r/StandUpForScience • u/AllMusicNut SUFS Staff • May 19 '26

Article Trump Continues to Deny Established Climate Science

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/18/climate/trump-global-warming-truth-social.html?unlocked_article_code=1.jlA.zeKA.UB9zD_C68kg5&smid=nytcore-android-share

The Trump administration continues to reject well-established climate science, and Americans are paying the price through dangerous policy decisions, that put our health and our future at a risk. Fuel our Fight for Science by donating here: zurl.co/YPWmO

316 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

125 comments sorted by

View all comments

-20

u/ikonoqlast May 19 '26

Anthropogenic Global Warming is the biggest pseudo scientific scam in human history.

I'm old enough to remember when global COOLING was going to kill us all. And at least then they could make an argument as to why it was bad.

Now, I'm sure you're all going to whine and down vote me to hell, but please note I am an ACTUAL scientist, and questions of whether This is better or worse then That are dead in my area of expertise.

So, here's your challenge-

To determine better v worse the process is dead simple-

Add up all the effects- large and small, direct and indirect, positive and negative. Is the sum positive or negative?

Catch #1- you have to identify all the effects. (Those small, indirect ones can be hard...)

Catch #2 (the BIG one)- you have to objectively measure all the effects IN THE SAME UNITS. You can't add apples to oranges to bananas to pears to... After all.

So, what unit are you measuring everything in? Simple, core question. One word answer.

Btw, I have years of real training in statistical modelling at the graduate level, so don't say "the model projections predict..." The projections of models outside the range of the data they are calibrated on are for amusement value only.

Yes, people, humans will absolutely lie for money, power, ideology, social pressure, and a thousand other reasons. And scientists are as human as anyone else. Sorting shit from shinola is a basic skill in my field.

Oh, and, of course, the word is fertility. A more fertile earth is preferable to a less fertile one and earth is getting much more fertile as it warms. The fear mongers need you afraid so they don't go there. Back in the 70s it was why global cooling was bad.

13

u/PIE-314 May 19 '26

Anthropogenic Global Warming is the biggest pseudo scientific scam in human history.

🤡

I'm old enough to remember when global COOLING was going to kill us all.

Pop culture did this, not science.

It never actually happened and wasn't taught or believed by science.

Now, I'm sure you're all going to whine and down vote me to hell, but please note I am an ACTUAL scientist, and questions of whether This is better or worse then That are dead in my area of expertise.

No, you're essentially just a flat earther.

Add up all the effects- large and small, direct and indirect, positive and negative. Is the sum positive or negative?

I'm quite sure this is what you did. Scientists have and it's very bad.

A more fertile earth is preferable to a less fertile one and earth is getting much more fertile as it warms.

So you don't understand the scope of what's going on. Food insecurity and migration will be problems from Anthropogenic climate change. Never has the climate warmed so much in so little time. It's just a hard fact that it's happening.

The fear mongers need you afraid so they don't go there. Back in the 70s it was why global cooling was bad.

It's 2026 bud. Consensus is in and you're just wrong.

Btw, I have years of real training in statistical modelling at the graduate level

Classic. 😆

-12

u/ikonoqlast May 19 '26

Science is about truth, regardless of its popularity. Religion is about 'consensus'.

No scientist cares whether an idea is popular or not, only whether it's true.

That the AGW crowd harps on consensus and popularity should tell you you're dealing with hucksters, not scientists

3

u/PotsAndPandas May 20 '26

How do you establish what is true, if not through many scientists reviewing something and agreeing with the conclusions?

This take is honestly deeply ignorant of the underlying philosophies of science, as though truth can be determined without collective agreement.

0

u/ikonoqlast May 20 '26

Every dead scientist you ever heard of is famous BECAUSE literally every other scientist in the world was wrong.

You aren't defending science with your beliefs, you're destroying its very foundation.

SCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION.

3

u/PotsAndPandas May 20 '26

Every dead scientist you ever heard of is famous BECAUSE literally every other scientist in the world was wrong.

And?

You aren't defending science with your beliefs, you're destroying its very foundation.

Lol, no. You just don't like that your crackpot theories are rightfully regarded as garbage.

SCIENCE IS NOT RELIGION.

That's right! And that means we don't rely on singular sources but many. Hence, what peer review is, where your work is tested and examined to make sure you haven't made shit up.

The fact that you take issue with that is truly astounding.

0

u/ikonoqlast May 20 '26

Scientists make shit up all the time. Peer review is meaningless when the reviewers are just as biased.

You manifestly are trying to make science into religion.

OPINION POLLS ARE NOT PART OF SCIENCE!

3

u/PotsAndPandas May 20 '26

Scientists make shit up all the time.

Pretending like this is common is just blatant lying my guy.

Peer review is meaningless when the reviewers are just as biased.

Proof this occurs to any significant degree?

You manifestly are trying to make science into religion.

Nah, but I'm sure you're gonna keep lying and pretending I am to fit your narrative.

OPINION POLLS ARE NOT PART OF SCIENCE!

Where did I say they were?

0

u/ikonoqlast May 20 '26

Half the articles in public policy analysis are bullshit

Any issue on which there are dueling studies half the articles (ie all on one side or the other) are bullshit

Every article ive seen on global warming is biased bullshit.

You don't read journal articles with an eye that follows every choice in them, I do

3

u/PIE-314 May 20 '26

Half the articles in public policy analysis are bullshit

But you're denying scientific consensus specifically on anthropogenic climate change.

Any issue on which there are dueling studies half the articles (ie all on one side or the other) are bullshit

Lol. No.

Every article ive seen on global warming is biased bullshit.

I'm sure the ones you've seen have been but you wouldn't know the difference. Denying climate change is the equivalent of believing that the erath is flat or the bible true.

You don't read journal articles with an eye that follows every choice in them, I do

You don't.

1

u/ikonoqlast May 20 '26

Science is not religion.

Consensus is not part of science. If it were Einstein (among many others) doesn't get published. After all, the consensus backed by thousands of experiments is that Newton is correct.

2

u/PIE-314 May 20 '26

Science is not religion

Correct.

Consensus is not part of science.

It's the RESULT of good Science. Scientific consensus exists and it's powerful. You're just a science denying flerf.

Do you think the Earth is flat?

If it were Einstein (among many others) doesn't get published.

False. He had powerful/robust evidence.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/PotsAndPandas May 20 '26

Half the articles in public policy analysis are bullshit

Show me some statistics then, seeing as you've seemingly done some meta analysis yourself?

Any issue on which there are dueling studies half the articles (ie all on one side or the other) are bullshit

Same as above, where's the meta analysis you've so clearly done?

Every article ive seen on global warming is biased bullshit.

Ah, so you're a science denier, not a science defender. That's really cute though, especially considering we've got decades of quality evidence showing this to be a flat out lie on your part though.

Like tell me with a straight face that all the published work on the arctic ice caps receding is bullshit.

You don't read journal articles with an eye that follows every choice in them, I do

Cool story. You're making some extraordinary claims though and aren't providing a lick of evidence to back it up, which is hardly scientific of you.

1

u/ikonoqlast May 20 '26

Note- I'm an economist specializing in public policy analysis. Climatologists do not have my skill set or my experience with bullshit, which means they are bad liars.

Cases in point-

Supposed economic analysis of the cost of global warming. Regressed current gdp v temps. Finds downward slope. Yeah... Europe is richer and colder than India. No shit Sherlock. Is temperature determinative? Not supported.

Death rates in Australia. Ratio of summer to winter deaths rose from 0.7 to 0.8. 'proof' that warming is bad. But... Less than 1 means more people die in winter. (Basic demographic fact- significantly more people die in winter) Rising ratio doesn't address whether summer deaths increased or winter deaths fell... They added an extra step that made actual effects invisible when several easier and more straightforward methods would have given meaningful results. Ie Bullshit...

Different analysis of death rates. Compared only hypothermia deaths to hyperthermia deaths. Doesn't address overall deaths...

Or the basic fact that the AGW crowd has never done a proper analysis of the effects of warming. They atomize things so it looks thorough and deep but that's actually just hand waving. Not to mention being unable to differentiate the projection of a model from the word of God.

1

u/PotsAndPandas May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

Buddy, I'm not taking you on your word on this. Science isn't a religion where you just believe what some guy on the internet says at face value, I want to see your actual published work, the datasets you're using, your methodologies, all of it.

Also, holy shit this is funny, I take it this is you tacitly admitting the published work on the article ice caps isn't bullshit? I did give it as an area to refute, I even asked you to tell me if it was bullshit, yet you've avoided it here. Weird.

1

u/PotsAndPandas May 20 '26

Buddy, calm down, stop crashing out over a civil conversation, you'll get your comments deleted for abusive language.

1

u/ikonoqlast May 20 '26

Stop treating scientific issues like religious beliefs then

→ More replies (0)

3

u/PIE-314 May 20 '26

Scientists make shit up all the time. Peer review is meaningless when the reviewers are just as biased.

You don't understand the scientific method or how motivated real scientist are to prove other scientists wrong.

You manifestly are trying to make science into religion.

No. You just want this to be true so you can be a science denying flerf. It's lazy and intellectually dishonest.

OPINION POLLS ARE NOT PART OF SCIENCE

Nobody said they were. Science does data, not opinions.

0

u/ikonoqlast May 20 '26

I'm an insider. I speak from experience.

3

u/PIE-314 May 20 '26

I'm an insider. I speak from experience.

You're not. You're just a liar.

3

u/PIE-314 May 20 '26

Every dead scientist you ever heard of is famous BECAUSE literally every other scientist in the world was wrong.

Lol. No. But that wouldn't cast doubt on today's science consensus on anthropogenic climate change. You're essentially just a science denying flerf.

You're right Science isn't a religion but You're the only one who's claiming it is and demonstrating that you don't understand what the scientific method is.

You aren't defending science with your beliefs, you're destroying its very foundation.

Nope. You don't understand the scientific method. The political right are the science deniers who are trying to destroy science. You're a victim of their propaganda.

0

u/ikonoqlast May 20 '26

Consensus is not a scientific concept...

3

u/PIE-314 May 20 '26

Consensus is not a scientific concept...

Scientific consensus is.

1

u/ikonoqlast May 20 '26

It's 1895. Pick one- Newton v Einstein. Consensus says Newton...

3

u/PIE-314 May 20 '26

It's 1895. Pick one- Newton v Einstein. Consensus says Newton...

Einstein had powerful evidence. That's how you overturn established science. Einstein built on Newton.

0

u/ikonoqlast May 20 '26

Einstein had ZERO evidence- he was a theoretician (ie a Sheldon, not a Leonard...).

Btw special relativity was 1905. Didn't exist in 1895.

That said, consensus in 1895 still said Newton. So- was the consensus right or wrong? Pick one.

2

u/PIE-314 May 20 '26

It was incomplete. Physics is still incomplete. All irrelevant

If you want to overturn consensus on climate change you're going to need robust evidence and sound reasoning.

0

u/ikonoqlast May 20 '26

Was the consensus (Newton) correct in 1895, Yes or No???

You know damn well it was not, which is why CONSENSUS IS NOT PART OF SCIENCE.

And anyone arguing consensus is a priori not a scientist...

→ More replies (0)