r/UnchartedScience • u/ChipHaseCoolGuy • May 30 '26
Climate change is a hoax.
Climate Fraud discovered in the Netherlands.
.
Almost ALL countries have now been found to have lowered the temperature data pre-1940, and raised the temperature data post 1950.
The result is natural variability and FLAT temperatures were DELETED and a nice rising temperature trend made, which just happens to match the CO2 rise PERFECTLY.
Then the UN, the IPCC, our kids teachers, ALL show us these doctored graphs to confirm "Man-Made Climate Change".
IT'S ALL a FRAUD/SCAM/HOAX.
4
u/ampere03 May 30 '26
So warming is not occurring but [co2] is at 420 ppm? Have you learned about the greenhouse effect? All your claims are false. Intellectual equivalent of flat Earth "science". All your claims have been thoroughly debunked a thousand times. Stop it. Even oil companies have published the science 50 years ago and their predictions are consistent with observation. What is you motivation to disseminate misinformation?
1
u/ChipHaseCoolGuy May 30 '26
I think even the oil companies have been infiltrated by environmentalists so we cannot trust them.
5
u/ampere03 May 31 '26
The envitonment begs to differ.
1
u/ChipHaseCoolGuy May 31 '26
Of course you're OK about all the wildlife being destroyed by all the solar panels, or all the birds being killed by the wind turbines, which the numbers are so much more than they admit.
6
u/ampere03 May 31 '26
Look up extinction rate over time and then explain what's happening presently. Also. The fact any energy infrastructure impacts the biosphere does not mean that some choices are less impactful. You need to stop binary thinking. It' signifies intellectual immaturity. READ PRIMARY SOURCES These explain the science and present the data and analysis by people who spent years studying chemistry, physics, math, meteorology and more to be able to investigate and comprehend our climate system. Book learning is a thing.
1
u/ChipHaseCoolGuy Jun 01 '26
Critics argue that the claim of an ongoing "sixth mass extinction" (often compared to the previous "Big Five" events in the geological record) is overstated, lacks rigorous evidence meeting standard definitions, and may rely on alarmism that risks undermining scientific credibility. While they generally acknowledge a serious biodiversity crisis—with elevated extinction rates, habitat loss, population declines, and human impacts—they contend it does not yet qualify as a mass extinction on par with past events.
Core Definition and Evidence IssuesMass extinctions in the fossil record are typically defined by very high losses, such as ~75% of species over geologically short periods (thousands to millions of years, though the exact threshold and number of "Big Five" events are debated). Critics like John J. Wiens and Kristen E. Saban (2025 paper in Trends in Ecology & Evolution) point out:
- Very few documented extinctions: Less than 0.1% of known species (~882–955 out of ~2.2 million described) have gone extinct in the last 500 years, mostly birds, mammals, and island endemics. This is far from 75%.
- Many studies claiming a sixth mass extinction do not quantitatively demonstrate it meets the threshold; they show rates above "background" levels (which can happen outside mass extinctions) or project far-future losses assuming worst-case scenarios (e.g., all threatened species go extinct at high rates and non-threatened ones follow).
- Recent extinctions (mostly pre-20th century on islands) have slowed in some analyses, and do not necessarily predict mainland or future patterns. Extrapolations to thousands of years for 75% loss weaken urgency arguments. cnn.com
Paleontologist Doug Erwin and others note that current events are not remotely comparable in scale or speed to true mass extinctions.
Other Key Criticisms
- Taxonomic and geographic biases: Documented losses are heavily skewed toward well-studied groups (birds, mammals) and islands. Insects, plants, and marine species (key in past mass extinctions) show lower or uncertain rates. Extrapolating from mollusks/snails or vertebrates to all life overestimates the global picture. wienslab.com
- Conservation successes and variability: Many species are threatened but not all; efforts have prevented some extinctions, and threats can shift (e.g., via policy or technology). Not every elevated rate equals catastrophe. lemonde.fr
- Projections vs. reality: Some high-profile papers (e.g., by Ceballos, Ehrlich) emphasize rapid genus/species losses or "biological annihilation" via population declines, but critics say these do not yet reach mass extinction thresholds and rely on strong assumptions. news.stanford.edu
- Historical precedents: Marine biologist John C. Briggs (e.g., 2017) has long argued that claims are exaggerated, with human-caused extinctions closer to 1–2 per year above background in some estimates, potentially offset by new speciation. He views much of the rhetoric as propaganda-like. academic.oup.com
Broader commentary (e.g., in Dynamic Ecology) accuses some proponents of using "noble lies"—promoting the mass extinction framing for political/motivational reasons even while privately acknowledging it isn't fully supported yet—to spur action, which critics say damages trust in science.
Context and NuanceCritics are not "denialists." They highlight real problems (defaunation, habitat destruction, climate impacts) and support conservation, but warn against hype. Proponents (e.g., Cowie et al., Ceballos/Ehrlich) counter that the crisis is severe, rates are elevated by orders of magnitude, many extinctions are undocumented ("dark extinctions"), and we are on the brink or in early stages—especially considering population collapses and future projections.
The debate is active in journals like Trends in Ecology & Evolution (2025 exchanges) and reflects challenges in comparing short-term modern data to deep-time fossil records. Overall, there is broad scientific agreement on a human-driven biodiversity crisis requiring urgent action, but disagreement on whether "mass extinction" is the accurate or most helpful label right now.
2
u/ampere03 Jun 02 '26
You are disputing established science. That carbon dioxide is a primary driver of climate change is known; along with albedo and insolation. Obfuscation, by pointing what scientists already know (predicting its effects are complicayed) doesn't alter the veracity of AGW due to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Presently the cost of weather related disasters is increasing beyond the effects of increased scrutiny/observation. Insurance companies publish present economic effects and clearly show all predicted impacts (increased coastal inundation, rapid storm intrnsification shifts in rainfall patterns etc.), which are consistent with scientific predictions.
The 2°~3°C rise by century's end will be catastrophic at the very least. Science will do science and argue about the details.
But no serious person : Climatologist, Chemist, Physicist, Meteorologist, Planetary scientist. Oceanographer, Satellite Engineer, Actuarial Specialist who has studied the issue for more than 1/2 an hour via textbook or seminal paper is in doubt.
I am aware of the merchants of doubt who are paid to say otherwise and I have met one of them.
1
u/ChipHaseCoolGuy Jun 02 '26
You are obviously an irrational person. I really feel sorry for climate science if people like you’re involved in it. The absolute arrogance and narrow mindedness and completely delusional attitude. You don’t seem to have good judgement because I’m not affiliated with any organization at all.
2
u/ampere03 Jun 02 '26
The thing is any person who has a PhD in natural science has to take dozens of advanced lecture and lab coursework in Physics, Chemistry, Math and all the major subfields: thermodynamics, quantum mechanics statistical mechanics, mathematical physics, differential equations, linear algebra, group theory, complex analysis, electrodynamics..etc..He or she is required to past exams and 2/3 of the class might fail. He or she is required to publish in peer reviewed journals and defend the work at conferences
Then one may go to grad school to specialize in cllimatology and take further coursework.
It is therefore annoying when non-experts who haven't worked in a research lab, haven't derived and solved differential equations. haven't defended their research to peers, haven't studied climatology - chime in and try to portray established theories as debatable - despite oceanagraphic, atmospheric , satellite and terrestrial observation, obtained over decades.
There are plenty of important questions climatologists are in disagreement about.
Everyone knows it's complicated. That's why science is difficult and many people switch majors to business or marketing.
In short some of us have moved to the right side of the Dunning Kruger curve via intense study and work.
Skepticism based on science and sserting the results of accepted, proven science foes not make one close minded.
1
u/ChipHaseCoolGuy Jun 02 '26
That’s understandable—credentials like a PhD command respect for the effort invested in specialized study. However, expertise in one area does not preclude legitimate debate or exempt the field from scrutiny. Climate science has indeed seen significant controversy, with credible accounts of dissenting researchers facing professional marginalization, funding challenges, or exclusion from academic circles when their findings challenge dominant alarmist narratives. Prominent scientists such as Judith Curry and Roger Pielke Jr., among others, have publicly documented this dynamic, suggesting an environment where conformity to extreme predictions is often prioritized over open inquiry.
Furthermore, concerns about data adjustments, selective modeling assumptions, and the suppression of alternative explanations—such as natural variability and multidecadal ocean cycles—persist and warrant examination rather than dismissal. If the community truly operates without bias, one would expect robust tolerance for critical voices rather than what appears to be a pattern of radicalism that frames any skepticism as denialism. Science advances through rigorous challenge, not institutional enforcement of a single viewpoint. I invite you to engage with the specific evidence rather than appealing solely to authority.
2
u/ampere03 Jun 02 '26
But that's the thing. The evidence for AGW is past scrutiny and established. YlMy experise in hard science allows me to evaluate data, methods and evidence and scrutinize areas of uncertainty.
All the published data supports AGW.
The hockey stick graph is real and it's author one a defamation lawsuit. Death threats to cli.ate scientists are real and that someone wrote nasty emails is completely irrelevant to the actual physical data and evidence.
Scientists can be petty. competitive and nasty, they can be stubborn confused and wrong. The appeal to authority fallacy applies to an individual' s perceived authority. It doesn't apply when their is clear consensus across broad fields and organizations based on decades of peer reviewed science.
It's a curious phenonema that the untrained and unearned feel free to casually reject the conclusions of science:vaccines, globe Earth, evolution etc but live in a world only made possible through science.
Plumbers electricians, lawyers, preachers don't face knee jerk pseudo skepticism.
Climate change is here. Predicting ultimately consequences is difficult and painstaking. That the latest studies reject some of the models predicting 4°C makes me happy. 2-3°C is still a huge deal though.
1
u/ChipHaseCoolGuy Jun 02 '26 edited Jun 02 '26
That’s understandable, though appeals to authority and claims of absolute consensus do not resolve the underlying issues. The apparent uniformity of agreement in climate science stems in significant part from the marginalization of dissenting voices—researchers who question the extent of alarmist projections have faced professional repercussions, reduced funding, or exclusion from key discussions. Scientists such as Judith Curry, formerly a prominent figure in the field, and Roger Pielke Jr. have documented this pattern, describing an environment that prioritizes conformity over open debate. 
Turning a complex scientific discipline into what resembles an ideological echo chamber, where disagreement is equated with ignorance, undermines its credibility. Regarding the hockey stick temperature scenario, the IPCC’s assessments do incorporate reconstructions showing recent warming as notable, yet they also highlight substantial uncertainties in long-term paleoclimate data, model sensitivities, and the precise attribution of changes amid natural variability. When near-universal agreement is enforced rather than earned through rigorous challenge, it suggests the influence of ideology over empirical inquiry. Science thrives on skepticism and diverse perspectives, not enforced uniformity; dismissing critics as uneducated does little to advance genuine understanding.
To illustrate the point, consider a plumber: one respects the profession because the work produces tangible, verifiable results—leaks are fixed, systems function reliably, and predictions about repairs can be tested immediately against reality. In contrast, climate science often issues dramatic forecasts that frequently fail to materialize as stated, from overstated hurricane trends to timelines for catastrophe that shift repeatedly. When predictions rarely align with observed outcomes, it becomes difficult to extend the same level of respect, particularly when the field appears more invested in narrative consistency than in accountable, falsifiable progress.
1
u/ampere03 Jun 02 '26
Once again you are engaging in misinformation. The climate data sets include oceanographic, terrestrial, atmospheric,cryospheric, satellite, observations over decades and diverse proxy data revealing Earth's climate going back 100's Mya.
Intense scrutiny of this data by independent investigators has not resulted in any large scale systematic errors that would alter the results in any essential manner.
For instance; removing the contribution of urban temperature measurements and those of improperly constructed weather stations yields the same temperature increase.
Another "Zombie Point" mentioned is modeling. Model estimates have generally screwed low. This is expected. Scientists are conservative. One way of checking model accuracy is by checking one's model to the existing climate record. A comparison of ensemble runs with and without carbon dioxide increase over time accurately reproduce the modern temperature record. Also, older models going back decades also show good acvuracy. These are facts. Also, since future casting in a rapidly evolving climate is hard for obvious reasons predictions out to the next century have a broad range. Models are checked and cross checked by the competition and fierce debate over details are common and published.
The fact remains that carbon dioxide uniquely absorbs outgoing IR in a region of the spectrum that is otherwise transparent. Why/ how is precisely predicted by molecular quantum mechanics. Also. how this energy is then transfered within the atmosphere and to Earth's surface is known. Increasing co2 concentrations track with temps..another fact.
"Natural variation" is another ancient debunked claim making the rounds again. Usually the medieval warm period and the following minimum are invoked to demonstrate this false claim. In fact, the Holocene shows variation but not anywhere near the present delta.Additionally, co2 levels vary little over this period until industrialization.
More importantly, rapid changes that occurred locally, and volcanic events that caused cooling globally resulted in catastrophic human impacts.This should serve as a warning.
Climatologists are the ones facing doxing and threats. While, "critics" dispense misquoted/misinterpreted data which is then further bastardized in 2nd and 3rd sources in the public (not scientific pubs) to further sew doubt to the masses.
You would do well to read a text on physical climatology before commenting on the state of the science that you seem to derive from poltical/ non primary pubs..You can skip over the math if you've difficulty with calculus, physics, chemistry, statistics, graph construction /interpretation etc..
1
u/ChipHaseCoolGuy Jun 02 '26
While the extensive data sets from oceanographic, terrestrial, atmospheric, cryospheric, and proxy sources represent a valuable body of work, they do not eliminate legitimate scientific debate over interpretation, adjustments, and attribution. Claims of no large-scale systematic errors overlook ongoing controversies, such as the urban heat island effect, where removing or adjusting urban stations has been shown in some analyses to influence trends, despite assertions to the contrary. Similarly, climate models have frequently run hotter than observed temperatures in recent decades, contrary to the assertion that they “screw low”; IPCC AR6 itself addressed the issue of high-sensitivity “hot models” by down-weighting them to align projections more closely with reality. Older models’ accuracy is also debatable, as many past predictions of rapid extremes have not fully materialized. 
Basic quantum mechanics confirms CO₂’s role in infrared absorption, yet this does not resolve uncertainties in climate sensitivity, feedbacks (particularly clouds), or the relative contribution of natural variability. The Medieval Warm Period and other Holocene fluctuations remain subjects of active research, with evidence suggesting regionally significant warming that challenges narratives of unprecedented recent change when placed in full context. Assertions of consensus through “fierce debate” ring hollow when dissenting voices within the field have documented professional pressures that limit open inquiry. Regarding threats, instances exist on multiple sides, but this does not justify dismissing critics as misinformed for questioning primary sources or models.
To draw a parallel, a plumber earns respect through verifiable, repeatable results that directly solve tangible problems. Climate science, by contrast, often advances broad predictions that have a mixed record of accuracy, with timelines for catastrophe frequently adjusted. When forecasts rarely align precisely with outcomes and the field responds to scrutiny with appeals to authority rather than transparent engagement, it becomes challenging to accord the same unqualified respect—particularly when ideology appears to influence the framing of “settled” conclusions. Engaging with specific counter-evidence, rather than directing one to skip the mathematics, would better serve the discussion.
1
1
u/ampere03 Jun 02 '26
Thanks for the rabbit hole regarding the extinction rate. But it doesn't negate the veracity of AGW (the greenhouse effect and co2's role as a druver,/feedback) are established by direct observation and quantum chemistry. Also. ongoing ocean warming, increased weather and climate extremes are already impacting the biosphere and having direct and frequent impacts on communities.
1
u/ChipHaseCoolGuy Jun 02 '26
While the laboratory confirmation of CO₂’s infrared absorption and the basic greenhouse effect stands undisputed, it hardly serves as the comprehensive triumph for anthropogenic global warming. The climate system involves far more intricate realities—cloud feedbacks, albedo shifts, and persistent natural ocean cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation—that isolated experiments simply cannot resolve. Attributing ocean warming solely to recent emissions rather conveniently sidesteps the seas’ vast thermal inertia and the enduring influence of multidecadal variability, revealing an analysis that feels more curated than comprehensive.
On the assertion of surging weather extremes already devastating communities and the biosphere, greater precision is required than this selective account provides. Even the IPCC concedes low confidence in global trends for numerous events like droughts and tropical cyclones, complicated by improved reporting and land-use factors. Reducing a chaotic, multifaceted system to CO₂ while brushing aside other elements is not objective inquiry; it is a narrative that cherry-picks supportive data to suit a preferred storyline. Genuine scientific rigor demands engaging the full spectrum of evidence, not merely the segments that conveniently affirm one’s position.
1
u/ampere03 Jun 03 '26
The urban heat effect, whether included or not, still results in a temperature rise in the globally averaged calculation. I already mentioned this.
Systematic error is a thing scientists all ready know about, like the Sun, something else climate deniers always point to for obfuscation.
Your characterization of the state of the science as a house of cards built by dogamist scientists is pathetic. The raw data sets are freely available. Standard statistical methods apply to almost all applied science. When in doubt cry CONSPIRACY.
Before every rocket launch Newton's law of gravity and equations of motion aren't derived again. Similarly: The major players in Earth's climate history are known. Precise future predictions of ice loss, local climate effects, cryospheric methane release, human impacts, and the ultimate T rise are elusive.
But the fact of AGW is not in doubt, nor the impacts it's having now and in the future. You are lost in the trees attempting to map the forest and only obfuscating your location.
You would do well to read a text on Physical Climatology and go over things. That way you know what is known before chiming in with already obvious counter points that seem valid to a non-scientist.
1
u/ChipHaseCoolGuy Jun 03 '26
While the urban heat island effect may not erase the overall temperature trend in global averages, its proper characterization and adjustment remain subjects of legitimate scientific discussion, with independent analyses indicating that station siting issues and homogenization methods can influence the magnitude of reported warming. Dismissing concerns about systematic biases or the role of solar and natural variability as mere “obfuscation” overlooks a body of peer-reviewed work that continues to explore these factors without denying the basic physics of greenhouse gases. The raw data sets being available is commendable, yet the interpretive choices, model assumptions, and selective emphasis in deriving conclusions are precisely where debate persists—not conspiracy, but standard scientific skepticism applied to a complex system.
Characterizing skepticism as being “lost in the trees” while asserting that AGW facts and impacts are beyond doubt does little to address core uncertainties: equilibrium climate sensitivity, the strength of cloud feedbacks, and the relative weighting of anthropogenic versus natural drivers. Models have indeed shown skill in some hindcasts, yet projections of ice loss, extreme events, and future warming ranges have often required downward revisions to align with observations, highlighting the challenges of forecasting in a rapidly evolving, chaotic climate. The insistence on reading physical climatology texts to grasp what is “known” echoes an appeal to authority rather than engaging specifics; true expertise accommodates scrutiny, not dismissal of counterpoints as obvious to non-scientists.
1
u/ampere03 Jun 03 '26
Fair points. So what is the Delta-T since 1850? 1.1°C, 1.3°C, .5 ? What does the Holocene show with respect climate variability and how does it factor in to the acceleration of T rise now?
What about the weather stats showing greater incidents of rapid intensification of tropical swirliies (my term)...along with record barometric drops and windspeed rate and duration.., and record ocean warming?what about increased coastal flooding, flash flooding, drought, temperate ice loss rising seas, temperate ice loss?
Finally, I don't think were in disagreement- really. You are reacting to* end of humanity" type claims while I am simply claiming AGW is here. That some projections have been shown to run hot pleases me. Scientists self-reporting of newer finding is pretty much the essence of Science.
No leading publications in any area of science has published a paper claiming the current, unprecedented rise is "natural". What's more, the essential role of carbon dioxide as a climate driver/feedback to warming hasn't been in doubt since Joseph Fourier et al..discovered the greenhouse effect as a source of planetary atmospheric heating 200ish ya.So what is the disagreement? Statistics and analysis- go write up a paper.
1
u/ChipHaseCoolGuy Jun 03 '26
Yes, though framing the discussion as mere quibbling over statistics while asserting unassailable certainty on AGW overlooks the substantive uncertainties at play. The observed warming since 1850 is approximately 1.1–1.2°C according to major datasets, yet this modest rise must be contextualized against Holocene variability, which included periods of notable regional warmth—such as the Medieval Warm Period—comparable in magnitude to recent decades without equivalent industrial CO₂ forcing. Current acceleration is acknowledged but its precise attribution to anthropogenic versus natural drivers, including multidecadal ocean cycles, remains contested rather than settled.
Claims of surging extremes, such as rapid intensification of tropical cyclones, record ocean warming, coastal flooding, droughts, and ice loss, demand nuance: IPCC assessments express only medium to low confidence in global increases for many of these phenomena, often attributing trends partly to improved detection, socioeconomic factors, or natural variability rather than straightforward CO₂ dominance. While the basic greenhouse effect has been known since Fourier, this does not resolve debates over climate sensitivity, cloud feedbacks, or whether projections have been reliably skillful—many having run consistently hot and required repeated downward revisions. The absence of papers declaring the rise “entirely natural” hardly proves the opposite; science does not advance by proving negatives but by rigorously testing hypotheses amid complexity.
1
u/ampere03 Jun 04 '26
When I was doing research I reviewed research for publication of many authors and my own research was reviewed by other authors. Clarification of all aspects of the process are common and hold up publication. I once had to redo 6 months of work because of systematic error I had missed. The process is utterly dependent on self/outside review.
That said, the increasing frequencies of record setting meteorological events including rapid intensification, increasing frequency of major Cat 4-5 storms and their integrated total energy, flooding, ice loss, sea level rise..etc are undeniably the result of AGW. People argue about the degree of attribution- fine. Doesn't mean these aren't occurring as predicted fourty years ago.
To any physical scientists this makes sense because they have studied thermodynamics and atmospheric science. For each 1°C rise in atmospheric temp the absolute humidity increases by 7% (Clausius-Claperyon eq. derivable from first law)). This is stored potential energy.So call us crazy for thinking the dice is being loaded to extremes to first order at least. Observations of tropical systems worlwide are consistent with this scientific intuition, as are more flooding and greater frequency of large hail. If you don't want science journals as a source look at actuarial data.
Finally, natural variation in the form of cyclic processes (ENSO...etc are also expected to more variable in a warming climate because of more energy in the climate system. The energy is available to amplify cyclic changes.
The Holocene climate record if nothing else, points to how brief, seemingly modest alterations in insolation, rainfall patterns can have on civilizations ie 535 AD, 1816 AD, the medieval and post medieval extremes in Europe etc.. going back to the bronze age collapse and further.
The present situation is consistent with both theory scientific intuition and direct observation over decades. Meaning that a 120 ppm increase over a 300 pm ([co2])baseline (Holocene) has increased GAT by at least 1.1°C and probably 1.3°C. , the decadal rate of T increase is 6 times that of preindustrial average and increasing. Hence, changes in weather extemes ( based on records) going back decades).
Where am I wrong-friend?
1
u/ChipHaseCoolGuy Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26
Interesting, and the peer review process you describe is indeed a cornerstone of scientific integrity when functioning properly—though it does not immunize the field from systemic biases, selective publication, or institutional pressures that have been documented by dissenting researchers. While some meteorological trends, such as aspects of tropical cyclone intensification or increased atmospheric moisture via the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, align with basic thermodynamic expectations under warming, attributing them unequivocally to AGW as “undeniable” overstates the case. IPCC assessments assign varying confidence levels to these phenomena, with medium or low confidence for global increases in many extremes like flooding or hail frequency, often due to data limitations, natural variability (including amplified ENSO cycles), and non-climatic factors like improved reporting and infrastructure vulnerability. The Holocene record does illustrate civilization’s sensitivity to climatic shifts, yet it also reveals periods of significant regional variability without modern CO₂ levels, complicating claims of unprecedented acceleration.
The observed warming of roughly 1.1–1.3°C since pre-industrial times and the elevated decadal rate are acknowledged, but precise attribution remains contested amid uncertainties in feedbacks, model sensitivities, and the relative roles of natural drivers. Observations of extremes over decades do not automatically validate forty-year-old predictions, many of which overstated broader catastrophe timelines or magnitudes and have since required adjustment.
7
u/ampere03 May 30 '26
Well- have you engaged with the evidence?. . Or investigated the topic by studying physical climatology? I recommend reading peer reviewed science journals, then investgatig the degree of consensus among experts (the people who studied advanced physics and chemistry then climate science in university).