a doomsday threshold. Irreversibility ≠ imminent catastrophe.

 

[cnm]

Awful lot of coal mining in Oz.

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. He rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. He has been criticised by climate scientists for misinterpreting data and spreading misinformation. Plimer previously worked as a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies Continued in Wikipedia​

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[MisterBeale]

Which scientific institutions take the stance that AGW isn't real?

Why the hell would they do that? There is no money, power or control in doing that.

That's like asking me which KFC restaurant supports veganism.

 

[Anomalism]

Why the hell would they do that? There is no money, power or control in doing that.

That's like asking me which KFC restaurant supports veganism.

He made a claim that there are scientific institutions that take that stance. I am asking him to back up that claim.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awful lot of coal mining in Oz.

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. He rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. He has been criticised by climate scientists for misinterpreting data and spreading misinformation. Plimer previously worked as a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies Continued in Wikipedia​

Cheap reliable coal is a very useful energy source.

 

[Kruska]

This is conflating two different claims. “Irreversible on human timescales” is a technical statement about physical inertia in complex systems (ice sheets, oceans, ecosystems), not a claim that Earth is on the brink of sudden collapse or apocalyptic disaster. It means some changes have long memory and won’t quickly revert, even if emissions stopped.

You are splitting hairs.

Climate change becomes largely irreversible on human timescales
Simply means - the situation becomes irreversible for next couple of hundreds or a 1000 years

Once global temperatures surpass 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, a threshold already being breached as of 2025–2026, causing permanent loss of coral reefs, melting ice sheets, and surging sea levels.

Simply means - the present factors will continue to increase and cause irreversible catastrophes on the planet and all live for the next hundreds or a thousand years.

When I say there’s no consensus on timelines or scale of impact, I’m talking about how severe, how fast, and how disruptive those changes will be for human societies. Most climate science describes gradual, path dependent risk accumulation, not a doomsday threshold. Irreversibility ≠ imminent catastrophe.

It is understood that science right now can't predict an exact date as to when 10 million or 4 Billion people will perish due to the IRREVERSIBLE catastrophes caused by Climate change, since there are far too many factors - that are also out of the hands of scientists, but solely depend onto the actions of politicians.

 

[Oddball]

Awful lot of coal mining in Oz.

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist and professor emeritus at the University of Melbourne. He rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. He has been criticised by climate scientists for misinterpreting data and spreading misinformation. Plimer previously worked as a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies Continued in Wikipedia​

Which refutes the supplied ratio numbers in what way?

 

[Anomalism]

You are splitting hairs.

Climate change becomes largely irreversible on human timescales
Simply means - the situation becomes irreversible for next couple of hundreds or a 1000 years

Once global temperatures surpass 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, a threshold already being breached as of 2025–2026, causing permanent loss of coral reefs, melting ice sheets, and surging sea levels.

Simply means - the present factors will continue to increase and cause irreversible catastrophes on the planet and all live for the next hundreds or a thousand years.

It is understood that science right now can't predict an exact date as to when 10 million or 4 Billion people will perish due to the IRREVERSIBLE catastrophes caused by Climate change, since there are far too many factors - that are also out of the hands of scientists, but solely depend onto the actions of politicians.

You’re still conflating physical irreversibility with societal collapse. ‘Irreversible on human timescales’ simply means that some environmental changes, ice sheets, coral reefs, ocean heat, won’t quickly revert, even if emissions stopped. It does not mean the planet is heading toward immediate catastrophe or mass extinction. Science does not claim exact death tolls or dates, only that certain systems have long memory and will continue along physical trajectories. Path-dependent, gradual risk accumulation ≠ apocalyptic certainty.

What you call splitting hairs is actually an important distinction, because it's the difference between scientific accuracy and a doomsday narrative.

 

[Kruska]

You’re still conflating physical irreversibility with societal collapse. ‘Irreversible on human timescales’ simply means that some environmental changes, ice sheets, coral reefs, ocean heat, won’t quickly revert, even if emissions stopped. It does not mean the planet is heading toward immediate catastrophe or mass extinction. Science does not claim exact death tolls or dates, only that certain systems have long memory and will continue along physical trajectories. Path-dependent, gradual risk accumulation ≠ apocalyptic certainty.

What you call splitting hairs is actually an important distinction, because it's the difference between scientific accuracy and a doomsday narrative.

Off course I am conflating the two - since a further continuation of Climate change and it's impact on the planet will automatically bring a societal collapse in many regions if not globally.

And I never stated immediate.

 

[Anomalism]

Off course I am conflating the two - since a further continuation of Climate change and it's impact on the planet will automatically bring a societal collapse in many regions if not globally.

And I never stated immediate.

Physical irreversibility does not automatically cause societal collapse. Climate models and observations project environmental changes and associated risks, but human societies are complex and adaptive; the magnitude and timing of social impacts remain uncertain. Conflating natural system inertia with inevitable societal collapse is a narrative choice, not a scientific conclusion.