Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

D wrote:

  On Fri, 20 Sep 2024, William Hyde wrote:
 

Hmm, this is very strange. No insults, no ad hominems, somewhere in your text, surely an insult or two are hiding? Can't find it!

>
I leave those to you, and you provide plenty.

 Now we're talking! ;)
 

Needless to say, there are loads of scientists who are of the opinion that what we see is natural and not man made.

>
When examined closely the vast majority of those turn out to be unqualified individuals.

 Actually, it is the opposite. Many climate rationalists come from
engineering, physics and the natural sciences,

Those who work on global change are physicists, mathematicians, meteorologists, and so forth.  We are not responsible for the words of those in the public sphere who may or may not take our work to extremes.
And it is dishonest of you to imply such.
As for your experts, a major source for them has been for years the "Oregon institute of science and medicine" petition.  Examination of those  on that list reveals a plethora of totally unqualified individuals, and of the qualified, some did not sign the list (one I know personally).
I know of precisely one qualified scientist in the skeptic camp, Richard Lindzen, and none of his ideas have panned out.
  while many climate

hysterics

Now you are stating that your opponents are "hysterics".  Again.  That is a dishonest debate tactic.
Indeed, as I am debating you, you are attaching those labels to me. I resent that.
  come

from gender science, postmodernism, economics, agriculture and other
hobby-sciences.
 

But it doesn't matter, only arguments do.  Neither you nor Lynn have offered a scintilla of evidence in defense of your position (the solar constant variations you mention in another post are the ones I cited above, and do not explain global warming at all).

 Plenty of evidence and logical explanations as far as I can see.
 

science is not democracy, where you vote, so it doesn't matter if 10 people believe X if 1 person can prove Y.

>
But you can't prove Y.  You haven't even tried. But I've presented evidence for X.

 There's plenty of proof.

Assertion without evidence.  Do you have any other tactic?
Oh yes, insults.
  The problem is that it is mostly hidden from

plain sight due political reasons.

I've looked at everything the denialist world has to offer.
They have no evidence.
I invite you to supply some.  Actual reasoning, that is. Don't bother cut-and-pasting some page you don't actually understand yourself.
  We all remember climate gate for

instance, which is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
 But the good thing is that eventually the truth will come out. The
question is if it will happen before or after, we've been reduced to
medieval times due to eco-fascism.
 

Of course there is inertia in

the system, so the 10 won't change over night, but eventually, with a paradigm shift or two they will.

>
On the contrary, if the world of 2100 is two C warmer than today, denialists will still be denying.

 The temperature on earth has always varied. This is nothing to be afraid
of. In fact, an increase in warmth will have many beneficial effects, so
do not be afraid of the future.
 

So since neither will convince the other,

>
You don't even try.  And your declaration of closed-mindedness is disturbing.

 Likewise. See above.

Not likewise.
I can explain why the pattern of warming we see is distinct - more warming  in higher than lower latitudes, more in winter than summer, more by night than day, cooling in the stratosphere.  These are all predicted consequences of increased greenhouse gases, predictions that were made decades ago.
Can you explain this pattern without invoking greenhouse gases?  Can you explain the warming at all?
No, we are not alike at all.
I seek reality, you seek factoids to support that which you believe already.  You are a creature of politics.
William Hyde