If you still believe in deadly climate change, this will help you sleep.

[Robert W]

Yeah, yeah, the denier tactic. For example, Willie Soon accepted over $1.2 million from rich deniers, and in return he cranked out papers saying whatever they wanted.

Other deniers work in different ways. Curry started a "consulting" business, though the clients and output are not disclosed. Hmmm.

On our side, the opposite happens. Any reputable climate scientist could get very rich if they lied for the deniers. They don't. They refuse all bribe money, which gives them even more credibility.

Follow the money. All the corrupting bribe money flows to the denier side, so all of the fraud and garbage science comes from the denier side.

I'm just making it clear where we all stand. Deniers embrace corruption and bribery, while the rational side rejects it.

We never denied climate changes. We have repeated over and over that is normal for climate to change. Go to Greenpeace as I have done and note that they retracted their claims about Willie Soon and his alleged employment by the oil industry. They report page not found.

 

[Sunsettommy]

We never denied climate changes. We have repeated over and over that is normal for climate to change. Go to Greenpeace as I have done and note that they retracted their claims about Willie Soon and his alleged employment by the oil industry. They report page not found.

LOL Abu is way behind on that one as it was long ago determined Dr. Soon never had control of the grant money process it was being done through the Smithsonian organization who got the money originally and gave a portion of it to Dr. Soon on his grant proposal research request.

 

[ding]

LOL Abu is way behind on that one as it was long ago determined Dr. Soon never had control of the grant money process it was being done through the Smithsonian organization who got the money originally and gave a portion of it to Dr. Soon on his grant proposal research request.

I get the feeling from Apu's posts that Apu is not very educated.

 

[catatomic]

I admit you do that very well; thus no one here is impressed by your profound science illiteracy.

I have a master's in math wrt differential equations. I took the MIT course with respect to how the models work. I've read hundreds of papers, reading the abstract and browsing the digest. I've read many websites and probably dozens of books about it.

 

[catatomic]

We never denied climate changes. We have repeated over and over that is normal for climate to change. Go to Greenpeace as I have done and note that they retracted their claims about Willie Soon and his alleged employment by the oil industry. They report page not found.

In the publication, "Church News," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically mentioned climate change and that we need to fight it.

It's simple really, CO2 is unprecedented, it makes sense that it should increase the temperature, and the temperature is going up so fast we attribute it to it. That's what Neil De Grasse Tyson said among other things.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I have a master's in math wrt differential equations. I took the MIT course with respect to how the models work. I've read hundreds of papers, reading the abstract and browsing the digest. I've read many websites and probably dozens of books about it.

Yet you fail to show it here maybe you feel intimidated and that you are LYING.

You are just like Mamooth who claims he has a PHD in Physics but never writes that way at all, just nasty rebuttal free replies is his end game.

I have been in the climate debates since the 1980's I can tell when people like YOU show up are commonly known a chronic bullshitter.

 

[Sunsettommy]

In the publication, "Church News," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically mentioned climate change and that we need to fight it.

It's simple really, CO2 is unprecedented, it makes sense that it should increase the temperature, and the temperature is going up so fast we attribute it to it. That's what Neil De Grasse Tyson said among other things.

LOL, you talk like kid in deer lights......., CO2 at the 430 ppm level warm forcing is NEGLIGIBLE!

 

[ding]

In the publication, "Church News," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically mentioned climate change and that we need to fight it.

It's simple really, CO2 is unprecedented, it makes sense that it should increase the temperature, and the temperature is going up so fast we attribute it to it. That's what Neil De Grasse Tyson said among other things.

Is 420 ppm of CO2 unprecedented?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I get the feeling from Apu's posts that Apu is not very educated.

He is a perfect example of a B.E.L.E.I.V.E.R will parrot anything they poured into his Negitronic brain.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Is 420 ppm of CO2 unprecedented?
View attachment 1103105

He shows no evidence of his alleged high education when he make a stupid statement like this, no credibility at all.

It's simple really, CO2 is unprecedented, it makes sense that it should increase the temperature, and the temperature is going up so fast we attribute it to it.

 

[Robert W]

In the publication, "Church News," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically mentioned climate change and that we need to fight it.

It's simple really, CO2 is unprecedented, it makes sense that it should increase the temperature, and the temperature is going up so fast we attribute it to it. That's what Neil De Grasse Tyson said among other things.

The population is expanding wildly. For instance to heat a day, warm your home up and keep opening and closing your door out or in. This heat is added to temperature. But CO2 is a miracle gas. It fertilizes plants. Plants consume CO2. All is well.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

Yet you fail to show it here maybe you feel intimidated and that you are LYING.

You are just like Mamooth who claims he has a PHD in Physics but never writes that way at all, just nasty rebuttal free replies is his end game.

I have been in the climate debates since the 1980's I can tell when people like YOU show up are commonly known a chronic bullshitter.

We miss doctoral physics knowledge of Billy_Bob

 

[Robert W]

Yet you fail to show it here maybe you feel intimidated and that you are LYING.

You are just like Mamooth who claims he has a PHD in Physics but never writes that way at all, just nasty rebuttal free replies is his end game.

I have been in the climate debates since the 1980's I can tell when people like YOU show up are commonly known a chronic bullshitter.

It has been over a decade back that I first ran into Sunsettommy. His expertise is frankly amazing.

 

[catatomic]

Is 420 ppm of CO2 unprecedented?
View attachment 1103105

You'll accuse me of being scientifically illiterate, so yes I understand this and no this is not what I was talking about.

 

[ding]

You'll accuse me of being scientifically illiterate, so yes I understand this and no this is not what I was talking about.

You don't know what I will do anymore than I know what you will do.

The planet cooled with much more atmosphere than today. How do you explain that?

 

[catatomic]

You don't know what I will do anymore than I know what you will do.

The planet cooled with much more atmosphere than today. How do you explain that?

Simply a different period of the earth.

 

[ding]

Simply a different period of the earth.

So the GHG effect of CO2 isn't the same at all times?

 

[catatomic]

So the GHG effect of CO2 isn't the same at all times?

I thought this was a really good question so I went to good old Chat GPT.

I gave the answer an 8 out of 10 when I was reading it but I feel Chat GPT put it away at the end:

Start: Why was the CO2 higher 50 million years ago but it threatens humanity today?

ChatGPT said:​

Great question — and it's one that gets to the heart of how context matters when it comes to CO₂ and climate.

Why CO₂ was higher 50 million years ago​

About 50 million years ago (during the Eocene Epoch), CO₂ levels were much higher — estimates range from 1,000 to 2,000 ppm, compared to about 420 ppm today. The reasons:

• Intense volcanic activity released vast amounts of CO₂.
• No large-scale glaciation meant fewer ice sheets pulling CO₂ out of the atmosphere.
• Ocean chemistry and continental positions were different — affecting carbon cycling.
• No humans — ecosystems adapted slowly over millions of years to these conditions.

Despite the high CO₂:

• Earth’s ecosystems gradually adapted.
• Sea levels were 100+ meters higher.
• Polar regions were tropical.
• There were no modern coastlines or cities to flood.

Why it threatens us​

Today, even though CO₂ is lower than during the Eocene, the rate of change is the key issue:

• CO₂ is rising faster than at any time in the last 66 million years — mostly due to fossil fuel burning.
• We're adding 3+ ppm per year — compared to natural shifts of 1–2 ppm per thousand years in the past.
• Our civilization is built for a very specific, stable climate (last 10,000 years).
• Rapid changes lead to:
  
  • Heatwaves, droughts, and floods.
  • Sea level rise affecting billions.
  • Food insecurity and mass migration.
  • Ecosystem collapse and species extinctions.

So the paradox is:​

High CO₂ isn't inherently a threat — but rapid, human-driven CO₂ increases are.

Nature can adapt over millions of years. We have decades.

Would you like a visual chart comparing Eocene CO₂ vs modern trends?

:End

So Ding, what do you think?

 

[ding]

I thought this was a really good question so I went to good old Chat GPT.

I gave the answer an 8 out of 10 when I was reading it but I feel Chat GPT put it away at the end:

Start: Why was the CO2 higher 50 million years ago but it threatens humanity today?

ChatGPT said:​

Great question — and it's one that gets to the heart of how context matters when it comes to CO₂ and climate.

Why CO₂ was higher 50 million years ago​

About 50 million years ago (during the Eocene Epoch), CO₂ levels were much higher — estimates range from 1,000 to 2,000 ppm, compared to about 420 ppm today. The reasons:

• Intense volcanic activity released vast amounts of CO₂.
• No large-scale glaciation meant fewer ice sheets pulling CO₂ out of the atmosphere.
• Ocean chemistry and continental positions were different — affecting carbon cycling.
• No humans — ecosystems adapted slowly over millions of years to these conditions.

Despite the high CO₂:

• Earth’s ecosystems gradually adapted.
• Sea levels were 100+ meters higher.
• Polar regions were tropical.
• There were no modern coastlines or cities to flood.

Why it threatens us​

Today, even though CO₂ is lower than during the Eocene, the rate of change is the key issue:

• CO₂ is rising faster than at any time in the last 66 million years — mostly due to fossil fuel burning.
• We're adding 3+ ppm per year — compared to natural shifts of 1–2 ppm per thousand years in the past.
• Our civilization is built for a very specific, stable climate (last 10,000 years).
• Rapid changes lead to:
  • Heatwaves, droughts, and floods.
  • Sea level rise affecting billions.
  • Food insecurity and mass migration.
  • Ecosystem collapse and species extinctions.

So the paradox is:​

Nature can adapt over millions of years. We have decades.

Would you like a visual chart comparing Eocene CO₂ vs modern trends?

:End

So Ding, what do you think?

I think it didn't explain how the planet cooled with so much CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[catatomic]

I think it didn't explain how the planet cooled with so much CO2 in the atmosphere.

Alright fair enough. I'll ask it.