Science from the other side of Climate Change

[IBDaMann]

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

Dab-nabbit ... you beat me to it again.

by the way, that's one cool projector meme. I might borrow it sometime.

 

[ZenMode]

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

I'm not shifting. I provided a list of just some of the scientists who believe ice ages have happened. Anyone who disagrees should have no problem finding scientists who take a counter position. That's how science works. A paper is published, containing a theory related to science, and then other scientists review the paper and respond.

Just grab me a few of the scientists who have take a position against the existence of ice ages.

Thanks.

 

[IBDaMann]

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

Then you shouldn't believe in ice ages either.

Many scientists have studied and found evidence of not one but multiple ice ages.

You mean researchers have so studied. What evidence are you claiming they found? 20,000-year old satellite imagery? Time travelers' first-hand accounts?

There is nothing to support ice ages that is any more convincing than the "evidence" for Scientology.

So, where is the counterpoint from the science community disputing their claims?

The scientific community doesn't have anything to say about the unobserved past because science has nothing to say about the unobserved past.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm not shifting.

Yes you are.

I provided a list of just some of the scientists who believe ice ages have happened.

You still need to explain why you believe, and why they believed there were ice ages. It is bogus to argue that because they were called "scientists" they were therefore omnipotent, and their mere belief in ice ages somehow manifested as real ice ages.

You are pointing to people who held WACKY beliefs about the unobserved past. You claim to share those WACKY beliefs, so explain why you believe those particular WACKY beliefs but not Scientology.

Anyone who disagrees should have no problem finding scientists who take a counter position.

... because their omnipotence will cancel out the omnipotence of the "scientists" who held WACKY beliefs. Got it.

That's how science works.

Too funny. He who has no clue about science or math or logic ... is declaring how science "works."

A paper is published, containing a theory related to science, and then other scientists review the paper and respond.

Nope. It's time you hang it up.

You know it's over when all you can do is point to dead people who cannot be cross-examined.

 

[Litmus]

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.

you don't understand shit, internationalist fascist humanity hater.

 

[ZenMode]

Then you shouldn't believe in ice ages either.


You mean researchers have so studied. What evidence are you claiming they found? 20,000-year old satellite imagery? Time travelers' first-hand accounts?

There is nothing to support ice ages that is any more convincing than the "evidence" for Scientology.


The scientific community doesn't have anything to say about the unobserved past because science has nothing to say about the unobserved past.

No, I don't mean researchers. I mean scientists.

"because science has nothing to say about the unobserved past."

link?

I know you won't provide one. You just like to say things and hope that people blindly accept it, but that's not gonna work.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, I don't mean researchers. I mean scientists.

Then you're babbling. You might as well point to race car drivers who believe in ice ages. The class of people to who you are pointing is immaterial.

Researchers do research.

link? I know you won't provide one.

Correct. Show some science that speaks to the unobserved past.

You just like to say things and hope that people blindly accept it, but that's not gonna work.

 

[Daylight63]

you don't understand shit, internationalist fascist humanity hater.

 

[Daylight63]

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


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]

Yes you are.


You still need to explain why you believe, and why they believed there were ice ages. It is bogus to argue that because they were called "scientists" they were therefore omnipotent, and their mere belief in ice ages somehow manifested as real ice ages.

You are pointing to people who held WACKY beliefs about the unobserved past. You claim to share those WACKY beliefs, so explain why you believe those particular WACKY beliefs but not Scientology.


... because their omnipotence will cancel out the omnipotence of the "scientists" who held WACKY beliefs. Got it.


Too funny. He who has no clue about science or math or logic ... is declaring how science "works."


Nope. It's time you hang it up.

You know it's over when all you can do is point to dead people who cannot be cross-examined.

Ok, well, I'll be waiting for those scientists make taking a counter position on ice ages.

I'm suuuuuure that info is right around the corner.

 

[ZenMode]

Then you're babbling. You might as well point to race car drivers who believe in ice ages. The class of people to who you are pointing is immaterial.

Researchers do research.


Correct. Show some science that speaks to the unobserved past.

You just like to say things and hope that people blindly accept it, but that's not gonna work.

Already provided once, but I'll provide it again....

Scientists who have studied ice ages include:

Louis Agassiz
A geologist who was the first to hypothesize that the Earth had once been in an ice age. Agassiz noticed signs of glaciation in places where there were no glaciers, such as large valleys and scratches on rocks. He published his ideas in Étude sur les glaciers in 1840.

Milutin Milankovitch
A mathematician who combined empirical geology with mathematical astronomy to study ice ages. Milankovitch theorized that the Earth's orbit changes in three cycles that influence the amount of solar radiation the Earth receives.

James Croll
A scientist who contributed to the understanding of ice age dynamics.
Tierney
A scientist who led a study that projected the average global temperature during the Last Glacial Maximum.

More info:

Louis Agassiz was the first person to hypothesize that the Earth was once subject to an ice age. He proposed this hypothesis to the Helvetic Society in 1837 and garnered much attention. His hypothesis was as follows: ancient glaciers had not only encroached farther south than the Alps, but had in fact, reached southern Europe, Asia, and North America which led to an “ice age”. Other notable individuals that also studied this were Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Horace-Benedict de Saussure, Ignaz Venetz-Sitten, Jean de Charpentier, Karl Friedrich Schimper, and others. Not to downplay the influence of these great figures, it is important to state their contributions to society.

1. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: A German writer and statesman whose literary work numbers in the thousands. Although he is primarily remembered for his epic poems, he held great fascination with the natural world. It is said that by the time of his death, in order to gain a comprehensive view of geology, he had collected roughly 17,800 rock samples.
2. Horace-Benedict de Saussure: A Swiss geologist, meteorologist, physicist, alpine explorer. He is often cited as the father of alpinism and modern meteorology. In terms of geology, he studied the Alps with much enthusiasm.
3. Ignaz Venetz-Sitten: One of the first scientists to recognize glaciers as a moving force in the Earth. Alongside Louis Agassiz, he played a great role in the founding of glaciology.
4. Jean de Charpentier: A German-Swiss geologist who studied Swiss glaciers. Using evidence of glacial erratics and the work of Goethe, he hypothesized that glaciers were once much more extensive. His ideas were later taken up and developed by Louis Agassiz.
5. Karl Friedrich Schimper: A German naturalist, botanist, and poet who is best known as the theory of prehistoric hot and cold eras. Alongside Louis Agassiz, he initiated modern theories on ice ages and climate cycles.

Goethe, Charpentier, and Schimper in particular were instrumental in understanding that erratics were moved by glaciers. For those unaware, a glacial erratic is a type of rock that differs in size and composition from rocks in the area of deposition. They are the result of glacial transport from another geologic area. The existence of theses erratics in Agassiz’s field area was instrumental in refining the theory of an ice age. Agassiz made multiple trips with both Charpentier and Schimper to alpine valleys to study these erratics. Agassiz even constructed a hut, the Hotel des Neuchatelois, upon one of the Aars Glaciers, a system of glaciers located on the Aare River in the Bernese Alps, to investigate glacial movement.

more:

Ice Ages | The Life and Work of Louis Agassiz

So, again.... please provide a list of the scientists taking a position against ice ages.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm fairly certain that this qualifies as a non-sequitur.

 

[IBDaMann]

Ok, well, I'll be waiting for those scientists make taking a counter position on ice ages. I'm suuuuuure that info is right around the corner.

So you are conceding that you have no rational basis for your affirmative argument. Well, you know what that means.

 

[IBDaMann]

Already provided once, but I'll provide it again.... Scientists who have studied ice ages include:

This is not a rational basis. It is a congregation roster. Since you don't have any sort of rational basis for your bizarre beliefs, let's move on.

 

[ZenMode]

So you are conceding that you have no rational basis for your affirmative argument. Well, you know what that means.

My basis, since I haven't studied the topic closely, is to trust the scientists who have studied it. So, there are lots of scientists who support the existence of ice ages. I've seen no scientists who don't.

So, again.... whenever you're ready, send over the scientists who oppose the existence of ice ages and I'll be happy to read whatever you send.

 

[ZenMode]

This is not a rational basis. It is a congregation roster. Since you don't have any sort of rational basis for your bizarre beliefs, let's move on.

Let's not move on.

That is a list of scientists who believe in the occurrence of ice ages and have studied them.

So, which scientists have taken an opposing position? Which scientists have provided counterpoints to the scientists points.

I'll say it again... for a guy who is all about science, you seem to conveniently be against it whenever it fits your politics....

 

[Daylight63]

I'm fairly certain that this qualifies as a non-sequitur.

...as do most of your posts on the topic.

 

[Daylight63]

This is not a rational basis. It is a congregation roster. Since you don't have any sort of rational basis for your bizarre beliefs, let's move on.

 

[IBDaMann]

My basis, since I haven't studied the topic closely, is to trust the "scientists" [clergy]

FTFY. You have just described religion and why there is no science to see here. Let me know when you get some.

So, there are lots of scientists [and race car drivers] who support the existence of ice ages [and who love bacon]. I've seen no scientists who don't.

All the scientists you offered as examples are dead. There are lots of scientists who support Christianity, so I suppose Christianity is settled science, right?


@gfm7175, I'm finding out that Christianity is settled science, and that my atheism is making me a science denier. I'm going to have to rethink my entire position.

 

[IBDaMann]

Let's not move on. That is a list of scientists who believe in the occurrence of ice ages and have studied them.

OK, now get me a list of race car drivers who believe in the occurrence of ice ages and have studied them.

On second thought, let's move on. You aren't going to provide any rational basis for believing in ice ages so we're done here.