Michael Hardner

1. They have produced accurate results. Compelling is a personal and subjective opinion. I think you've described the criteria you're looking for, and to it's not practical. 2. That wasn't my point. 3. My point was your name-calling reveals a lack of arguments. 4. You're revisiting an old point. You said something like you want to wait until disaster is imminent before we act. 5. Not relevant.

1. I'm not. I'm trying to get to the core of your concern. 2. I'm not asking that.

Generally, It's reproducible in a lab. There are many YouTube videos you can Google.

The 97% number is itself, not the whole story. The 3% of scientists would need to be identified, especially since they're not publishing. There don't seem to be any papers identified In recent memory that reject the consensus position. The study below says 1993 but I found one reviewed in 1994. Still that's over 30 years. Lots of YouTubes and magazine articles, but... https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=49

1. Fine. Then answer my question and teach me. 2. What is the ultimate impact?

Ok, so are you worried about overall productivity, profits, lives of working people? What about the economy worries you?

1. No. That has never been easy, on this board. I applaud the implication that causes should not longer be the focus of discussion, and economics should. I'll wait for others to comment. Thanks.

1. True. Urbanization is another source cited, for example. But we also know that it could never be proven anyway. 2. I haven't heard that but ok. I would add that fossil fuels are a limited resource. And note that we're not talking about human-caused warming now. We're adding in discussion about solutions. 3. Not my goal. I'm talking about whether human caused warming has sufficient evidence to require discussion. Not whether there's proof, or imposing a solution. Because the post I was responding to was about the cause of warming and proof.

I'll add two more: Human produced CO2 output has increased by a correlated amount. And we know that more CO2 creates a greenhouse effect.

How so? https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/will-trumps-big-beautiful-defense-spending-last To add: is saber rattling peaceful? https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article311806681.html https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-09/trump-us-military-action-mexican-drug-cartels/105631938

The best way to counter a claim is to find the paper where it's published, and find what was reviewed. I remember one of the celestial claims was countered when it was determined that temperature is not increasing on other planets.

1. Well, specialization is a thing, but a bunch of the stuff I read about the pandemic is hindsight. Given my experience debating 9/11, conspiracies and climate on here. I'm not interested in spending the time in debating pandemic response. 2. Not really. I do entertain discussions on here from people who aren't experts, and we look into other areas like the economics and so on. Also non-climate scientist folks publish papers from time to time. 3. It's a broad brush. What is the geological record? Trying to tell us? What is botany trying to tell us? What have they published that challenges? The current thinking on climate change? Oftentimes with these videos, you get people who haven't published anything. They spend their time making videos rather than making a case to the scientists. 4. Decisions are made at the political level. Remember on here we had people saying for years that the climate wasn't warming, then that humans weren't causing it? I do. And nothing changed with the science.

1. Okay. I like you so I'm not going to make counter claims about how you come to your beliefs. It's got nothing to do with my argument, yet again 2. Thanks for your attention 3. I've spent countless hours on here looking at counter arguments, lots of them. From the top of mind, there's claims about satellite alignment, ground stations, other sources of carbon, mathematical errors in papers, as well as other theories like cosmic rays and the climate iris by Richard Lindzen. If, on here, We were all just arguing facts, I feel I would have a lot more people having faith in my intellectual honesty and acknowledging my points. It almost never happens. People just take a personal stake in disagreeing with me and don't like my abrupt style. That's my takeaway. ............................................. Are you going to comment on my points that you looked at or not?

1. You missed my point. My point was that I didn't ask you for 1 hour, but only for a few minutes. I don't see the need to spend an hour, nor would I ask you to spend that long. 2. Vicious censoring? There's lots of anti-climate stuff out there. It's quoted on these Pages regularly. And that's got nothing to do with The research and approach of sound. It's about the politics, I think. 3. Like what? You said you just finished reading my points. Tell me: What is Extreme? 4. Yeah I gave you my points and you read them. For you to say.... There were people who censor anti-climate change claims has got nothing to do with what I wrote. 5. I survived covid fine. But again that's got nothing to do with this.

No no. You're engaging with me. I'm sure it only took you a few minutes to read my points. As I recall your YouTube was a very long. Let me ask you about your point here: what aspect of my argument is open to corruption, I.e. inherent corruption? To add: A poster recently commented on my acknowledgment that institutions aren't completely trustworthy. He used that acknowledgment as a point against academic climate science. But it's not enough to say something is corrupt, You have to show how that specifically manifested in some effect. Or some result.

1. Experts have indeed produced results. 2. You conflate every opinion on the side of anthropogenic climate change as an expert. It's not so. 3. You mischaracterise me and insult me. You can't make an argument without doing that it seems. 4. Who said NYC would be under water by now?

No, the panic button was part of the general mass media strategy, weaponized by Freedom Party know-nothings who think that expertise isn't a thing.

Note to all: I'm pushing that I'm not in the culture war. (Note: "pushing" means "posting")

1. - 5. LOL right back. I already stated that having an opinion on a culture issue is not being on one side of the culture war, and I gave an example... Or two... You are blind to your own inability to see past the war objectively. The evidence is the fact that you think everyone is in the culture war, as long as they have an opinion on something. I can't explain it to you any clearer than this: you are a culture Warrior, because you think everyone who has an opinion is a culture Warrior. Just because someone states opinions that are different than yours doesn't mean they are "pushing" them. That kind of inflammatory language is also a clear marker of a culture Warrior, I.e you. Have a good war.

1. I disagree that I'm on one side of the culture war because I have an opinion on one issue or another. I don't push transgender issues. I have opinions on them as do others. I have friends who don't believe in trans girls in sports, but I wouldn't say they're part of the culture word just based on one opinion. Jim Flaherty was not a culture warrior. 2. Maybe. But if I ask a culture warrior about the war itself they will just talk about how the other side is wrong. I see you taking that tack. So it's not a comment on the war itself, it's more warfare. 3. Like I said, it's possible to have an opinion on transgender issues, or anything without being a culture Warrior. Is that you think one side is better.

1. Well I cast blame on both sides, so tell me which side I "believe in" and why? 2. Ok, so I won't expect objective analysis of the war from you. 3. You are in it, so you force everyone onto one side or the other.

I think I did say the left started it? You're deep in the trenches, so I won't ask for your opinion. A true culture Warrior picks a side.

Ok but... 🤔 I mean who else is protesting a Christian MAGA personality? The culture wars are dumb...

There's an interesting point here. The topic of "offensive" material and the woksy response arose pre-social media when there was a presumption of corporate and neoliberal monoculture The response shook that culture, and we didn't recover. Now, any political group on the playing board feels like it has the right to object to cultural differences. And Republicans, once they got into power, moved the pendulum back. Conservatives like me are also small 'l' liberal and this change in our culture is concerning. The social left started it, but they were never going to have real power. They were worn by the centre Left Liberals and Democrats like fake jewelry. Culture war is deranged.

1. Why generate more funds when you're also spending the revenue? 2. I'm not commenting on "activism", so let's leave it out. 3. We can never "pinpoint" the cause but we can be confident. This is the essence of risk management: determine what might happen and spend a commensurate amount to mitigate.