West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Could Disintegrate Within Decades

[SSDD]

Are you incapable of debating these points or do you choose to avoid it out of laziness or do you simply not care?

Could you at least try to provide an argument that is not squarely based on logical fallacies to support your position ?

Its all he has so it is all he can argue with.

 

[Crick]

Which of my arguments concerning the possible disintegration of the WAIS do you believe to be based logical fallacies?

 

[SSDD]

Which of my arguments concerning the possible disintegration of the WAIS do you believe to be based logical fallacies?

Everything you say skidmark...everything you say...

 

[Crick]

So, you cannot identify any of my arguments as being based on logical fallacies.

Lying troll.

 

[SSDD]

So, you cannot identify any of my arguments as being based on logical fallacies.

Lying troll.

I only had to scroll up as far as the last argument you made...syllogistic fallacy....reference to a vague idea which is then used to draw a conclusion about a thing that is more specific...

One could also make the argument that your whole "atomic bomb" line of reasoning is a quantification fallacy, where the quantifiers used in the argument are not in agreement with the conclusion's quantifiers...

That was easy. And I bet you really believe that you don't eat, sleep and breathe logical fallacy...the entire pseudoscientific body of present day climate science literally swims in logical fallacies..

The most common is fallacy of cause...also called "biblical logic" where one confuses correlation for causation...in fact, it forms the basis of climate science....

Then there is the ever present slippery slope..we must fix it now or we are doomed...then when it become clear that we didn't fix it and nothing happened, climate pseudoscience greases up a whole new slippery slope..and it goes on and on and on...

 

[Crick]

I see you rattling off logic terms you don't understand. I do not see any quotes from my posts. Try again TROLL

 

[SSDD]

I see you rattling off logic terms you don't understand. I do not see any quotes from my posts. Try again TROLL

What I see is that it didn't take but just a second to find that your arguments tend to be logical fallacies...and the post that I am answering now is also a logical fallacy...need I tell you which one?

You have become laughable skidmark...look at what I have reduced you to...

 

[Crick]

If it only took a second, how hard would it have been to have cut and paste one here so that we could all see what you're talking about? Not very hard. Since you haven't, the only conclusion everyone here can come to is that you could not find an argument of mine with the logical flaws you claim are present in every one. That would make you a LIAR and a TROLL

 

[SSDD]

If it only took a second, how hard would it have been to have cut and paste one here so that we could all see what you're talking about? Not very hard. Since you haven't, the only conclusion everyone here can come to is that you could not find an argument of mine with the logical flaws you claim are present in every one. That would make you a LIAR and a TROLL

Post 276 for anyone who is interested in actually examining your fallacious thinking...as if anyone who has ever bothered to read your posts would be surprised to learn that logical fallacy is your first language...

 

[Wuwei]

Post 276 for anyone who is interested in actually examining your fallacious thinking...as if anyone who has ever bothered to read your posts would be surprised to learn that logical fallacy is your first language..

Fallacy is certainly is your way of thinking.

You said if man-made work went into a process it can't be spontaneous.
You said the emission of energy previously absorbed is not spontaneous.

That means absolutely nothing is spontaneous, unless you can think of a process that emits energy that it has not previously absorbed.

That means two way radiation is never spontaneous and can happen between bodies at any temperatures.

Yet you also say that it is forbidden by the second law. Now that is really self-contradictory. That is a logical fallacy of the worst kind.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you're offering to shelter a Bengali family in your house?

They don't have hills in India?

First, you might want to note that Bangladesh and India are not the same country.

Second, in Bangladesh, they essentially don't have hills. Most of the nation is flood plain. And if the ocean busts through an area even once and salts the earth, the farmland is dead, and the population has to move.

Allah won't let that happen. If it does, plenty of Muslim nations they can move to...…..

 

[fncceo]

So you're offering to shelter a Bengali family in your house?

They don't have hills in India?

First, you might want to note that Bangladesh and India are not the same country.

Second, in Bangladesh, they essentially don't have hills. Most of the nation is flood plain. And if the ocean busts through an area even once and salts the earth, the farmland is dead, and the population has to move.

In fact, there is a West Bengal state in India, whose inhabitants and language are referred to as Bengalis.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All we know for certain is that our CO2 caused the 3 undersea volcanoes and the only fix is to surrender our freedom and property to a One World government

Windmills combat volcanoes......it's a fact!

 

[Crick]

And they remove CO2 from the deep ocean.

 

[SSDD]

Post 276 for anyone who is interested in actually examining your fallacious thinking...as if anyone who has ever bothered to read your posts would be surprised to learn that logical fallacy is your first language..

Fallacy is certainly is your way of thinking.

You said if man-made work went into a process it can't be spontaneous.
You said the emission of energy previously absorbed is not spontaneous.

I don't make up the definitions...I simply read them and without interpretation, accept them unless they are proven wrong...

 

[Crick]

If it only took a second, how hard would it have been to have cut and paste one here so that we could all see what you're talking about? Not very hard. Since you haven't, the only conclusion everyone here can come to is that you could not find an argument of mine with the logical flaws you claim are present in every one. That would make you a LIAR and a TROLL

Post 276 for anyone who is interested in actually examining your fallacious thinking...as if anyone who has ever bothered to read your posts would be surprised to learn that logical fallacy is your first language...

Here is post #276. Identify the logical fallacy.

The atomic bomb analogy originated with an article on Fox News whizzo. The original article claimed the heating rate over the past 150 years was equivalent to 1 bomb per second. SSDD argued that it was a trivial amount of heating. I countered.
And if a heating rate of 546 TJ/second doesn't scare you, stay away from buses and cliff edges.

 

[Wuwei]

I don't make up the definitions...I simply read them and without interpretation, accept them unless they are proven wrong...

Nope. You interpret them to the point that your definitions do not make sense.

Your interpretation means there is no such thing as a spontaneous process. Please do a bit more reading of physics books.

Your self contradictory interpretations are the worst logical fallacy you could possibly make.

 

[SSDD]

If it only took a second, how hard would it have been to have cut and paste one here so that we could all see what you're talking about? Not very hard. Since you haven't, the only conclusion everyone here can come to is that you could not find an argument of mine with the logical flaws you claim are present in every one. That would make you a LIAR and a TROLL

Post 276 for anyone who is interested in actually examining your fallacious thinking...as if anyone who has ever bothered to read your posts would be surprised to learn that logical fallacy is your first language...

Here is post #276. Identify the logical fallacy.

The atomic bomb analogy originated with an article on Fox News whizzo. The original article claimed the heating rate over the past 150 years was equivalent to 1 bomb per second. SSDD argued that it was a trivial amount of heating. I countered.
And if a heating rate of 546 TJ/second doesn't scare you, stay away from buses and cliff edges.

.syllogistic fallacy....reference to a vague idea which is then used to draw a conclusion about a thing that is more specific...

One could also make the argument that your whole "atomic bomb" line of reasoning is a quantification fallacy, where the quantifiers used in the argument are not in agreement with the conclusion's quantifiers...

 

[SSDD]

I don't make up the definitions...I simply read them and without interpretation, accept them unless they are proven wrong...

Nope. You interpret them to the point that your definitions do not make sense.

Your interpretation means there is no such thing as a spontaneous process. Please do a bit more reading of physics books.

Your self contradictory interpretations are the worst logical fallacy you could possibly make.

Again...I don't interpret anything...that is your method of operation...I simply take the definitions as they are written...they mean what they mean...the fact that they demonstrate your thinking is wrong is your problem...not mine. I don't need to interpret them...I tend to agree with them.

 

[Crick]

Of course you interpret. Your claim is completely specious. That would be intentional because

YOU ARE A TROLL edited, don't use red