Why CO2 does not govern the earth's surface temperature

The paper linked in #304 was published in 2021, long after your cited "refutations" and neither mentions nor references Pruitt.

 

A comment apparently based on another error of fact.

 

For the 1,000 time you have the same influence in climate science as a rock in Uranus..

They aren't impressed by Big Oil propaganda, which is all you've got.

 

I simply pointed out another error of fact in the basis of your post. Please see my #326.

 

You mean what influence on the science do I have.

I have the same influence you do, which is less than zero.

What you guys do is classic propaganda, trying to create the appearance of propaganda, when there is no controversy.

Tedious trolls..

 

We cite research results. You call names. I like our way better.

 

He can't back up his "refutation" claims which means he made it up in the first place he is clearly running on empty yet they wonder why they LOST the science debate years ago.

Our way is working exposing how poor AGW believers science really is.

 

Most of the people you use are paid to do something that isn't science. The rest are kooks...

 

Still waiting for that "refutation" claim YOU brought up.....

Waiting
waiting
waiting......

Zzzzz....

 

That is a lie.

 

No, you simply made that up, like all your other claims about papers that dissent from the anti-fossil-fuel disinformation campaign.

No. That is NOT in the real world. YOU MADE IT UP. The false, absurd, and disingenuous $#!+ you make up is not the real world. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.

 

All relevant facts count. Your false and disingenuous fabrications, however, do not count as anything but more proof of the pervasive anti-scientific character of anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.

And also did not happen in this case. Your claims are just objectively false, and can most charitably be characterized as gaslighting.

You are stuck at zero, if I was feeling generous, which I'm not.

 

He was discussing the wrong paper.

 

Said no actual scientist ever.

The irony, of course, is that those two claimed events also never happened.

Another fabrication.

I see. So, citing peer-reviewed and extremely unretracted research that disproves your false and absurd beliefs somehow makes one a kook?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

 

I'm not challenging any science, just some laughably inept anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda.

Oh. The. Irony.

 

Your "sources" appear to consist entirely of blatant propaganda pieces from politically compromised organizations.

 

“Petromasculinity” Is Becoming Toxic, Too—at Least to Online Daters. "OkCupid users say climate denial is now their top deal-breaker."

I'm not sure that dating a Climate Doomsdayer is a good idea anyway.

 

Problem is, the young ones were all raised on climate doom. If you want realism, you'll have to seek a more mature vintage.

 

Huh? What on earth do you even incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about? Virtually 100% of the world's population that is being paid to do anything is being paid to do things that aren't science. Your comment merely exemplifies the inability to engage in valid logical and scientific reasoning that characterizes most of the anti-fossil-fuel nonscience crowd.

 

Big Oil spends many millions on propaganda. Must be a real boost in income for crap scientists, much less the kooks...

 

A lazy falsehood.

 

He is so lazy since "big oil" doesn't fund much anymore and a feeble dodge to the topic at hand because he doesn't know anything.

 

But a small fraction of what governments spend.

You are referring, of course, to anti-fossil-fuel hysteria mongers...?

 

False equivalence.

 

There is a ton of Dark Money, in a civilised country with transparency we wouldn't let them hide it..