Remember me
▼ Content

Change in sea volume due to sea ice melting



Page 2 of 2<12
07-03-2018 16:56
James___
★★☆☆☆
(306)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Discussing buzzwords is not productive either.


This is about all you have, isn't it ? Since you accept no definition then there can be no discussion about what does not exist. You have nullified your own existence because you are without definition.


You have not given one. So far it's just a buzzword. Care to try to define it without using circular definitions?

I am defined by Proof of Identity.



Proof of Identity ? To quote you, mere buzzwords. Please try identifying yourself without the use of buzzwords or circular arguments.
..ITN, I have an identity. I am an environmentalist as well as a concerned citizen. I am also a wood worker. And I am also an amateur scientist.
..I happen to like science and with some of what I am pursuing I think most scientists will like it. That is one problem I have though. If I knew calculus more than understanding what formulas represent then I might not enjoy science as much. Sometimes it is more about principles than it is about the math. I think I can demonstrate that aspect of it. What math allows for is to quantify relationships and events that either happen or exist or have been considered. But at no time does math nullify any principle in physics. This has happened because of how work has to be quantified.
..And ITN, sometimes limits can allow us to do more r to see more but to have no definition or constraints is simply a none existence.
Edited on 07-03-2018 17:32
20-03-2018 20:34
Wake
★★★★★
(3353)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Discussing buzzwords is not productive either.


This is about all you have, isn't it ? Since you accept no definition then there can be no discussion about what does not exist. You have nullified your own existence because you are without definition.


You have not given one. So far it's just a buzzword. Care to try to define it without using circular definitions?

I am defined by Proof of Identity.



Proof of Identity ? To quote you, mere buzzwords. Please try identifying yourself without the use of buzzwords or circular arguments.
..ITN, I have an identity. I am an environmentalist as well as a concerned citizen. I am also a wood worker. And I am also an amateur scientist.
..I happen to like science and with some of what I am pursuing I think most scientists will like it. That is one problem I have though. If I knew calculus more than understanding what formulas represent then I might not enjoy science as much. Sometimes it is more about principles than it is about the math. I think I can demonstrate that aspect of it. What math allows for is to quantify relationships and events that either happen or exist or have been considered. But at no time does math nullify any principle in physics. This has happened because of how work has to be quantified.
..And ITN, sometimes limits can allow us to do more r to see more but to have no definition or constraints is simply a none existence.


James - you appear to be intelligent. Our arguments invariably end up with you trying to blame things that you believe are happening on the last Popular Science article you've read. Science is not simple and science doesn't come down to one thing. It is all interconnected.

Now tell me I'm bullying you.
20-03-2018 21:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Discussing buzzwords is not productive either.


This is about all you have, isn't it ? Since you accept no definition then there can be no discussion about what does not exist. You have nullified your own existence because you are without definition.


You have not given one. So far it's just a buzzword. Care to try to define it without using circular definitions?

I am defined by Proof of Identity.



Proof of Identity ? To quote you, mere buzzwords.

The Proof of Identity is not a buzzword. It is a common formal proof in logic. Go look it up.
James___ wrote:
Please try identifying yourself without the use of buzzwords or circular arguments.

Done.
James___ wrote:
..ITN, I have an identity.

True.
James___ wrote:
I am an environmentalist as well as a concerned citizen.

You might actually trying learning how the environment works.
James___ wrote:
I am also a wood worker.

Never saw your work. At this point I'll just accept this statement.
James___ wrote:
And I am also an amateur scientist.

I have seen your work on this. You are no scientist, not even an amateur one. You deny science.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Among those theories is the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you deny.

Also among these theories are those concerning the chemistry of ozone, and the physics surrounding electricity, both of which you deny.

James___ wrote:
..I happen to like science and with some of what I am pursuing I think most scientists will like it.

What you are pursuing isn't science.
James___ wrote:
That is one problem I have though. If I knew calculus more than understanding what formulas represent then I might not enjoy science as much.

Science is not mathematics. Mathematics is not science.
James___ wrote:
Sometimes it is more about principles than it is about the math.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is.
James___ wrote:
I think I can demonstrate that aspect of it.

No need to.
James___ wrote:
What math allows for is to quantify relationships and events that either happen or exist or have been considered.

True. This is called the formalization of a theory of science. The result of that formalization into a closed system such as mathematics usually becomes known as a scientific law.
James___ wrote:
But at no time does math nullify any principle in physics.

WRONG. Math has falsified theories of science before. Some of those theories were in the field of physics.
James___ wrote:
This has happened because of how work has to be quantified.

A theory does not have to be formalized unless you want to predict with it. Science has no power of prediction inherent within it. Theories explain, they don't predict. A theory MUST be formalized into a closed system such as mathematics to gain that power. The power of prediction ONLY exists in closed systems. It comes with the formal proof inherent in such systems. Mathematics is one such closed system. Logic is another.
James___ wrote:
..And ITN, sometimes limits can allow us to do more r to see more but to have no definition or constraints is simply a none existence.

To have no definition or constraints is to be undefined. It may still exist.


The Parrot Killer
20-03-2018 21:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Discussing buzzwords is not productive either.


This is about all you have, isn't it ? Since you accept no definition then there can be no discussion about what does not exist. You have nullified your own existence because you are without definition.


You have not given one. So far it's just a buzzword. Care to try to define it without using circular definitions?

I am defined by Proof of Identity.



Proof of Identity ? To quote you, mere buzzwords. Please try identifying yourself without the use of buzzwords or circular arguments.
..ITN, I have an identity. I am an environmentalist as well as a concerned citizen. I am also a wood worker. And I am also an amateur scientist.
..I happen to like science and with some of what I am pursuing I think most scientists will like it. That is one problem I have though. If I knew calculus more than understanding what formulas represent then I might not enjoy science as much. Sometimes it is more about principles than it is about the math. I think I can demonstrate that aspect of it. What math allows for is to quantify relationships and events that either happen or exist or have been considered. But at no time does math nullify any principle in physics. This has happened because of how work has to be quantified.
..And ITN, sometimes limits can allow us to do more r to see more but to have no definition or constraints is simply a none existence.


James - you appear to be intelligent. Our arguments invariably end up with you trying to blame things that you believe are happening on the last Popular Science article you've read. Science is not simple and science doesn't come down to one thing. It is all interconnected.

Now tell me I'm bullying you.


Science is simple. It all comes down to one thing.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Change in sea volume due to sea ice melting:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show3018-06-2018 09:27
"Why is America melting so fast?"822-05-2018 15:55
"Why Is Everything Melting So Fast??"421-05-2018 05:26
equatorial Ozone depletion atmospheric sluff due to heating1514-05-2018 06:07
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1505-05-2018 01:44
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact