Science from the other side of Climate Change

[IBDaMann]

Nope. You need to explain why any rational adult wouldn't believe in an ice age,

Once again, your king is tipped. The "ice age" assertion is your affirmative argument, not mine. If you do not wish to support it, then we can agree to discard it. I'm good with that.

given that scientists believe

It is totally irrelevant what any people believe. You are making an assertion about the unobserved past that you cannot support with any rational basis.

Dismissed.

there have been multiple ice ahes.

To the best of your understanding, no rational adult has any reason to believe this. This begs the question as to why you believe it, but in the end, you are entitled you whatever religious beliefs you choose.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, you said you wanted evidence the climate change could account for glacial retreat.

Nope. If you misinterpreted, I will seize the opportunity to clarify.

Your affirmative argument is that climate can change. I need you to show me how. Showing me that the weather can change, or that a glacier can change, or that personal preference can change, or that something other than climate can change, is not showing that climate can change.

So show me that climate can change. It's your affirmative argument.

Sounds like change in the climate there.

Nope. It sounds like changes in things that are not climate. Show me that climate can change. Start with a climate. Any climate will do.

Follow the science.

It's all I do, and it's liberating. I recommend you try it.

 

[ZenMode]

Once again, your king is tipped. The "ice age" assertion is your affirmative argument, not mine. If you do not wish to support it, then we can agree to discard it. I'm good with that.


It is totally irrelevant what any people believe. You are making an assertion about the unobserved past that you cannot support with any rational basis.

Dismissed.


To the best of your understanding, no rational adult has any reason to believe this. This begs the question as to why you believe it, but in the end, you are entitled you whatever religious beliefs you choose.

As I said, you are all about science until scientists tell you things you don't like.

Talk about tipping your king... you and ITN are frauds.

 

[gfm7175]

What a load of bullshit that is.

The glacier receded over a century. That is a measurable, observable, fact.
The mechanism by which glaciers expand, or contract is known.
Therefore, something changed to cause the glacier to recede.
The obvious, and undeniable fact is that climate change had to do it.

Now, what is debatable is what changes happened in the climate to cause that to occur.

What a load of bullshit that is.

The glacier receded over a century. That is a measurable, observable, fact.
The mechanism by which glaciers expand, or contract is known.
Therefore, something changed to cause the glacier to recede.
The obvious, and undeniable fact is that God had to do it.

Now, what is debatable is what changes happened in the God's will to cause that to occur.


Can you now see how your claims about "climate change" are religious in nature?

 

[Daylight63]

Nope. If you misinterpreted, I will seize the opportunity to clarify.

Your affirmative argument is that climate can change. I need you to show me how. Showing me that the weather can change, or that a glacier can change, or that personal preference can change, or that something other than climate can change, is not showing that climate can change.

So show me that climate can change. It's your affirmative argument.


Nope. It sounds like changes in things that are not climate. Show me that climate can change. Start with a climate. Any climate will do.


It's all I do, and it's liberating. I recommend you try it.

Why don't you spend more time learning science and less time showing everyone how little science you actually know?

 

[IBDaMann]

As I said, you are all about science until scientists tell you things you don't like.

Let's unpack this:

1. There are no scientists telling me things I don't like.
2. I will never allow anyone to do my thinking for me; nobody gets to mandate my beliefs.
3. You continue to believe that scientists have appointed you, as scientifically illiterate as you are, to speak for them.
4. The bigger point is that you are once again pointing to your religious clergy while shunning science, as your religious authority, all the while referring to your religion as "science" ... because you don't know the difference between the two.

 

[IBDaMann]

What a load of bullshit that is.

The glacier receded over a century. That is a measurable, observable, fact.
The mechanism by which glaciers expand, or contract is known.
Therefore, something changed to cause the glacier to recede.
The obvious, and undeniable fact is that God had to do it.

Now, what is debatable is what changes happened in the God's will to cause that to occur.


Can you now see how your claims about "climate change" are religious in nature?

You have just given a master class. Well done.

 

[IBDaMann]

Why don't you spend more time learning science and less time showing everyone how little science you actually know?

Tipping your king really is all you know how to do.

Only now are you realizing that climate really cannot change, and that you feel really stupid for insisting otherwise. I presume that you have thus given up on trying to show that climate can change since you now realize that any such attempts will be futile.

 

[ZenMode]

Let's unpack this:

1. There are no scientists telling me things I don't like.
2. I will never allow anyone to do my thinking for me; nobody gets to mandate my beliefs.
3. You continue to believe that scientists have appointed you, as scientifically illiterate as you are, to speak for them.
4. The bigger point is that you are once again pointing to your religious clergy while shunning science, as your religious authority, all the while referring to your religion as "science" ... because you don't know the difference between the two.

"You continue to believe that scientists have appointed you, as scientifically illiterate as you are, to speak for them"

I'm not speaking for anyone. I'm relaying what scientists believe, which is that there have been multiple ice ages. You, who are supposedly all about science, don't believe ice ages occurred because it's inconvenient to your political beliefs. Where are you ice age denying scientists?

Some scientists who have contributed to the understanding of ice ages include:

• Louis Agassiz
  A Swiss naturalist who is often credited with discovering the ice age. Agassiz believed that enormous ice sheets expanded from the Arctic into Europe and North America. He and Jean-Louis Schimper developed the theory of a sequence of glaciations in 1836–37.
  
  
• 
  Milutin Milanković
  A Serbian mathematician and astronomer who spent decades studying the cause of ice ages. He theorized that variations in Earth's orbit, tilt, and rotation caused long-term climate events like ice ages. These variations are now known as Milanković cycles.
  
  
• 
  Moira Dunbar
  A Canadian who worked in sea-ice research. She took photos of sea ice at different times of the year to analyze ice conditions.
  
  
• 
  Jessica Tierney
  A climate scientist at the University of Arizona who has studied the last ice age.

• • Maurice Ewing, a geophysicist and director of Columbia University's Lamont Geological Observatory
  • William Donn, a geologist and meteorologist
  • J.K. Charlesworth
  • B.S. John
  • A.D. Vernekar
  • J. Imbrie
  • F. Hoyle

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm not speaking for anyone.

You try to. You routinely mention the class "scientists" and then proceed to pretend to speak for them. I can't think of anything more absurd than a group of scientists appointing you as their spokesman.

I'm relaying what scientists believe

See, you pretend to speak for scientists.

, which is that there have been multiple ice ages.

There are plenty of morons who theorize ice ages as well. You can't seem to grasp that this particular belief is a belief, and has no rational basis. All you can do is point to people who hold this belief; you cannot point to any rational basis. You point to scientists who hold the belief and I point to overwhelming hordes of morons.

Let's take an average and just concede that it's a stupid idea overall.

Some scientists who have contributed to the understanding of ice ages include:

There is no "understanding" of that which doesn't exist.

I'll tell you what ... read through the beliefs of whomever you wish and just compile your best rational basis for belief in one or more "ice ages" and let's discuss that.

 

[ZenMode]

You try to. You routinely mention the class "scientists" and then proceed to pretend to speak for them. I can't think of anything more absurd than a group of scientists appointing you as their spokesman.


See, you pretend to speak for scientists.


There are plenty of morons who theorize ice ages as well. You can't seem to grasp that this particular belief is a belief, and has no rational basis. All you can do is point to people who hold this belief; you cannot point to any rational basis. You point to scientists who hold the belief and I point to overwhelming hordes of morons.

Let's take an average and just concede that it's a stupid idea overall.


There is no "understanding" of that which doesn't exist.

I'll tell you what ... read through the beliefs of whomever you wish and just compile your best rational basis for belief in one or more "ice ages" and let's discuss that.

Like I said, you support science as long as it aligns with your political beliefs and when it doesn't, you come up with your own science that allows you to deny or believe what aligns with your political beliefs.

So, again, which scientists believe ice ages didn't occur and what is their support?

 

[Daylight63]

Tipping your king really is all you know how to do.

Only now are you realizing that climate really cannot change, and that you feel really stupid for insisting otherwise. I presume that you have thus given up on trying to show that climate can change since you now realize that any such attempts will be futile.

You keep saying this and we all know you are just bloviating. I mean EVEN YOU know that you have no real clue how any of this science actually works. that isn't the game for you. Your GAME (and game it most certainly is) is to come on here and blather shit you clearly have no concept about so you can ANNOY those people who DO understand the topic.

I would say this technically amounts to "trolling" since you KNOW you don't understand the topic. But really all you are doing is showing everyone that you don't understand the topic and you think making yourself look like a complete moron is "fun".

Why this is entertaining to you is beyond me. But I think I'm going to start giving the same response to your shitposts that I'm doing to all the shitposters who do the same stupid game.

Is this what incels do for fun? I would have thought masturbation would take up more of your day.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Your GAME (and game it most certainly is) is to come on here and blather shit you clearly have no concept about so you can ANNOY those people who DO understand the topic.

I would say this technically amounts to "trolling" since you KNOW you don't understand the topic. But really all you are doing is showing everyone that you don't understand the topic and you think making yourself look like a complete moron is "fun".

So a kindred spirit for you?

 

[Daylight63]

So a kindred spirit for you?

You are not unlike IBDamann. You don't understand the science either. I can tell this because when I asked you to support your many claims about climate the BEST you could do was pull up a wikipedia article telling people what an isotope is.

SOrry, but it's also quite clear you are equally uneducated.

What I DON'T understand about you guys is why you seem INCAPABLE of understanding the topic EVEN WHEN IT IS EXPLAINED TO YOU AS STRAIGHTFORWARDLY as one can and also with actual REFERENCES.

No, you are happy with your "opinion" and all you do is mock those who clearly actually understand the topic.

I can tell with about 99.999999999999999% accuracy that the last real science class you took was in high school. Since then you've never set foot in a lab, never read anything about science. This is why the ONLY things you guys can actually cite are NEWSPAPER stories or POP-SCI articles. You NEVER seem to read the real science. From the REAL EXPERTS. Because it's complex and you don't understand it.

So PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE listen when I say: NO ONE IS FOOLED INTO THINKING YOU ACTUALLY KNOW ANY SCIENCE. You might be able to fool other non-scientists because you found the word "bicarbonate" and you stick to it like it is the only carbonate in the ocean.

BECAUSE YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE BASIC STUFF YOU CAN"T EXPECT TO FOOL PEOPLE WHO DO.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

You are not unlike IBDamann. You don't understand the science either.

Uh huh.

I can tell this because when I asked you to support your many claims about climate

I know you are ignorant because you can't recognize an argument when you see it. If you did go through university all you learned is how to repeat the right buzzword at the right time. Like a parrot.

I've seen parrots get through university these days, standards have really fallen; but it doesn't really matter whether you're lying and ignorant or just ignorant.

the BEST you could do was pull up a wikipedia article telling people what an isotope is.

You also can't tell when you're being mocked. You don't know what scientific debate is, you appear to have the notion of a misguided highschooler that a scientific argument is finding an assertion in a published document and repeating it.

If I relied only on the existence and nature of isotopes, ratios, etc... things that you claim to understand already, to make my argument then what citation is needed?

The correct answer is: None
Your answer is: Something! because I have no idea how to do logic or I don't want to attack an argument I know I can't debunk so I'll pretend

SOrry, but it's also quite clear you are equally uneducated.

Pretender

What I DON'T understand about you guys is why you seem INCAPABLE of understanding the topic EVEN WHEN IT IS EXPLAINED TO YOU AS STRAIGHTFORWARDLY as one can and also with actual REFERENCES.

Right back at you

No, you are happy with your "opinion" and all you do is mock those who clearly actually understand the topic.

Well you're right about the mocking. When you are as willfully ignorant as you appear you shouldn't project your flaws onto others. It makes them want to mock you.

I can tell with about 99.999999999999999% accuracy that the last real science class you took was in high school.

Got a reference? (lol)

Since then you've never set foot in a lab, never read anything about science. This is why the ONLY things you guys can actually cite are NEWSPAPER stories or POP-SCI articles. You NEVER seem to read the real science. From the REAL EXPERTS. Because it's complex and you don't understand it.

You're pretty ashamed about that aren't you? Why pretend then?

So PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE listen when I say: NO ONE IS FOOLED INTO THINKING YOU ACTUALLY KNOW ANY SCIENCE. You might be able to fool other non-scientists because you found the word "bicarbonate" and you stick to it like it is the only carbonate in the ocean.

Hey did you figure out the difference between the process of fractionation and the state of isotope abundance? I can give you some wikipedia links again.

BECAUSE YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE BASIC STUFF YOU CAN"T EXPECT TO FOOL PEOPLE WHO DO.

I know, like I said it's very disappointing that there are so many pretenders on this site. I was most looking forward to science debates and here are all you brain-dead squawkers more interested in each other than learning anything.

 

[IBDaMann]

Like I [chanted]

Still nothing new?

So, again, which scientists believe ice ages didn't occur and what is their support?

So, again, what rational basis do you have to justify why you hold the WACKY beliefs that you hold? Scientologists believe WACKY things as well. Why should rational adults believe as you believe, and why aren't you a Scientologist?

 

[gfm7175]

Like I said, you support science as long as it aligns with your political beliefs and when it doesn't, you come up with your own science that allows you to deny or believe what aligns with your political beliefs.

So, again, which scientists believe ice ages didn't occur and what is their support?

No. YOU need to support your AFFIRMATIVE position. You don't get to shift the burden of proof.

 

[gfm7175]

You keep saying this and we all know you are just bloviating. I mean EVEN YOU know that you have no real clue how any of this science actually works. that isn't the game for you.

WHAT "science"? You haven't presented any. You haven't even casually mentioned any.

Your GAME (and game it most certainly is) is to come on here and blather shit you clearly have no concept about so you can ANNOY those people who DO understand the topic.

 

[IBDaMann]

You keep saying this and we all know you are just bloviating.

Apparently you believe that you speak for countless, unidentified others besides yourself. Are you ready for some bad news?

I mean EVEN YOU know that you have no real clue how any of this science actually works.

You haven't even begun discussing any science. I'm still waiting. It seems obvious to me that you are perturbed that I called your bluff, and that you are unwilling to try to bluff further with your gibber-babble because you know that I'll rake you over the coals.

Show me how a climate can change. Use all the science you know. In fact, write an entire paragraph if you have to.

Explain your rational basis for believing that there was at least one ice age.

 

[ZenMode]

Still nothing new?


So, again, what rational basis do you have to justify why you hold the WACKY beliefs that you hold? Scientologists believe WACKY things as well. Why should rational adults believe as you believe, and why aren't you a Scientologist?

I'm not a scientologist because nothing has convinced me that their beliefs are based in reality.

Anyway, back to ice ages...

Many scientists have studied and found evidence of not one but multiple ice ages. So, where is the counterpoint from the science community disputing their claims?