Michael Hardner

I doubt that I will "complain" (your word).

Did I say that the sky is falling? Did I take a position on a detailed response? You keep coming at me from these angles, I think because you want to make an argument where we don't have one. Sometimes there's nothing to say.

Why do I have to produce proof for a claim I did not make?

1. No, it's not resolved. If you don't want to continue, that's fine but it's not resolved. 2. I suppose. But the analogy doesn't work for me.

1. You told me that I stuck out on science, so why would I continue to pester you? 2. Well at some point fossil fuels will be gone. I'd like to see more nuclear power for one. And as I mentioned before, the quality of dialog needs a major shift.

1. Not very gracious, especially since you're the one changing a subject, but okay. 2. I'm 100% against tripe. 3. Ok.

We're on to a new topic, it seems. I welcome that. I think that we should try to mitigate climate change, but whatever we do needs to be based on consensus around a real solution. All the parties have climate policies I believe. Maybe not PPC.

We haven't talked about response. So how can you say I'm not interested in negotiating or compromising? And I don't think interpretation should be subject to negotiation. Facts point to a conclusion, what would be the role of negotiation in that exchange? "The thermometer shows it's -20. I interpret that to mean that I would feel cold if I went out" "Let's compromise on this" ?

A compromise on what? Science?

Well ok, but an encyclopedia entry is not authoritative when it comes to providing the complete evidence of climate change caused by humans. Furthermore, you're nitpicking one word in that article and trying to work backwards to say that we can include there's not enough evidence. I would say look at summaries of the scientific papers, how often they're cited by other papers etc. There is enough evidence, though ,and as I mentioned, there are no other factors that add up to causing climate change on the level that it's happened other than human produced CO2

The Democratic Party May soon be banned. Anybody here think that's a bad idea?

All the factors can be quantified. Human caused CO2 is the largest factor.

Sorry I don't usually respond to you because I have you on ignore. I don't know where you got that but I didn't say it. You're arguing against something I didn't say.

You said that there was one fact. All of those other factors are understood and aren't causing the increase in temperature. Those are either 1990s theories or discounted ones, such as volcanic activity causing the increase.

No, I explained that you can make the Greenhouse effect happen in a lab by increasing the amount of Carbon. And we know humans are making more carbon, and the temperature of the lower atmosphere is increasing. You can't say it's 100% certain but it's beyond a reasonable doubt. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/