DrakeMallard, for instance, has debunked global warming many times, with infallible logic about snow totals in East Antarctica, and how it was unusually cold in NYC a few days ago.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49169207)

but even before we reach that, we're faced with the uncertainty of why there has been a bit of warming since 1850 or so. there wasn't nearly enough CO2 around in the mid-1800s to cause anything to happen. and we had a dip in temps from 1930-1979. the current "science," which is deeply embedded in group think and compromises due to politics and funding issues, assumes that all the rise since 1850 is due to CO2.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49169230)

I think for the core of the lobby it’s much more than group think, much more than assumption, it’s knowing dishonesty

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49169231)

George Carlin making a similar point to yours

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49169407)

also, the aspie is strong in the above subthread

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49169408)

if you don't agree, read Lomborg.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49169484)

Trees absolutely help. They absorb CO₂ and store it, they improve biodiversity, and they provide local cooling effects. Global reforestation is a legitimate climate strategy — and it has far fewer downsides than most large-scale interventions. But the numbers just don’t work out for it to be a standalone fix.

We’re currently dumping over 35 billion metric tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere each year. To offset even a quarter of that through tree planting alone, we’d need trillions of trees — which means finding and dedicating land areas the size of multiple continents. That land would have to compete with agriculture, housing, and ecosystems that aren’t naturally forested. Even if we found the space, trees take decades to mature and reach peak carbon absorption, so the payoff is delayed.

There’s also permanence to consider: forests can be wiped out by fires, pests, droughts, or logging. If that happens, the stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere, sometimes in a matter of days. In a hotter, drier world, that risk is only going to increase.

This is why most scientists frame tree planting as one piece of a larger puzzle. Protecting existing forests — especially old-growth ones — may actually be more impactful in the short term, because those trees already store massive amounts of carbon and continue to absorb more each year. But even that doesn’t replace the need to cut emissions at the source.

In other words, planting trees is a great idea. We should do more of it, and we should restore degraded lands. But if we keep burning fossil fuels at the current rate, we’re basically trying to bail water from a boat without fixing the hole in the hull. The most effective strategy is a combination: protect what we have, plant more, and reduce the flow of new emissions so that those trees we plant actually make a lasting dent.

It’s not about ignoring simple solutions — it’s about recognizing that no single “simple” action will solve a problem of this scale on its own.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49170631)

According to the “Science”, global emissions need to be halved yet the west only contributes to 30% of global emissions. Walk me through a practical solution to getting on track and describe the impact of the externalities of those solutions

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171482)

The faith is the same: there is sin (CO2), there is repentance (net zero pledges), there are heretics (climate skeptics), and there is salvation (green tech utopia). It is no less primitive and low iq than divination, the human ape has just traded incense for spreadsheets.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171561)

They speak of “consensus” like it is scripture.

They publish graphs with lines that go up and call it prophecy.

They tell you the seas will rise and the sky will burn and the world will end unless you pay tribute.

But science is not a vote.

Truth is not a quorum.

The data are bones picked clean by models—models built on assumptions stacked like rotten timbers. Garbage in. Garbage out. The error bars are graveyards.

They speak of certainty where none exists. They speak of “settled” facts on a system so vast no man can model it. The climate is chaos on a cosmic scale—oceans and wind and sun and cloud in a dance older than language. But they draw a straight line through it and call it fate.

Their predictions fail, so they shift the goalposts.

Global cooling. Global warming. Climate change.

The name changes but the creed does not: repent, pay, obey.

They are not scientists. They are weather augurs with better funding.

And the grant money is their altar. The fear is their incense.

They have built an empire of alarm and called it salvation.

A man can see the world warming or cooling in his lifetime and know it means nothing. The ice has come and gone before man learned to stand upright. The seas have risen and fallen before man learned to write.

But the priests must preach. The acolytes must chant. The heretics must burn.

Because without the crisis, there is no cause. Without the cause, there is no power. Without the power, there is nothing.

And that is the one thing they cannot face.

The edifice of anthropogenic climate change rests not on immutable law but on an eddy of parameterized guesswork.

Its “models” are not crystal balls but recursive exercises in confirmation — numerical hallucinations tuned to echo the priors of their architects. They are epistemic Potemkin villages: the façades of certainty erected over an abyss of unknowns.

Climate science’s central conceit is not that man affects the climate — that much is trivially true — but that this effect can be isolated, quantified, and projected across centuries with a precision that mocks the chaos of the Earth system.

The climate is not a billiard table; it is an open, non-linear dynamical beast, metastable, pulsing with forcings known and unknown, oscillations quasi-periodic and stochastic all at once.

To claim mastery over it through a stack of discretized partial differential equations is like claiming to own the ocean because you have a jar of seawater.

The epistemology is circular. Historical data are reconstructed from proxies, the proxies calibrated to contemporary temperatures, and the calibrations then used to “validate” the very reconstructions that birthed them. Paleoclimate histories become Rorschach blots: the signal is what the analyst wishes to see.

Anomalies are extracted, smoothed, and interpreted — the model is always right because the climate is always reinterpreted to match it.

This is not falsifiable science; it is unfalsifiable teleology. The endpoint — catastrophe — is assumed. The only question left is the rhetorical scale of the catastrophe, the moral culpability of the species, and the price of its indulgence.

And in that moral architecture, the anthropogenic warming narrative finds its real power: it is not an empirical conclusion but a civilizational cosmogony. It gives man original sin — CO₂ — and offers him redemption only through sacrifice. Its oracles are not elected, yet they legislate by proxy; their consensus functions as an ecumenical council, anathematizing the skeptic as if doubt were heresy.

Yet the physical record is indifferent. The Pleistocene oscillations, the Holocene thermal maximum, the Medieval Warm Period — all occurred without industrial smokestacks, without SUVs, without the metabolic exhalations of seven billion humans.

The climate is a thing of tectonic time. Man is an insect upon its surface, presuming he can steer a hurricane with the turn of a dial.

The public is not told this. They are told of “settled science” — a phrase that should induce epistemic nausea. They are told to fear the extrapolated squiggle, to genuflect before the model run.

It is climatology as political theology, where dissent is profane, and every graph is a stained-glass window in the cathedral of consensus.

Strip away the rhetoric and you are left with a skeleton of conjecture clothed in the vestments of certainty. The true mechanism of the doctrine is not to predict the future — it cannot — but to monopolize the narrative of the future, to hold it hostage, and to extract from that hostage the coin of power, policy, and permanent cultural obedience.

This is not the science of the climate.

It is the climate of science under an absolutist regime.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49169544)

there are legit counterarguments based in science. im not coming down either way. but the midwit wordcel "most x believe y" argument that takes 5 seconds disprove is low effort and unpersuasive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49169828)

i suspect we probably agree with each other fundamentally on the merits but ljl that most in STEM at a high level agree. they don't. that's why you're relying on secret knowledge.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49169864)

Where I think we’re talking past each other is in what counts as “arguing the science yourself.” You’re absolutely right that if we’re going to talk about scientific matters — climate, epidemiology, polling methodology, whatever — we should ideally be able to engage directly with the data. And yes, posting a graph and explaining your own interpretation is a solid way to do that. My issue is that, in practice, most of us (myself included) still rely on other people’s work — whether that’s collecting the raw data, building the models, or analyzing it. We can interpret it, sure, but we’re always building on someone else’s shoulders. That’s not automatically a weakness; it’s just how knowledge works.

So when I talk about “relying on others’ opinions,” I’m not accusing you of being unable to think for yourself. I’m pointing out that in most cases we all are working from a mix of our own reasoning and someone else’s research. The line between “using data” and “repeating another guy’s take” can be blurry — and I think that’s worth acknowledging if we want a discussion that’s more than just trading barbs.

I don’t doubt you can analyze a chart and argue from it — I’d be interested to see you do that. And I can do the same. But if the goal is to keep the focus on the evidence instead of the personalities, maybe we both need to rein in the tribal shorthand (“wordcel,” “troop members,” etc.). Those labels might feel satisfying in the moment, but they can crowd out the actual debate about the ideas.

You’ve put in the effort to “commit to the bit,” and I’ll give you credit for that. I’d rather see that commitment applied to the content of the arguments than to the personal heat, because then the whole thread gets more interesting for everyone following along.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49170586)

nobody know for sure abt global warming you just gona rile ppl up the science point to very weakly human caused but it will be fixed when it become economically necesary like ww1 ending stab in the back theory. economic will re-equiibrium it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49170612)

thanks for proving my point about comma sorcerers believing themselves to be experts in everything.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171226)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49169724)

Is it wrong for parents to allow their children to transition genders?

ChatGPT said:

This is a deeply complex and personal question that touches on ethics, medicine, psychology, and law. Whether it’s “wrong” depends on how one defines harm, benefit, and parental responsibility — and people come to very different conclusions based on their values and understanding of the evidence.

Here’s a structured way to think about it:

1. Medical and psychological perspectives

Major medical organizations (like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and the Endocrine Society) generally support gender-affirming care for minors when it follows established guidelines. This can include social transition (name, pronouns, clothing) and, for some adolescents, medical interventions under specialist supervision.

The rationale is that, for many young people experiencing gender dysphoria, affirming their gender identity can improve mental health, reduce depression and anxiety, and lower suicide risk.

Critics — including some clinicians — raise concerns about the long-term effects of medical interventions, the potential for regret, and whether some youth might be better served by approaches that explore their gender identity without medical steps early on.

2. Ethical considerations

Parental role: Parents are generally entrusted to make decisions in their children’s best interests — including in areas like healthcare, education, and religion.

Child autonomy: Ethical frameworks often weigh how much a child can understand and participate in decisions that have lasting effects. This leads to debates about whether minors can meaningfully consent to certain irreversible treatments.

Potential harm vs. benefit: If gender-affirming care helps prevent serious mental health crises, many argue it is not wrong, but rather a moral duty to provide. Others argue caution is warranted when decisions may have permanent physiological consequences.

3. Legal and societal context

Laws differ widely: some places explicitly protect parents’ right to support their child’s transition, others restrict medical interventions for minors, and in some cases parents can face legal consequences for consenting to them.

Social views are highly polarized, so what is considered “wrong” varies by community and cultural norms.

4. The nuance

“Transition” for children can mean very different things:

Social transition (changes in pronouns, name, clothing) is fully reversible.

Puberty blockers delay puberty to give more time to decide; effects are largely reversible but not fully risk-free.

Hormone therapy has some irreversible effects and is generally not started until mid-to-late adolescence under careful medical oversight.

The ethical debates are much sharper for irreversible medical steps than for social affirmation.

In short:

It isn’t universally considered “wrong” — many experts and parents view it as necessary and compassionate when done carefully, while others believe it is premature or potentially harmful. The rightness or wrongness depends heavily on context: the child’s age, mental health, persistence of gender dysphoria, medical oversight, and the values held by the family and society.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49170498)

'windmill fields' and covering mountain ranges in solar panels are not the solution; these are utter madness from the kooks who still wear Covid masks in 2025 and want us all eating bugs and drinking filtered diarrhea water.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49170599)

this is profoundly fucking retarded. the tech bros who won Trump the election basically all believe we should cover Arizona in solar panels and similar things. and they explicitly argue that a "degrowth" mindset comes from woke libs

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49170611)

yeah. climate insanity is mainly a far right issue. thx.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49170613)

Overpopulation can certainly intensify environmental pressures — more people means more demand for energy, food, and resources. But climate change is less about raw headcount and more about per capita emissions. For example, the average person in the U.S. or Australia emits many times more CO₂ than the average person in most of the “Global South.” That means that even if population growth is fastest in poorer regions, the bulk of historic and current emissions still comes from high-consumption societies.

On energy solutions: large-scale wind and solar do have trade-offs — they require land, materials, and infrastructure — but dismissing them outright ignores the fact that they’re now among the cheapest forms of new electricity in many markets. They’re not the only answer, but they’re part of the toolbox alongside nuclear, hydro, and improved efficiency.

Air conditioning, better living standards, and abundant energy are all achievable without resorting to authoritarian or genocidal measures. The challenge is to build systems that allow those benefits while drastically reducing the emissions and pollution that make climate change worse. That’s a hard engineering, policy, and social problem — but it’s solvable without crossing moral lines.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49170770)

how are 'historic emissions' (as opposed to current emissions) at all relevant unless you're a marxist liberation theologist (like chatgpt's programmers)?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49170888)

At best you have a 130IQ. ChatGPT has a 200IQ. Your not going to outsmart it, so just give up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171010)

If you ask it "Do trans athletes have an unfair advantage" it'll spit out some garbage that many experts believe male puberty confers an advantage, but that other experts note the advantage isn't dispositive, etc" - I suspect 4 years ago it would've been even more likely to say there's no evidence men are better at sports than women.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171000)

Based on the research I have done and my limited understanding I will NEVER believe in the climate hoax. There are simple, easy to understand explanations for why the anthropogenic rise in average global temperature is 100% false. It doesn't even contain a single kernel of truth. The climate alarmism hoax was invented out of whole cloth in the 90s by self loathing shitlibs whose goal was to destroy humanity and steal everyone's joy. Anyone caught promoting this pseudoscience should not be taken seriously.

If I am being extraordinarily deferential to the other side of the argument, the absolute most I will concede is this. The average temperature of the Earth possibly, although it's not entirely clear, but possibly could have risen by 1 degree Celsius since the time of Napoleon. And we don't know why, there is no predictive power in that. There's lots of potential explanations such as we were coming out of a little ice age anyway. It's barely a blip, it's likely not man made, and it's silly to think that the greenhouse gas effect has ever had any impact on human affairs or local weather patterns. The worse decade on record for natural disasters was in the 1930s. The IPCC is a joke and politicians bringing it up are wasting everybody's time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171128)

this is by definition irrational.

the rest of your poast is just emotional language further demonstrating you're emotionally tethered to an outcome and have given up thinking logically. a purely rational person would care about the truth and be open to new information.

repeatedly emphasizing your certainty and unshakable, permanent conclusion just highlights that you're not government by reason. as usual you think this table-pounding rhetoric is authorative, but to an unbiased reader rephasing "im right and ill never consider being wrong!" repeatedly diminishes reliability.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171222)

Imagine I came to you and said you have to change your entire lifestyle around because we're all gonna die and you were like uh how tf are we all gonna die. And I was just like well my model has zero predictive power and there are simple explanations why none of it is true but you must fuck up your entire life and all of society to make it better. And some guy in Denmark said so, so if you disagree you're a tool. That's literally what it is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171147)

You're ent9correct, it doesn't hold up well at all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171154)

There's also no clear starting point. Like when did this all 'begin'? If you pick your starting place in 1950 the Earth has hardly gotten warmer at all. Then the further you go back the less we can meaningfully say that the warming is man made.

Their argument is about the rate of change. They're not saying that oh this is objectively a lot of warming. They're saying it's an unprecedented rate and surely we're headed for disaster. But they cannot predict anything at all. It's the whole we have to stop doing something today to save the Earth in a hundred years. And then they will mouth off about how umenlightened humanity is for not thinking on geologic time scales. But if they had any predictive model they would be able to convince people to change their ways to save the planet. But when you can't even land within the ballpark of making a major prediction it undermines the whole thing.

And then they just point to a random snowstorm on the east coast and say, well there it is. That's your proof, you see it snowed a lot. They had to change the whole name of the movement from global warming to climate change just so they could be right no matter whether it was hot or cold that day, everything is to prove the hypothesis.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171157)

i just wanted to add that there are precious few places in the world with good, long-term temp records: a couple of bits in Australia, a few places in northwest Europe, and the lower 48 states. the US records comprise the vast bulk of those observations. basically most of Europe, all of Africa, all of Asia, and all of South America have close to zero records.

that's why these models and proxy studies are so important, and are so susceptible to deliberate and unconscious bias.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171238)

"it's objectively true that the frequency of extreme weather events has been sharply rising, which correlates strongly to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial evolution"

"yeah but you can't prove that any individual event is directly correlated to climate change. these events happened before too."

"i can't say for certain that this specific event would or wouldn't have happened, but it's more about the frequency of intensity of these outlier events..."

"oh jeez with you 'science types' it's always heads you win, tails i lose!"

*BLANK STARE*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171801)

It's also really hard to be just about weather events. Hurricanes are way down but there's more people who live in the gulf than ever before so more people die, people act like it's getting worse. Most hurricanes blow out to sea and we never see them. If you're judicious in your science you would know hurricanes are way down from their peak.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171891)

like, you poast these objectively untrue and easily falsifiable bullshit. where do you get 60/40? only your imagination.

btw i'm not arguing for the truth on climate change only that your level of engagement here proves exactly what i was talking about re: stem discourse on xo. the fringe group of climate skeptic scientists would agree with this assessment too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171914)

no one saying a fringe group of skeptics doesnt exist. im asking you to cite your 60/40 claim. when i said 99% (note: not 100%) of scientists subscribe to climate change i am recognizing there are outliers.

lindzen wouldn't say 60/40, which is why he's critical of the overwhelming consensus and not small majority. idk why you feel the need to embellish. the overwhelming majority might be wrong, but it exists.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171957)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171933)

still, it's undeniable that climate is changing at a very rapid pace and that it correlates strongly to human generated greenhouse gas emissions. there is a lot of nuance here and reasonable minds can disagree on the human impact and what should be done. but the first two things are undeniable, including by the scientist hatp cited, yet many people itt are denying it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171981)

Would love to hear 1 lib say it's possible that I'm wrong and admit that maybe they don't exactly know. I'll admit I might be wrong and maybe global warming is real and it's really bad. I doubt it, but I'll admit I could theoretically be wrong. But you will never find one lib who will say there's any chance they are wrong. It's not a two-way street. It is religion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49172122)

to address climate change we'd have to have some global environmental policy, which would likely require a coalition of western nations to enforce on developing nations through either military action or by paying for their modernization. there will always be a race to the bottom as we've seen, and shitlibs love to create regulatory burdens at home in order to ship jobs and manufacturing elsewhere -- that way they can do globalization plus give themselves goodboy points for protecting the environment while they damage it much more in some third world shithole.

that's why the whole "CLIMATE CHANGE 100% NOT REAL" annoy me. they're basically playing into globalist hands keeping the discourse at the "IS IT REAL?!" level. also i think it's very unlikely we'll do anything about it on a global scale, so what does it matter? why are people so fucking emotionally tethered to whether it's real or not? we're not going to do shit about it at this point. looks at shitlibs abandoning musk, the most environmentally minded captain of industry ever, because he sided with drumpf. they're not serious about it either.

to me it's just a matter of fact. i don't have any stake in what the outcome is anymore than i "care" whether the earth is flat or the center of the universe. i'm interested in the truth. and the science overwhelmingly supports anthrogenic climate change.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49172208)

“Global warming” is real to the extent that it refers to the excessive proliferation of “warm races” (read: dark) over “cool races” (read: light) and is of course a major ecological emergency the likes of which have probably never been seen before

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171616)

There’s no rebutting this — sorry, fag!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171629)

Yes, the LLM is combing through millions of garbage inputs - but the end product is still just recycled garbage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760327&forum_id=2#49171920)