Science doesn't care if you're a Democrat or Republican. The laws of physics work the same way for both parties. Define "control" for us. I have a hunch that you use a different definition than everyone else. That'll be problematic unless we can come to terms on exactly what you mean by "control".
Why do you defend Democrats? Control??? Sorry you do not understand. Control is to manage climate. If we follow instructions from Democrats, supposedly we will control climate and fix the entire problem.
i think you told me not to worry that things will right themselves and we need not pay attention to Democrats.
I'm not defending any political party. That's not my style. So if your definition of control is to "fix the entire problem" then we definitely can't "control" the climate at least not with today's technology and not without an enormous amount of effort. However, we can influence the climate and we can mitigate our influence on the climate by reducing emissions.
I never said 1) you don't need to worry, 2) things will right themselves, or 3) we need not pay attention to Democrats. I will repeat once again. My point is that many of these alarmist predictions you mentioned are manufactured as talking points by skeptics/deniers. I don't know how to make that any more clear.
False, and i don't appreciate your misrepresentation of my comments or of the body of hard earned scientific knowledge. The assertion is that humans can AFFECT climate. And all the evidence supports the truth of this assertion and that it is happening now.
When you depress the throttle of your car, you affect the speed. I frankly am baffled why you do not get that to affect is control. Can you knock off the personality clash please? I post scientific articles to bring posters up to date on what is going on with science. Not to be taunted or insulted nor do it to others myself. So now that you admit you affect climate, show me what you do that affects climate for the better, which was my gist to begin with.
You could sure try to prove your own words. That appears to me to be playing the blame game to make this seem all my fault since you taunt me with the term denier a lot.
Frankly that is a claim. But thus far, no evidence of that working exists. If we do not control climate, we are taking a pee in the winds of a hurricane. We are discussing nothing productive.
Because it isn't, nor will i accede to your attempt at a bait and switch of the terms "affect" and "control", because that is not appropriate to the topic of climate. A warming driver has the affect of pushing temps up. However, the overall temps may rise more quickly, more slowly, or even not at all, depending on other factors at hand. So, clearly, one driver of temps does not "control" the temps. And, just so you know, the fallacy you are attempting to wedge into the discussion is a tired denier tactic that anyone who has discussed this topic can see coming a mile away.
^ Exactly. It's maddening when I see deniers force the issue in binary terms. Climate is either 100% modulated by nature or 100% modulated by man, but for some mysterious reason it can't possibly be a mix of the two they say. The reason they frame the argument in binary terms is because they want to point to the past and say it can't possibly be 100% modulated by man because man wasn't around in the past as a way of tearing down the framework of AGW even though 1) that is affirming a disjunct and 2) AGW doesn't make that claim to begin with.
There is over 150 years of evidence spanning all scientific disciplines. Even the IPCC AR5 report, which is just a single report, incorporates nearly 10,000 lines of evidence collected from over 1,000 experts. If you can't see the abundance of evidence then you are burying your head in the sand and doing the digital equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "la...la...la".
I did. I asked you to read the IPCC AR5 report. You will not find any Earth ending or civilization ending doomsday predictions in there. I'm not taunting you. And I don't use the term denier in disparaging way. I use the term denier to label someone who rejects the abundance of science favoring AGW in favor of onsie-twosie lines of skeptical evidence. I'm not saying skeptical lines of don't exist. They are, in fact, out there. But, when weighed relative all of the other evidence these skeptical lines of evidence are just a flash in the pan. You wholesale reject must science by doing this. That makes you a denier IMHO. Please don't take it personally.
Yep. I've seen it [The Great Global Warming Swindle]. The swindle is the documentary itself. Every point made in the film has been adequately and convincingly addressed by the scientific community. If you want to go over each point made in the film one-by-one I'd be willing to oblige you though.
First off, why are the believers or alarmists as they are more accurately known as called the scientific community yet the scientists that are not called the alarmists known as deniers and not also the scientific community?
The term "denier" Because it is more accurate and appropriate to call the overwhelming majority of scientists (97% + of climate scientists, for instance) the "scientific community" than it is to call the very tiny minority of scientists the scientific community. Kind of a softball question, there, and I think you could have puzzled that out for yourself
No. On the contrary, i gave you credit for being smart enough to have puzzled out the answer to your question all by yourself.
A good paper from Curry on uncertainty https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/01/the-lure-of-incredible-certitude/#more-24286 First use link to read Manski's paper then this follows his. JC reflections
"On our border wall: I saw the wall in East Germany and you might be surprised how well the wall worked. Seldom did a person cross it. Trump is correct. " Yes, it worked very well to harm the economies of both Germanies and the Soviet Union. How is that wall doing now, by the way? anyhoo... I would like you to summarize the material you just copy/pasted, in your own words, in about 3 sentences. Would you?
The wall did far more harm to the communists than it did to west Germany. But the economy of the Soviets was lousy so that poor flow was blocked by the wall from being in the West. Actually, I do not do reading for others nor do I do homework for them. But thanks for asking.
Yes, i.e., the people who built and maintained the wall. Would you like to say anything else to strengthen my points? I read the article. Showing you can summarize its main points in your own words is not doing someone else's homework, it's doing YOUR homework. You presented the article, yet seem to be wholly unable to use the information within to make any point whatsoever.
