Exxon accurately predicted GW in the 70s but kept casting doubt for decades

[Donald H]

1C per doubling of CO2? Yes, that's the most it can be. But due to convective currents it will be less.

Ms. Curry, the denialist expert that was trotted out, caused you to have to chew your foot off over her agreement that Co2 is harmful to the environment.

No lay person is going to be able to up the ante on that in any bullring debate!

 

[ding]

Ms. Curry, the denialist expert that was trotted out, caused you to have to chew your foot off over her agreement that Co2 is harmful to the environment.

No lay person is going to be able to up the ante on that in any bullring debate!

Why not? I will. Maybe it's that deep down inside you know what you believe is BS.

 

[Donald H]

Why not?

The expert advice by Ms. Curry disqualified your layman's opinions. What's left t debate?

I will. Maybe it's that deep down inside you know what you believe is BS.

Deep down inside I can't honestly start pretending that my opinions could hold any water against the experts, and especially the neo-denialist expert that cost you your foot. Your footing as a Co2 denialist is in my ashtray I made out of that foot.

Would like to debate your bibles? I'll even hear out Ms. Meri on her ancient Hebe translations if she wants to be your silent partner?

My starting point: Nothing can be granted as true without some credible evidence. Nuthin!

 

[ding]

The expert advice by Ms. Curry disqualified your layman's opinions. What's left t debate? Deep down inside I can't honestly start pretending that my opinions could hold any water against the experts, and especially the neo-denialist expert that cost you your foot. Your footing as a Co2 denialist is in my ashtray I made out of that foot. Would like to debate your bibles? I'll even hear out Ms. Meri on her ancient Hebe translations if she wants to be your silent partner? My starting point: Nothing can be granted as true without some credible evidence. Nuthin!

I disagree. Everything is subject to challenge. Always. That's how science works. Why don't you know this?

 

[ding]

The expert advice by Ms. Curry disqualified your layman's opinions. What's left t debate?


Deep down inside I can't honestly start pretending that my opinions could hold any water against the experts, and especially the neo-denialist expert that cost you your foot. Your footing as a Co2 denialist is in my ashtray I made out of that foot.

Would like to debate your bibles? I'll even hear out Ms. Meri on her ancient Hebe translations if she wants to be your silent partner?

My starting point: Nothing can be granted as true without some credible evidence. Nuthin!

It's funny watching you defend AGW. You should do more of it.

 

[excalibur]

There is no Magic Thermostat© to set some imaginary, never existed, perfect worldwide climate.

It is all the biggest grift in history.

 

[Donald H]

I disagree. Everything is subject to challenge. Always. That's how science works. Why don't you know this?

It is! But I'm not going to debate facts that have even been established by the expert denialists!

How can we find a topic that we can debate? How about something to do with the god? Do we disagree with anything to do with the latest discoveries by the JWST?

Challenge always! Did the god tell you he made the gig bang? If he wasn't lying again, that would make you the expert.

 

[ding]

It is! But I'm not going to debate facts that have even been established by the expert denialists!

And by saying this you are contradicting what you said. You can't have it both ways. You can't say science should be challenged and that science can only be challenged conditionally.

 

[Donald H]

It's funny watching you defend AGW. You should do more of it.

And that's the reason why I don't consider you to be serious. I would be funny too. You're no different from any other donkey my friend. Every ass loves his own bray.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-Awwwwwwwwwwwww!

 

[Orangecat]

So much wasted time and energy debating something we have no control over. Might as well be arguing over planetary orbits around the sun and how mankind is influencing them.

 

[ding]

How can we find a topic that we can debate? How about something to do with the god? Do we disagree with anything to do with the latest discoveries by the JWST?

Challenge always! Did the god tell you he made the gig bang? If he wasn't lying again, that would make you the expert.

I'm always available to debate AGW with you in the Bull Ring but we both know I would end up raping you.

 

[Donald H]

And by saying this you are contradicting what you said. You can't have it both ways. You can't say science should be challenged and that science can only be challenged conditionally.

Why not? You can say that Jonah lived in the big fish for 3 days, and then claim it wasn't a big fish.

 

[ding]

And that's the reason why I don't consider you to be serious. I would be funny too. You're no different from any other donkey my friend. Every ass loves his own bray.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-Awwwwwwwwwwwww!

Every post you make about AGW provides an opportunity for me to present the empirical climate EVIDENCE from the geologic record. That I get to **** you in the ass in the process is just the gravy on the mashed potatoes.

 

[Donald H]

I'm always available to debate AGW with you in the Bull Ring but we both know I would end up raping you.

More likely you would say something about Co2 and end up fkng yourself!

 

[ding]

Why not? You can say that Jonah lived in the big fish for 3 days, and then claim it wasn't a big fish.

Why not? Because challenging science is either unconditional or conditional. If it is conditional then science isn't allowed to be challenged. How you think an allegorical biblical account is relevant to this is beyond me. Are you a religious nutjob or something?

 

[ding]

More likely you would say something about Co2 and end up fkng yourself!

Let's find out.

 

[Donald H]

Let's find out.

o.k., I agree with Ms. Curry that Co2 is harmful to the environment.

Get back to me if you disagree.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

 

[ding]

o.k., I agree with Ms. Curry that Co2 is harmful to the environment.

Get back to me if you disagree.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

CO2 is a vital component of the carbon cycle for which all life on earth depends. In fact, the last glacial period came close to the point of extinguishing all life on the surface of the planet because of too LOW of levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So, yeah, I am getting back to you with I disagree. Meet me in the Bull Ring. Please. Don't be a *****.

 

[Donald H]

CO2 is a vital component of the carbon cycle for which all life on earth depends. In fact, the last glacial period came close to the point of extinguishing all life on the surface of the planet because of too LOW of levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I think that's a true quote from mainstream science. It seems reasonable from my knowledge as a layman, but it needs verifying.

I agree with Ms. Curry on Co2 being harmful to the environment. Do you disagree?

We're going to have to find something on which we disagree! Perhaps she wasn't saying that she's concerned with levels being too LOW? Would it be reasonable to think that she was voicing concern over levels that are too high?

So, yeah, I am getting back to you with I disagree. Meet me in the Bull Ring. Please. Don't be a *****.

What do you disagree with? Ms. Curry? If so then I'm ready to state my position on the question.

Right here, we won't need a bullring.

Thread 'Climate uncertainty and Risk book by Dr. Judith Curry'

Apr 26, 2025

To be aware of uncertainty is to be educated. To be aware of the risks of Net Zero is productive.
Dr. Judith Curry who departed academia for the private sector has informed congress, many sites such as Twitter and Youtube that the rush to doom predicted by the alarmists is bad math.

This takes close to an hour but if you want education it does not happen in 5 minutes. The alarmists are working day and night to destroy your confidence in science so pay attention to get it back.

• Robert W
• Replies: 3
• Forum: General Discussion

 

[ding]

I agree with Ms. Curry on Co2 being harmful to the environment. Do you disagree?

I literally just disagreed to that in the post you replied to. Did you not read it?