Climate Change thread

[Cyclone 10]

10 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

 I said:

 

"It's not "nonsense" that climate change has always happened with or without humans. The earth's climate has always changed in cycles. The debate is the extent to which modern civilisation is impacting it."

 

Post 109 said:

 

"Climate Change has happened since the Earth was born into existence.

 

Nothing humans do on the planet will ever change that.

 

Mother Nature."

 

 

Someone said it was "nonsense". But it isn't. Climate change has always happened and humans won't change that. We will add to it though.

Post #109 was nonsense.  Humans quite clearly impact the climate.

You then argued against post #110 with a strawman, nobody had claimed that climate change didn't occur naturally.

[Halibut 12]

11 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Someone said it was "nonsense". But it isn't. Climate change has always happened and humans won't change that. We will add to it though.

Your thinking error occurs right here in the bold, where you simply pretend that adding to something doesn't change it.

Think about that for a moment. If your boss adds twenty quid a week to your wages, what's happened? He's changed your rate of pay.

You add three stone to your weight by eating loads of pies and cake. What happened? You've changed your weight.

A breaking wave dumps 500 litres of seawater into your already leaking boat. What happened? Your chances of not sinking have just changed.

[FinBak 12]

21 hours ago, Cyclone said:

How much of a debate is there amongst the scientific community?  Because this was the contentious statement that you made.

But when you jumped in this was the post which you were actually supporting.

 

Which quite clearly does say that humans cannot change the planet.

 

Perhaps you should have seen the context before trying to score a point.

Context is king isn't it.  I'd encourage you to go back and read the exchange before you quoted #110 and stuck your oar in.

 

Funny how you can't let inaccuracies go unchallenged, but post #109 didn't interest you, whilst the obvious and correct rebuttal to it in post #110, that you felt needed correcting with a brief strawman argument that you have then continued for 6 pages.

I wasn't trying to score a point. ! There is NO Strawman argument either.

 

The effect of Climate change CAUSED by HUMANS cannot be evaluated. FACT.

 

It's Anti-Scientific to even try.

 

There are lot's of people who believe all that they read and there's always difference of opinion.

[El Cid 214]

17 minutes ago, FinBak said:

The effect of Climate change CAUSED by HUMANS cannot be evaluated. FACT.

It's Anti-Scientific to even try.

 

They call it computer modelling 

 

Climate change computer model vindicated 30 years later by what has actually happened.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-computer-model-princeton-stouffer-manabe-vindicated-30-years-global-warming-a7609976.html

 

Is it just my computer/connection that struggles with The Independent?

[SnailyBoy 10]

25 minutes ago, FinBak said:

I wasn't trying to score a point. ! There is NO Strawman argument either.

 

The effect of Climate change CAUSED by HUMANS cannot be evaluated. FACT.

 

It's Anti-Scientific to even try.

 

There are lot's of people who believe all that they read and there's always difference of opinion.

Putting 'FACT' after a claim tends to indicate the opposite.

 

Also, please expand on the Anti-Scientific notion. I'm sure scientists in the climate change field would be interested in understanding how they're getting it all wrong.

 

 

[FinBak 12]

50 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Putting 'FACT' after a claim tends to indicate the opposite.

 

Also, please expand on the Anti-Scientific notion. I'm sure scientists in the climate change field would be interested in understanding how they're getting it all wrong.

 

 

Putting FACT after a claim can also mean it is right.

 

Attempting to evaluate climate change caused by Humans on planet Earth is Futile. It's not testable.

 

It's not Systematic or Scientific. 

 

[FinBak 12]

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

They call it computer modelling 

 

Climate change computer model vindicated 30 years later by what has actually happened.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-computer-model-princeton-stouffer-manabe-vindicated-30-years-global-warming-a7609976.html

 

Is it just my computer/connection that struggles with The Independent?

Read the LAST paragraph of my post. No 189.

[SnailyBoy 10]

28 minutes ago, FinBak said:

Putting FACT after a claim can also mean it is right.

 

Attempting to evaluate climate change caused by Humans on planet Earth is Futile. It's not testable.

 

It's not Systematic or Scientific. 

 

Go on then, expand on that.

 

Show your working.

[FinBak 12]

11 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Go on then, expand on that.

 

Show your working.

I can't show My working here.

 

I shouldn't need to.

[SnailyBoy 10]

21 minutes ago, FinBak said:

I can't show My working here.

 

I shouldn't need to.

In that case

 

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens).

[FinBak 12]

9 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

In that case

 

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens).

Correct. I have NO Evidence.

 

You can't dismiss something just because there is NO Evidence.

 

Where did DNA come from and the Information within it?

[SnailyBoy 10]

4 minutes ago, FinBak said:

Correct. I have NO Evidence.

 

You can't dismiss something just because there is NO Evidence.

 

Where did DNA come from and the Information within it?

Yes I can.

 

You made a claim, you have no evidence to support the claim.

 

I dismissed it.