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.
Either way the scientist was wrong and for some it seems to be blasphemy to point that out.
You would not say that if you had ANY clue about what the scientist had said. Like I said, you're making the same mistake as Al Gore made: working with absolutes. This scientist spoke of a strong possibility (as opposed to your understanding of it as a guarantee) that most of the Arctic ice (note: not ALL of it) will be gone. And as his peers suggested, it was an extreme timeline even for the suggestion being under an extreme conditions (again, extreme being an end of the scale, not the only part of the scale). That it was more logical to suggest this taking 2-3 decades.
Among additional strengths of science: Peer Review.
I do not think a real scientist would ever make such a claim. Much of my complaint likely falls under the fact that others make a claim that sounds as if it came from scientists when a real scientist would never make such a claim.
If the earth is almost 14 billion years old the ice caps have done many things over that time from being much larger to non existent completely. Even in recorded history we know that they have been navigable in the past.
Sorry for not memorizing everything he has said exactly.
If you need to memorize the difference between the two poles... well, I suggest a different heuristic strategy
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Scientists seem to disagree on what is happening.
The operative word there is "seem." Most climate change denialists make no effort to actually understand the science and allow that inadequate understanding to mislead them. For example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
British scientists find out why ice in the Antarctic is increasing - and say it's all down to wind.
Ice in the Antarctic is not increasing. It is decreasing as the continental ices cap melts and the ice shelves thin.
Sea ice is increasing, sure, and wind (as noted in your article) is part of the reason for that. But sea ice is of a tiny volume compared to continental ice, and also does not effect sea level. Here's the more comprehensive overview of what is happening to antarctic ice:
I do not think a real scientist would ever make such a claim. Much of my complaint likely falls under the fact that others make a claim that sounds as if it came from scientists when a real scientist would never make such a claim.
What claim?
Quote:
If the earth is almost 14 billion years old the ice caps have done many things over that time from being much larger to non existent completely. Even in recorded history we know that they have been navigable in the past.
And how exactly did you come up with the idea of the earth being 14 billion years old? Or, as alphamale, if he/she were born a Hindu would say... seven second of Brahma's breath.
You would not say that if you had ANY clue about what the scientist had said. Like I said, you're making the same mistake as Al Gore made: working with absolutes. This scientist spoke of a strong possibility (as opposed to your understanding of it as a guarantee) that most of the Arctic ice (note: not ALL of it) will be gone. And as his peers suggested, it was an extreme timeline even for the suggestion being under an extreme conditions (again, extreme being an end of the scale, not the only part of the scale). That it was more logical to suggest this taking 2-3 decades.
Among additional strengths of science: Peer Review.
LOL, I see this is no different than one who recites chapter and verse out of the Bible. My complaint was clear that it was slamming what Gore said and I clearly noted that Gore is not a scientist.
Even at that, the scientist in question was arguing the extreme's of the equation which others will point out as being the highly unlikely extreme but boy do people get pissed when you do that.
Sure it does. Many believe that all of this could have been started by a creator. If so, it would have all worked the same. I'm not sure you can argue that you believe in science and not have an open mind concerning everything not disproved.
Have we disproved a 5000 year old world? Yeah, but that was only one theory.
What in creationism is yet to be disproved? No evidence of a god. life is kludgey mess not the logical work-product of a perfect creator, no great flood, Earth and Universe many billions of years old. What is left to disprove?
The operative word there is "seem." Most climate change denialists make no effort to actually understand the science and allow that inadequate understanding to mislead them. For example:
Verse 6 Chapter 1: Yea, I say, when someone questions you do not try and be rational in your argument, claim they do not believe in the climate.
I do not think a real scientist would ever make such a claim. Much of my complaint likely falls under the fact that others make a claim that sounds as if it came from scientists when a real scientist would never make such a claim.
What you think doesn't matter much in the face of the objective fact that a large number of real scientists are making claims just like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
If the earth is almost 14 billion years old the ice caps have done many things over that time from being much larger to non existent completely. Even in recorded history we know that they have been navigable in the past.
All of that true (except the age of the earth). Change is not the issue. The pace of the change, the cause of the change, and the cost of the change are what matter. And none of them have an historical precedent.
Verse 6 Chapter 1: Yea, I say, when someone questions you do not try and be rational in your argument, claim they do not believe in the climate.
My argument has been exquisitely rational, but you chose to edit that part out and pretend it was never made. If you self identified with my accurate comment regarding denialists, that is entirely on you.
LOL, I see this is no different than one who recites chapter and verse out of the Bible. My complaint was clear that it was slamming what Gore said and I clearly noted that Gore is not a scientist.
And yet, it is you who keeps making the same mistake that Gore dealt. And neither of you is a scientist but that has no bearing on the discussion. You talk in absolutes, and so did he.
Quote:
Even at that, the scientist in question was arguing the extreme's of the equation which others will point out as being the highly unlikely extreme but boy do people get pissed when you do that.
They study, and publish their studies. They engage in debates, or challenge each other. They release their studies with their credibility attached to their work. That is all constructive, and ultimately serves the learning process well. It is the political and business agenda that we need to worry about, and for that, all we really need is a bunch of arm chair experts.
Be my guest if you prefer to be a part of the latter. But, if you're going to dismiss science by working with absolutes and that there is no such thing but guarantees, then you don't have a clue what science is about.
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.
