> So it's 50 years now, is it? Seems a little long to me but whatever. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-yea

> So it's 50 years now, is it? Seems a little long to me but whatever. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-... And before that there was efforts to stimy acedemia as the models are so painfully obvious and unambiguous... Yeah, 50. > What's important here is that this is another claim of "FUD", Yeah, because it's a literal campaign of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (see link above). Less a "claim" as an "obvious, proven, well established fact". And the trolls are obvious and everywhere, even here. > go look at the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of Venus ... Mars... Too bad I didn't say anything that would have any connection to this irrelevent, obtuse, comparison. Did Venus experience a runaway greenhouse effect? Are you seriously implying greenhouse gases don't have greenhouse effects? Also: what does NASA say about terraforming Mars and CO2? The top minds over there seemingly know something you do not. Climates can get hot from the greenhouse effect -- those who disagree are disagreeing with obvservable reality. > go track down a full spectrum chart of sunlight and how carbon dioxide and water vapor and such absorb that sunlight I'm completely befuddled by this attempt at a point. Greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation, CO2 is one of them. Are you implying the IPCC and top brains at Oak Ridge has missed something in a straight-forward chart about the absorbtion of sunlight? For decades? Sheesh. More energy in a system, what could possibly happen. Wow. Hard. I dunno. Only we all do. The physics of it are crystal clear, even if the predictive models were tricky to make. It makes absurd gesticulating to minor percieved issues look flacid, weak, and hallow. > some years back a "skeptic" once very publicly tried to replicate a [greenhouse gas] similar experiment ... it didn't replicate as described, as I recall, implying... ... implying very little as the experiments I was referring to are painfully simple and have been carried out repeatedly, not just twice. I'm sure you've alerted the relevant journals and conferences, though, to this travesty of scinece. I bet they're sweating with this straightforward and easily proven assault on the foundations of their field... Mmmmm Hmmmm. Time to worry about black helicopters, false flags, and you getting disappeared! Or... is this backed by The Deep State? Tinfoil! Tinfoil! > most of the "skeptics" that I've seen online are right on top of this kind of stuf No they aren't. This is a(nother) blatant falsehood. They are dishonest liars with no credibility and an armory of logical fallacies and hostile attitude that they use to export their moronic, uninformed, world-view. A world-view that is blatantly supported by monied interests pushing junk science and FUD. . -------- . Here's the thing: as yet another in a lOOooooooooooooooong line of climate trolls on the internet, you gotta step it up. These obvious attempts at spreading debunked factoids was played out in the early 00's. So, yeah: "skeptic", because genuine skeptics would read and learn, instead of regurgitating talking points like a Russian Twitter troll. 2/10, needs more effort.