Science from the other side of Climate Change

[Into the Night]

souds like the false envronment fallacy to me.

More like the void argument fallacy. There is no 'false environment' fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Sorry toodles, but you're not going to detour away from what I previously stated that contradicts the anti-climate change rhetoric.

When the smoke clears from your BS, here's how one proves you wrong on your original assertion(s):

Urbanization doesn't prevent trees from planting themselves or us from planting trees.

A primer for your education: www.research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/60941

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'.

No "guess work" regarding greenhouse gases and atmospheric pollutants. Observe and learn:

www.archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html

www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/air-quality-and-health/health-impacts/types-of-pollutants

www.epa.gov/acidrain/what-acid-rain

No matter how many Holy Links you post, no gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Climate cannot change. There is no such thing as a global climate.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. He does not have to conduct a negative proof, Void.

given that scientists believe there have been multiple ice ahes.

I don't care about the religion of scientists.

Again, you claim to be all about science....

Science isn't scientists. It is YOU denying and discarding theories of science, several branches of mathematics, and the English language.
Climate cannot change.

 

[Into the Night]

More word games. More playing dumb.

LIF. Grow up. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR WORD GAMES ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE!

Normal, in this case, is there not being sheets of ice covering the northern hemisphere.

Sheets of ice normally cover a significant portion of the northern hemisphere every winter.

"Ice age" isn't winter...which you already knew.

What 'ice age'??

If it was, and since winters are normal, it wouldn't be identifiedz by SCIENTISTS as an abnormal occurrence.

I don't care about the religions of any scientist. Science is not religion, has no politics, and is completely atheistic. It is the same with mathematics.
You just want to discard theories of science and several branches of mathematics...all for your fundamentalist religions.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. The claim is, since there isn't a single measure of climate, it must not be measurable, changes can't be identified and, therefore we can't say it changes. It's the equivalent of saying your health can't change because there is not a single measure of health.

It's word games.

Mantra 30a. I never made any such claim, and neither has IBdaMann.

Climate has NO values associated with it at all. Climate has no temperature.

Climate is not health. Stop playing your word games.

 

[Into the Night]

right.

it's not meaningfully measurable.

it's not measurable enough to justify ant-co2 policies.

being anti-co2 is insane for multiple reasons.

There is nothing to measure.

 

[Into the Night]

A bunch of irrelevant links, daylight must be impressed.

Damn this is disappointing. I thought there would be one person who could debate a scientific or engineering subject on this site

There are several. I'm one of them.
I'm a scientist and engineer. My specialties is industrial control systems, meteorology, aerospace, medical instrumentation, automotive engines and systems, and entertainment industries.

 

[IBDaMann]

[non-sequitur deleted]

Brilliant point.

 

[Into the Night]

No, you said you wanted evidence the climate change could account for glacial retreat. What I described is how it happens.

You are not talking climate at all. You are talking about some glacier which you haven't even named.

In fact you also say pretty much the same thing, you just aren't brave enough to explain WHY these things might change.

Climate is not a glacier, Sybil. Climate cannot change.

Why do you think "atmospheric currents"

The atmosphere has currents, just like the ocean (or any fluid) does. It's part of the effect of convective heating.

would redirect "flows from a different location" (whatever the fuck that means)?

Currents move and shift, Sybil. Perhaps you didn't know that. Sort of like the way water dribbling down a glass windshield shifts it's course.

And why would they do so in such a manner that after MILLENIA of glacial growth it starts to retreat year after year after year after year after year?

Sounds like change in the climate there.

Climate is not a current, Sybil.

Be brave. Follow the science.

What theory of science are you referring to? You have not mentioned one.

You might take your own advice. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Kirchoff's law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

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


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.

Exactly. Since scientists are people, most have religions. Very few are atheist, even though science itself is atheistic.
It's the same for mathematicians. Most are religious, even though mathematics is also atheistic.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Science isn't scientists, Void. It is YOU denying and discarding the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Kirchoff's law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[IBDaMann]

Damn this is disappointing. I thought there would be one person who could debate a scientific or engineering subject on this site

How does one debate science? Science has the scientific method to try to rip it apart. Otherwise, there are no opinions in science; if there are opinions, it isn't science.

Engineering opens the door to many possible debates about techniques, methodologies, approaches, and other aspects of the disciplines. Do you have any controversial or cutting edge engineering positions that you wish to debate?

 

[ZenMode]

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


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.

Science isn't religion. Scientists aren't race car drivers.

Thanks for again confirming your selective, and politically motivated, support for science.

 

[ZenMode]

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.

Why would I trust the opinion of a race car driver as it relates to ice ages?

Do you go to your financial advisor for medical advice? If not, why?

Stop playing dumb. It's embarrassing.

 

[ZenMode]

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. He does not have to conduct a negative proof, Void.

I don't care about the religion of scientists.

Science isn't scientists. It is YOU denying and discarding theories of science, several branches of mathematics, and the English language.
Climate cannot change.

Scientists aren't science. Ok. Doctors aren't medicine. Who do you go to when you need medical treatment?

Again, stop playing dumb.

 

[ZenMode]

LIF. Grow up. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR WORD GAMES ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE!

Sheets of ice normally cover a significant portion of the northern hemisphere every winter.

What 'ice age'??

I don't care about the religions of any scientist. Science is not religion, has no politics, and is completely atheistic. It is the same with mathematics.
You just want to discard theories of science and several branches of mathematics...all for your fundamentalist religions.

"
I don't care about the religions of any scientist. Science is not religion, has no politics, and is completely atheistic. It is the same with mathematics.
You just want to discard theories of science and several branches of mathematics...all for your fundamentalist religions."

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Have you no shame?

 

[ZenMode]

Mantra 30a. I never made any such claim, and neither has IBdaMann.

Climate has NO values associated with it at all. Climate has no temperature.

Climate is not health. Stop playing your word games.

BS. Your claim is that climate can't change because there is no measurement for "climate".

 

[ZenMode]

Science isn't scientists, Void. It is YOU denying and discarding the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Kirchoff's law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You dunce! Who the fuck do you think discovered the science behind Kirchoff 's law?

Hint....it was a SCIENTIST! His name was....wait for it....KIRCHOFF!

Again.... you're embarrassing yourself, over and over and over.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not shifting. I provided a list of just some of the scientists who believe ice ages have happened.

You never did, but...so what? Most scientists, being people, are religious.
Science isn't scientists, Void.

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

Science isn't scientists, Void.

That's how science works.

Science isn't a verb, Void.

A paper is published,

Science isn't a paper, book, magazine, or journal.

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

Science has no voting bloc. It has no politics. Science does not use consensus.

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

What ice ages??

 

[Into the Night]

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

LIF. Grow up.