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=2Vannesa#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=2Vannesa#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=2Vannesa#49169231)

George Carlin making a similar point to yours

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

also, the aspie is strong in the above subthread

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

if you don't agree, read Lomborg.

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

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=2Vannesa#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=2Vannesa#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=2Vannesa#49169864)

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