I specifically cut and pasted what I addressed in my facetious way. I have no issue with your post. I explained why we have a reasonable understanding of nature in regards to your statement.
It is entirely possible that we are intruding on nature without any proper understanding of "nature".
You say without a proper understanding and I say a reasonable understanding with a 0.1 billion year margin of error.
Do you see how nature has an adverse effect shown in the video I posted? Did you watch the video?
It addresses your comment:
What if 'nature" reacts adversely with unintended consequences that we will find out some time down the track -
See how far down the track I gave you in the video?
this is a long run scenario
See how the video portrays a long run scenario?
and that is why we use modelling - poorly IMO."
See the 0.1 million years margin of error I have pointed out to you specifically in my posts? However, NASA's modelling as outlined in my previous posts aren't poor.
So, you still haven't answered if humans are or are not significantly contributing to climate change.
