Remember me
▼ Content

Some Things To Consider



Page 2 of 2<12
26-01-2018 17:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
ITN and Wake,
Do you guys know what a waste of time is ?
Trying to discuss anything with either one of you. This is because both of you maintain the position that you are right.

You two need some soul. Then you might get rid of the hate. :-)




Inversion fallacy. Did you even consider the possibility that you're wrong?


I checked what Wake posted. He was obviously wrong. As for you, I think you just like messing with Europeans.
When you say "inversion fallacy", that is your opinion just as Wake's opinion is that ice ages aren't cyclical. You both present your opinions as fact when they are merely opinions.
fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē/
noun
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
"the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy"

In this case when both Wake and ITN state their opinions as fact they are demonstrating what a fallacy is.


You cannot say that ice ages are cyclical because in the last half million years they have occurred approximately ever 100,000 years. Before that they did not occur on any sort of schedule and this last ice age appears all to be one continuous ice age with alternating interglacial periods. This means that it has been one continuous ice age with warmer and colder periods but far colder than the normal climate before it.

You don't HAVE to take my word for it. All you have to do is look it up.
26-01-2018 21:25
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
ITN and Wake,
Do you guys know what a waste of time is ?
Trying to discuss anything with either one of you. This is because both of you maintain the position that you are right.

You two need some soul. Then you might get rid of the hate. :-)




Inversion fallacy. Did you even consider the possibility that you're wrong?


I checked what Wake posted. He was obviously wrong. As for you, I think you just like messing with Europeans.
When you say "inversion fallacy", that is your opinion just as Wake's opinion is that ice ages aren't cyclical. You both present your opinions as fact when they are merely opinions.
fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē/
noun
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
"the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy"

In this case when both Wake and ITN state their opinions as fact they are demonstrating what a fallacy is.


You cannot say that ice ages are cyclical because in the last half million years they have occurred approximately ever 100,000 years. Before that they did not occur on any sort of schedule and this last ice age appears all to be one continuous ice age with alternating interglacial periods. This means that it has been one continuous ice age with warmer and colder periods but far colder than the normal climate before it.

You don't HAVE to take my word for it. All you have to do is look it up.


Wake,
In this article, they do mention both that ice ages are cyclical and that they do not understand why they are. And I think most people in here know that I want to understand that relationship.
This means that I will need to consider different things. Sometimes I might be wrong and that's okay, I can live with it. That is a part of the learning process.

[url]https://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-ice-cores-atmospheric-million-years.html
[/url]
26-01-2018 21:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
ITN and Wake,
Do you guys know what a waste of time is ?
Trying to discuss anything with either one of you. This is because both of you maintain the position that you are right.

You two need some soul. Then you might get rid of the hate. :-)




Inversion fallacy. Did you even consider the possibility that you're wrong?


I checked what Wake posted. He was obviously wrong. As for you, I think you just like messing with Europeans.
When you say "inversion fallacy", that is your opinion just as Wake's opinion is that ice ages aren't cyclical. You both present your opinions as fact when they are merely opinions.
fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē/
noun
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
"the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy"

In this case when both Wake and ITN state their opinions as fact they are demonstrating what a fallacy is.


You cannot say that ice ages are cyclical because in the last half million years they have occurred approximately ever 100,000 years. Before that they did not occur on any sort of schedule and this last ice age appears all to be one continuous ice age with alternating interglacial periods. This means that it has been one continuous ice age with warmer and colder periods but far colder than the normal climate before it.

You don't HAVE to take my word for it. All you have to do is look it up.


Wake,
In this article, they do mention both that ice ages are cyclical and that they do not understand why they are. And I think most people in here know that I want to understand that relationship.
This means that I will need to consider different things. Sometimes I might be wrong and that's okay, I can live with it. That is a part of the learning process.

[url]https://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-ice-cores-atmospheric-million-years.html
[/url]


I have repeatedly said that CO2 moves rather freely in ice so it isn't surprising that there are low levels of CO2 in the ice cores.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html If you look at the charts you see that there is as much as a 25% error in CO2 levels and the ice cores show none of the rapid variations in CO2 that plant stomata show.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#/media/File:GlaciationsinEarthExistancelicenced_annotated.jpg

This shows that ice ages do not occur in cycles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg

This is more difficult to interpret because while it looks somewhat cyclic the scale is far too coarse to properly time with any accuracy.
27-01-2018 03:19
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

This is more difficult to interpret because while it looks somewhat cyclic the scale is far too coarse to properly time with any accuracy.



Wake,
I am glad for you. You found a dissenting opinion. I think the more complex the argument one make's (your post and the individual who posted the information) the more likely that it is wrong.
Science is based on priciples and in the volumes of information that he posted he's managed to baffle everyone with B.S.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Some Things To Consider:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Crown Capital Management Environmental Reviews 16 Things That Colleges are Doing to Help the Environment509-08-2019 23:48
16 Things Colleges Are Doing to HARM the Environment108-08-2019 23:40
How is believing CO2 shine IR down like mirrors any different than believing heavier things fall faster525-03-2019 21:51
Greta Thunberg, schoolgirl climate change warrior: 'Some people can let things go. I can't'111-03-2019 19:25
Name the most important things on Earth.226-02-2019 00:06
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact