Science from the other side of Climate Change

R.83b8c4725fb468da5e04b95a803a302d
 
Taichiliberal said:
Now that's out of the way, are you saying that the statement is in error? And if so, how?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is cripplingly vague.

Taichiliberal said:
Bottom line: natural stabilizing doesn't account for about 3 centuries of increasing artificial deforestation, urbanization and industrial pollution of the air and water on a global scale. The latter greatly effects the former, whether the myopic research of climate change deniers accept it or not.
Click to expand...

"3 centuries of increasing artificial deforestation, urbanization and industrial pollution of the air and water on a global scale." is the object of the sentence.

"natural stabilizing" is the subject.

"account for" is the verb.

What does "doesn't account for" mean? Does it mean "render inconsequential"? Does it mean "can't repair on any time scale"?

What is "the latter" and "the former"? Do you mean the object of the sentence is the latter and the subject is the former?

Then "3 centuries of increasing artificial deforestation, urbanization and industrial pollution of the air and water on a global scale." greatly affects "natural stabilizing"?

In which case do you mean every part of your compound object or just one?

Urbanization doesn't prevent trees from planting themselves or us from planting trees. The supposed "pollutant" of "greenhouse gasses" is the only globally detectable atmospheric pollutant and heavy metal in fish seem to kill humans or make them environmentally conscious which I guess you could call an 'effect'.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...
You are the one on tap to show that a climate can change. You prove that the climate has somehow changed.

I looked at your pic, discounted the quantity of ice because ice is not climate. I didn't see any change in the climate. If you are claiming a changed climate, prove it.
 
IBDaMann said:
You are the one on tap to show that a climate can change. You prove that the climate has somehow changed.

I looked at your pic, discounted the quantity of ice because ice is not climate. I didn't see any change in the climate. If you are claiming a changed climate, prove it.
Click to expand...
You are the one that claims the photos were taken in "different months."

I put up a pair of photos of an Alaskan glacier that in a century has receded about 1.5 miles (or about 8,000 feet) at a rate of about 80 feet a year.

If the photos were taken in different months, show how this glacier moved the known 1.5 miles between say January and July in a year which appears to be your claim.
 
IBDaMann said:
Into the Night will accept any definition you wish to apply to any term you wish to fabricate. However, if you are pretending to be discussing science or math, you have to use the definition specified by the relevant theory. Your error is that you try to fabricate and overlay your own definitions onto math and science, and then blame Into the Night for not allowing you to hijack math and science.

You continue to be the problem.


You are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. You are completely unable to discern if science or math is somehow being "misused." You are only able to sense when your own religious beliefs are threatened, at which point you rush to your strawberry safe space in which science and math are perfectly maleable and can be altered to support your religion instead of running against it.
Click to expand...
Despite your continued efforts, you can make things true simply by repeating them over and over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top