Michael Hardner

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/

Your link is from 27 years ago right? I explained that there still were alternative theories in the 1990s but Carbon and Temperature kept going up, and the alternative theories died off. Poetic musings about the hubris of man don't stand up against the facts. Man does a lot of good and bad things. And I don't think I brought up economics so I'll leave that alone.

Trumps have discovered social engineering. Openness and acceptance of LGBTQ is regarded by them as social engineering, not a common value. Did liberals make a mistake on that one ? Objectively, how much does the government get to decide what is a 'common value' ? Or, furthermore, to interpret recognized value-words like 'Freedom' ? Freedom seems to mean you can buy a message and broadcast it whether or not it is true. Nobody would argue that. But it doesn't mean freedom of equal access to education or health. Postmodern Republicanism truly is a wonder to behold. It will lead back to a kind of 19th century pastoralism, I suspect. Maybe with a monarchy though.

You versus pretty much the entire weight of climate science. Citing ppm on its own, without relating it to anything else is an example of wrongheaded thinking. Tiny amounts of some things can have huge effects. Plutonium for example. In this case, the relationship between CO2 and the greenhouse effect is causative. You can show this in a lab, that CO2 in the atmosphere increases warming. CO2 is increased by human activity, and we can measure the this is happening to a large degree.

It's clearly the biggest factor.

You have a set of effects, combined with a causal link that can be reproduced in any lab. That should remove reasonable doubt, especially since the alternate explanations have all failed.

Hmmm... falsifying data is difficult to do when the original data is open and available. Also there are a large number of data points and sources that would have to be changed. Temperature data over time comes from a very large number of sources, over time, from many countries and teams.

They aren't conservatives, they are just small people who think they are better than they are. To me, the USA used to be about Abilene Kansas. I stayed there once, my friends family was from there. It's a big... Nothing. Small town with one main Street. But they had such a meritocracy, that a kid from that town... Dwight Eisenhower... Became the most powerful man in the world.

Really a waste of time to discuss such things with conspiracy theory. I can't see the messages of the person you're talking to though, full disclosure.

Conservatives care for the environment. In the 1980s we had conservatives in office and we moved forward. The new populists are a mix of marxists, libertarians and corporatists.

The idea that jobs must be protected over general prosperity has not been embraced by any federal party since Ed Broadbent. I used to think this, and trust me I do empathize and admire the humanism at the heart of this but the basic math says that some work is best done elsewhere. Of course, it's commerce so greed is involved and other factors like national security but specialization is a general rule of thumb that provides goods and services most efficiently. Any humane country should cushion the impacts of reallocation, and displacement and you can see that Canada has been far better at this than the USA.

Only if you really get the sense that the average American wouldn't buy it though. I get that sense with my latest piping hot pretzel, but you know I'm never sure...

No. People who didn't like the implication financed opposition.

Why would he have a border in the trunk of his car? 🤔