Scott Simmons

This is a short summary of why geologists know that greenhouse gases, especially CO2, are the primary drivers of global temperature variability on geologic time scales. woodromances.blogspot.com/2025/12/a-geol…

@MLeiter42 @Royalacresrod @Diver_Flemming @ladyspat1 @Phleyer @jgatta06 @BubbasRanch @BobPartridge16 @ChrisBBacon3 @DaleGribble_666 @priscian @grok @WayneAllanH @Mark_A_Lunn @JamesAbbott2013 @jimdtweet @covid_quest @dafalgoutDennis @evenminded512 @sandcastle1975 @patfrank830 @Frnc_prep @MichaelCar11571 @ammocrypta @FreeSpeech4Me_U @WHPAAD @balls95652097 @joPO19942906 @Kenneth72712993 @BenKoby1911 @Michael_D_Crow @Scizz8 @Data79504085 @rln_nelson @4RealClimate @CDCollins5269 @Ernestops78 @phlannelphysics @Hji45519156 @FreeSpeech4U_Me @Devonian1342 @TypicalDeviant @isaacscradle @RobertWager1 @hannon_renee @RixAutomatedMat @GeorgeJeff9804 @roger_clague @NOAA That plot is fake. It was manipulated by Scafetta.

@Royalacresrod @Diver_Flemming @ladyspat1 @Phleyer @jgatta06 @BubbasRanch @BobPartridge16 @ChrisBBacon3 @DaleGribble_666 @priscian @sjsimmons @grok @WayneAllanH @Mark_A_Lunn @JamesAbbott2013 @jimdtweet @covid_quest @dafalgoutDennis @evenminded512 @sandcastle1975 @patfrank830 @Frnc_prep @MichaelCar11571 @ammocrypta @FreeSpeech4Me_U @WHPAAD @balls95652097 @joPO19942906 @Kenneth72712993 @BenKoby1911 @Michael_D_Crow @Scizz8 @Data79504085 @rln_nelson @4RealClimate @CDCollins5269 @Ernestops78 @phlannelphysics @Hji45519156 @FreeSpeech4U_Me @Devonian1342 @TypicalDeviant @isaacscradle @RobertWager1 @hannon_renee @RixAutomatedMat @GeorgeJeff9804 @roger_clague @NOAA Some CO2 sensitivity possibilities, by study.

@evenminded512 @Frnc_prep @sjsimmons @MLeiter42 @patfrank830 @MichaelCar11571 @dafalgoutDennis @ammocrypta @priscian @FreeSpeech4Me_U @grok @WHPAAD @ChrisBBacon3 @balls95652097 @ladyspat1 @joPO19942906 @BubbasRanch @WayneAllanH @Kenneth72712993 @BenKoby1911 @LexWaters7 @craigthomler @Michael_D_Crow @Scizz8 @Data79504085 @Mark_A_Lunn @DaleGribble_666 @JamesAbbott2013 @rln_nelson @4RealClimate @CDCollins5269 @Ernestops78 @TrixX306 @phlannelphysics @BobPartridge16 @Hji45519156 @FreeSpeech4U_Me @Devonian1342 @jgatta06 @TypicalDeviant @isaacscradle @RobertWager1 @hannon_renee @RixAutomatedMat @GeorgeJeff9804 @roger_clague @NOAA I said nothing about radiation. The whole point is you don't need radiation for a lapse rate, just convection and gravity.

@dafalgoutDennis @joe51du @patfrank830 @jimdtweet @Gilles_Borghese @MichaelCar11571 @WayneAllanH @FreeSpeech4Me_U @joPO19942906 @ladyspat1 @BubbasRanch @WHPAAD @JamesAbbott2013 @dee_ermakova @priscian @DaleGribble_666 @evenminded512 @99thinkaboutit @jgatta06 @Data79504085 @Frnc_prep @MLeiter42 @ammocrypta @ChrisBBacon3 @balls95652097 @Kenneth72712993 @BenKoby1911 @Michael_D_Crow @Scizz8 @Mark_A_Lunn @rln_nelson @4RealClimate @CDCollins5269 @Ernestops78 @phlannelphysics @BobPartridge16 @Hji45519156 @FreeSpeech4U_Me @Devonian1342 @TypicalDeviant @isaacscradle @RobertWager1 @hannon_renee @RixAutomatedMat @GeorgeJeff9804 Why? Use your words and try to be rational.

@joe51du @patfrank830 @jimdtweet @Gilles_Borghese @MichaelCar11571 @WayneAllanH @FreeSpeech4Me_U @joPO19942906 @ladyspat1 @BubbasRanch @WHPAAD @JamesAbbott2013 @dee_ermakova @priscian @DaleGribble_666 @evenminded512 @99thinkaboutit @jgatta06 @Data79504085 @Frnc_prep @sjsimmons @MLeiter42 @ammocrypta @ChrisBBacon3 @balls95652097 @Kenneth72712993 @BenKoby1911 @Michael_D_Crow @Scizz8 @Mark_A_Lunn @rln_nelson @4RealClimate @CDCollins5269 @Ernestops78 @phlannelphysics @BobPartridge16 @Hji45519156 @FreeSpeech4U_Me @Devonian1342 @TypicalDeviant @isaacscradle @RobertWager1 @hannon_renee @RixAutomatedMat @GeorgeJeff9804 "Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.

@dafalgoutDennis @priscian @DaleGribble_666 @jimdtweet @Gilles_Borghese @evenminded512 @patfrank830 @WayneAllanH @craigthomler @grok @99thinkaboutit @jgatta06 @ladyspat1 @FreeSpeech4Me_U @WHPAAD @BubbasRanch @Data79504085 @Frnc_prep @sjsimmons @MLeiter42 @MichaelCar11571 @ammocrypta @ChrisBBacon3 @balls95652097 @joPO19942906 @Kenneth72712993 @BenKoby1911 @Michael_D_Crow @Scizz8 @Mark_A_Lunn @JamesAbbott2013 @rln_nelson @4RealClimate @CDCollins5269 @Ernestops78 @TrixX306 @phlannelphysics @BobPartridge16 @Hji45519156 @FreeSpeech4U_Me @Devonian1342 @TypicalDeviant @isaacscradle @RobertWager1 @hannon_renee @RixAutomatedMat @GeorgeJeff9804 @roger_clague @NOAA Computer models from 50 years ago predicted today’s climate quite well. Today’s Nobel prize winning models are far from inept, you totally full of shit.

@_ClimateCraze Shewchuk lies about USHCN, which was deprecated in 2014. woodromances.blogspot.com/2025/01/data-t…

The earth appears to be heating up faster because the data tampering activities are heating up.

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki There's no reason to debate idiot trolls. Good bye, moron.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki You're such an incompetent loser. 🤣🤣🤣

As a former academic, it is physically painful to watch the "Gold Standard" of scientific publishing turn into a rubber-stamp factory for narrative-driven garbage. A recent paper published by Springer Nature on CO2 "toxicity" is the perfect case study in why institutional science is losing all credibility. The paper claims that rising atmospheric CO2 is on the verge of poisoning human blood and causing a "toxic threat" within decades. It sounds scary... until you apply five minutes of basic biological and historical literacy. 1. The Evolutionary Reality Check Mammals evolved roughly 225 million years ago. During that era, atmospheric CO2 wasn't just "high"—it was astronomical, estimated at 2,000 to 4,000 ppm. That is nearly 10X higher than current levels. If the human (mammalian) blood-gas exchange system were as fragile as these authors claim, our entire lineage would have been extinguished in the Triassic. We are the descendants of organisms that thrived in high CO2. 2. The Military "Living Laboratory" We don't have to guess how humans react to high CO2. The U.S. Navy and NASA have decades of data. Submariners routinely live and work in environments with CO2 levels maintained between 2,000 and 5,000 ppm for months at a time. If the "science" in this paper were remotely accurate, every nuclear sub crew in history would have been neurologically incapacitated. They aren't. They perform highly complex technical tasks at CO2 levels the authors of this paper would find "apocalyptic." 3. The Peer Review Scandal How does a paper that ignores the fossil record and existing physiological data get past the "gatekeepers"? When "Science" ignores the laws of biology and decades of human data to push a scary headline, it is no longer science... it is ideology. This is why the public is tuning out. When you trade your intellectual honesty for a "fashionable" conclusion, you don't just lose the argument; you lose the trust of the people. The "reproducibility crisis" was just the beginning; we are now facing a full-blown crisis of basic competence. When prestigious publishers like Springer Nature swap rigorous physiological data for "fashionable" alarmism, they aren't just publishing bad papers... they are actively dismantling the public's trust in the scientific method itself. Academia is burning its own house down, and until there is a reckoning with this institutional rot, nobody should blame the public for looking elsewhere for the truth. link.springer.com/article/10.100…

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki You failed again to identify a single thing I got wrong. Use your words and identify one thing I got wrong and give me an evidence-based correction, or admit to being an ignorant troll. If you can't do either, I'll just block you, moron.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki Henry’s Law governs the equilibrium concentration of unreacted CO₂(aq) at the air–sea interface at constant temperature (which is about 1% of total ocean carbon). That's it. Moron.

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki You're not competent. You're a moron. You decided to whine about something I wrote that is 100% correct. Get an education.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki Competent scientists use the Revelle factor, not Henry’s Law. The Revelle factor governs the entire carbonate system. That’s why the ocean resists CO2 uptake and why pH doesn’t respond like a lab experiment. Average ocean surface 1%> atmospheric CO2 = ~0.1% increase in DIC.

@_ClimateCraze Deniers think that because a drought was bad in the past, climate change can't affect droughts. They're essentially just morons governed by their politics.

Those who complain about today's droughts forget about past droughts -- when it was easier to walk across the river where there were no bridges.

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki You're just a lying moron. Henry's Law states that the amount of gas dissolved in a liquid is proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above the liquid, at constant temperature. That of course applies to the oceans. Go troll someone else, moron.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki You can't even admit that HL does not apply to oceans directly. My point was about the scope of Henry’s Law, not whether oceans outgas. You reframed the conversation in your first comment, and you’ve been arguing with your own reframing ever since.

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki You'll keep showing you're just a moron. Eventually, I'll tire of you and block you for being an ignorant troll.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki Well then I'll keep doing this. x.com/4RealClimate/s…

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki Again you failed to identify a single word I said that was wrong, moron.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki Again. x.com/4RealClimate/s…

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki You forgot to identify one thing I got wrong again, moron.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki x.com/4RealClimate/s…

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki You forgot to say what I got wrong again, moron.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki x.com/4RealClimate/s…

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki Yet another failure from you at identifying a single thing I got wrong, moron.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki You have yet to point out a single thing I got wrong, moron. Try to do something useful with your tiny brain instead of trolling people saying factual things.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki 🤣🤣🤣

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki You're an uneducated moron who can't read worth shit. Read what I wrote and name one thing that's wrong with it. You can't; you're an idiot.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki I have an education. The subject was oceans. You claimed HL doesn't always show outgassing from oceans. I corrected you by saying HL has nothing at all to do w/oceans directly, it's a formula. YOU didn't say HL didn't apply directly to oceans...I did. 😂

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki You little moron, we are not discussing whether or not Henry's Law is a formula. We're discussing your moronic claim that I was wrong to say that Henry's Law doesn't say the oceans always outgas CO2. Learn to use your brain.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki "If" you were educated you'd have said, "Yes I agree with you HL does not apply directly to oceans it's a formula. So what was your point? But instead, YOU argue like a child.

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki You made the moronic claim that I said something wrong that needed correction. Yet you refuse to identify what I said that was wrong. You're just an argumentative moron. Get an education.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki Now this is what I miss the most about you. When you insert your own claims as if it belongs to the other person and then fight them on your own claim as if they other person said it. Is that pathological?

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki Henry's Law doesn't say the oceans always outgas, and I was right. You claimed I was wrong, meaning you're an idiot.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki You said Henry's Law doesn't say Oceans always outgas, I said it says nothing at all about oceans...It's a formula. Henry's law cannot decide out/in gassing period. That was the point. 😜

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki I have nothing to rebut. You said I was wrong, but you can't identify anything I said that was wrong because you're an idiot.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki Good scientific rebuttal well I'm convinced (that you're an idiot). So you agree that the partial pressure of Henry's law is not enough to determine outgassing? Glad we had this conversation.

@4RealClimate @MatthewWielicki You don't know shit about science, and you can't identify anything I said that was wrong. Get an education.

@sjsimmons @MatthewWielicki 1/This is the science: We still can’t directly measure total ocean CO₂ outgassing or absorption. The numbers you see in the Global Carbon Budget come from models stitched together with sparse buoy, ship, and satellite data.