Steve S,
Succinctly stated !

Steve,

I Appreciate the compliment on the tone. I’ll take “soothing” over apoplectic any day.

But you’ve quietly abandoned your original point. You cited the Uzbekistan error as proof climate science is untrustworthy, but now that it’s been explained as a rare example of scientific self-correction, you’ve pivoted to vague “graphs going the wrong way” and a couple of cherry-picked papers that you say “call net-zero into question.”

That seems like somewhat of a retreat.

If your case rests on a handful of contrarian papers while dismissing the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that support net-zero as both necessary and achievable, then it’s not one of scepticism - it’s a faith-based contrarianism. You’re doing exactly what you accused me of.

Also, if we’re now shifting from “stupid” to “devious” because you couldn’t back up the original insult, maybe it's worth asking whether this is still about science - or just about how much you dislike the people saying things you don’t want to hear.