Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no "Else" when it comes to the question of climate change - it is a reality that has been going on for billions of years, without intervention from humans.
Again, your use of "if" in this example makes for another possibility.
Please do some additional research.
This may help.
Material conditional
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The material conditional, also known as the material implication or truth functional conditional, expresses a property of certain conditionals in logic. In propositional logic, it expresses a binary truth function from truth-values to truth-values. In predicate logic, it can be viewed as a subset relation between the extension of (possibly complex) predicates. Symbolically:
,
, and sometimes
The material conditional is false when X is true and Y is false – otherwise, it is true. X and Y, known respectively as the antecedent and consequent, are variables ranging over formulae of a formal theory. The material conditional is also commonly referred to as material implication with the understanding that the antecedent materially implies the consequent
Now, please in the future refer to my entire statement. Not just a part of it. Because if you fail to do so, then everyone reading this thread will be aware that you are being dishonest and trying to discredit me. That's an attack.
You've got to be kidding me? I think this latest post has won the prize for gobbledegook.
It really is quite simple, no need to go to Wiki, scouring frantically to prove your point - which you still fail to do.
YOU, your words, used the conditional construct of "IF" in the context of "If climate change is a possibility" - there is no parsing, there is no ambiguity.
There is no IF, and or but - or If..then..else..elseif..end - climate change is real, it has been real and occurring for billions of years. Don't fault me because you phrased the "question" poorly. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.
Now, IF you don't believe climate change is real and natural, that's your problem.
You've got to be kidding me? I think this latest post has won the prize for gobbledegook.
It really is quite simple, no need to go to Wiki, scouring frantically to prove your point - which you still fail to do.
YOU, your words, used the conditional construct of "IF" in the context of "If climate change is a possibility" - there is no parsing, there is no ambiguity.
There is no IF, and or but - or If..then..else..elseif..end - climate change is real, it has been real and occurring for billions of years. Don't fault me because you phrased the "question" poorly. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.
Now, IF you don't believe climate change is real and natural, that's your problem.
Now there is a term too seldom used in science or logical argument, "gobblygook". Actually it was perfectly clear and quite simple. Anyone with a basic level of critical thinking should be able to understand it.
Arctic ice continued its decline this winter, with hardy, thicker old ice increasingly being replaced with quick-to-melt, thinner young ice, according to a new report by NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
And,
This year's ice cover was not a record low, but it did continue a dubious streak. The past six years (2004-09) have seen the least Arctic ice at the time of maximum cover, in winter, since satellite records began in 1979.
Climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century even if the world's leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges, a much faster and broader scale of change than forecast just two years ago, according to a report released Thursday by the United Nations Environment Program.
The new overview of global warming research, aimed at marshaling political support for a new international climate pact by the end of the year, highlights the extent to which recent scientific assessments have outstripped the predictions issued by the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007.
obviously we cant deal with everything you posted here but there are 2 things that stand out.
starting at the bottom Climate researchers have a new dire prediction.
Once again we get a prediction from the same people who have been wrong time and time again, using modles that cannot predict a blessed thing. I am about sick of seeing these "researchers" "predicting" using "models". Give me some actual FACTS.
The problem is, the FACTS arent supportive of AGW.
Second, you quote the following:
"
This year's ice cover was not a record low, but it did continue a dubious streak. The past six years (2004-09) have seen the least Arctic ice at the time of maximum cover, in winter, since satellite records began in 1979"
Notice they didnt say 2009 shows the least maximum cover. they say that the period covering 2007 (lowest point since 1979). We have 2008 summer recovery and ONLY the following winter 2009 showing any winter recovery from the lowpoint of 2007 summer melt.
yet they use this to prove a point. it is false. The winter max for 2009 was ABOVE the winter max of 2008. which shows actual recovery.
ALL DURING A TIME WHEN CO2 LEVELS CONTINUE TO INCREASE
You've got to be kidding me? I think this latest post has won the prize for gobbledegook.
It really is quite simple, no need to go to Wiki, scouring frantically to prove your point - which you still fail to do.
YOU, your words, used the conditional construct of "IF" in the context of "If climate change is a possibility" - there is no parsing, there is no ambiguity.
There is no IF, and or but - or If..then..else..elseif..end - climate change is real, it has been real and occurring for billions of years. Don't fault me because you phrased the "question" poorly. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic.
Now, IF you don't believe climate change is real and natural, that's your problem.
Once again, in my complete statement, the IF was the conditional part. When you use a portion of the statement instead of the complete statement, you are misrepresenting what I said. And then you keep on misrepresenting it. I'm sure you think this is amusing, but you also do realize that other people can see that you are deliberately misrepresenting other's posts, and that that undermines YOUR credibility.
Now there is a term too seldom used in science or logical argument, "gobblygook". Actually it was perfectly clear and quite simple. Anyone with a basic level of critical thinking should be able to understand it.
I'm sorry, but that he has to go to such lengths to explain his own words is really the point I was making.
Quote:
IF climate change is a possibility
- leaves for another possibility, which is impossible. This is based on fact - 6 billion years of fact.
Forest fires are a tool of nature, that burn the dead wood and tinder, and make room for new growth. Trying to stop them all only means you will have created an environment where forests and woodlands are transformed into man-induced tinder boxes spread are all over the place, which will increase the size and ferocity of the inevitable fires.
Some caused by man and as in green house gases, they do some good things for man and also destroy things of man. Man has decided to work on controlling both to the benefit of man. See that wasn't so hard.
I'm sorry, but that he has to go to such lengths to explain his own words is really the point I was making.
- leaves for another possibility, which is impossible. This is based on fact - 6 billion years of fact.
Off on another silly tangent.
The entire statement. And I'm a SHE. And I'm not going to lengths to explain my words, I'm going to lengths to explain basic logic to you.
If climate change is a possibility, then it is reasonable to think about how a change in climate affects people, and to think of how to offset any adverse effects, and even to capitalize on positive effects.
It is quite clear that the assertion is in the second half of the sentence, the part beginning with THEN. The IF is just the conditional, setting up the logical construct.
It's really mind-boggling how people read what they want just to discredit what they perceive to be the "other". In fact, we're all in this together.
From the very articles posted in the OP:
June 2008 article:
Quote:
"Recent models suggest that the Arctic won't see its first completely ice-free summer until somewhere between 2013 and 2030."
Sept 2009 article:
Quote:
"This year's cooler-than-expected summer means the Arctic probably won't experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040, scientists say."
So, what Sanrene is crowing over is, at best, a 10 year delay in the inevitable, not any indication whatsoever that global warming is a hoax.
Also from the articles:
September 2009:
Quote:
"This summer Arctic sea ice shrank to only 1.97 square miles (5.1 million square kilometers). The 2009 drop is still the third largest on record, but it's not as big as some scientists had feared."
Sanrene is actually celebrating the third largest loss of ice in history as confirmation that global warming is a hoax.
And, in conclusion, let us read from September, 2009 (the very article that Sanrene believes outs global warming as a hoax):
Quote:
Meier cautions the new findings do not mean the Arctic is in recovery, or that global warming is slowing down.
"I look at it as a one-year reprieve," he said. "I don't expect that to continue."
For one thing, this year's ice is thinner than in the past, and thus more vulnerable to future melt.
"If we get another really warm summer," Meier said, "we'll probably be back to where we were in 2007."
Seriously. These extremist deniers have about as much credibility as the birthers. I simply can't fathom how they conclude what they do from their own source materials.
I walk away from this experience convinced more than ever that global warming is real and requires critical attention.
If climate change is a possibility - is a faulty premise. Everything that comes after is irrelevant.
As I've said, there is no other possibility, hence the use of "IF" is baseless.
DM me, we can discuss it just between the 2 of us instead of muddying up the thread with such trivial bs.
Actually reading your sentence again - it is more of a rhetorical question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
See that wasn't so hard.
