Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2016, 11:59 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 10:37 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Yes, much of it is below sea level. 40-50% ish by the looks of it. Continents don't care. Look closely at the water depth. All shallow. Funny how plunking a few km of ice on something depresses the topography. Give it some time for isostatic rebound and that will look be one giant island just like Australia.

[Image: Rodriguez_Antarctica.jpg]

So? Indonesia could have once looked like that too. What I said remains true - most of the surface area on Antarctica (about 60%) as it appears on our maps is over water and not land.

Quote:
Quote:Sea level change follows trends that span tens of thousands of years, if not longer.

Normally. Normally global temperature changes span similar durations.

Well no. We haven't seen a drastic change in the rate of sea level rise over the last millennia, have we? If that graph showed a hockey-stick then it would be used.

And again, I reiterate the fact that I agree something needs to be done about ocean acidification, which is related to CO2. If you want to use that as your reason to curb CO2 emissions, and you can back it up with solid evidence I will get behind it. But as for climate - I grew up in the 90's. We were taught in school that from 2000-2010 the earth was going to warm by at least eight degrees Celsius, and up to 12 degrees. We were told if serious action was not taken by the year 2000 then it would be too late to do anything. It fucking scared the shit out of us as kids.

Now there is almost no one that thinks it will rise by 6 degrees, let alone 8 by 2100. And if there are they are more fringe by us sceptics. I believe the climate from 2000-2100 will likely rise by 2-4 degrees, because that's what the science shows.

Quote:Keep moving those goal posts. If you pick the "mini-Ice Age" as your datum, things are bound to have warmed.

You asked me when I thought climate started warming. I should have clarified my earlier statement which is that climate change that is influenced by anthropogenic GHGs has been taking place since at least the 1800s.

Quote:Agreed! Let's do that.

I note that you completely ignored where I called you out for trying to pull a fast one. Maybe you should agree that I was very clear in what I meant when I said 'anthropogenic'?

Yes and while we're at it, Tim Flannery can pay back the government all the money that he scammed from them.

Quote:Most geologists get a broad base of Earth Science courses, including paleoclimate, so we'd be better than most.

Most you say? One of my good friends is a geologist, and he has much less idea about climate science than I do - by his own admission. Where he and I disagree of course is over climate modelling - the projections the IPCC and others have used to show that the climate will warm by as much as 12 degrees!

Quote:With an unsustainable carbon footprint. How do you even excuse a 500% CO2 emission level?

We represent 5% of the world's land mass and less than 1.5% of carbon emissions. Counting it by population is grossly misleading because we have a low population density - and I believe in firm policy to set a cap at the national population for sustainability. Other countries - notably China, India, UK and the rest of Europe, Japan, Singapore, etc have bred themselves well beyond the point of sustainability.

The global population in 2100 will stabilise at about 10 billion - do you disagree with this? It will cause huge problems if there is not free movement of people in parts of the world where shifting rainfall due to ongoing climate change will create disadvantaged countries. As I noted before a much more sustainable global population is 1 billion people. But just watch - once the infrastructure is built and in place for 10 billion it will cause economic crisis for the population levels to fall. We have created a god-damned fucking Ponzi scheme when it comes to all of this.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2016, 08:40 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 11:59 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(30-11-2016 10:37 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Yes, much of it is below sea level. 40-50% ish by the looks of it. Continents don't care. Look closely at the water depth. All shallow. Funny how plunking a few km of ice on something depresses the topography. Give it some time for isostatic rebound and that will look be one giant island just like Australia.

[Image: Rodriguez_Antarctica.jpg]

So? Indonesia could have once looked like that too. What I said remains true - most of the surface area on Antarctica (about 60%) as it appears on our maps is over water and not land.

Quote:Normally. Normally global temperature changes span similar durations.

Well no. We haven't seen a drastic change in the rate of sea level rise over the last millennia, have we? If that graph showed a hockey-stick then it would be used.

And again, I reiterate the fact that I agree something needs to be done about ocean acidification, which is related to CO2. If you want to use that as your reason to curb CO2 emissions, and you can back it up with solid evidence I will get behind it. But as for climate - I grew up in the 90's. We were taught in school that from 2000-2010 the earth was going to warm by at least eight degrees Celsius, and up to 12 degrees. We were told if serious action was not taken by the year 2000 then it would be too late to do anything. It fucking scared the shit out of us as kids.

Now there is almost no one that thinks it will rise by 6 degrees, let alone 8 by 2100. And if there are they are more fringe by us sceptics. I believe the climate from 2000-2100 will likely rise by 2-4 degrees, because that's what the science shows.

Quote:Keep moving those goal posts. If you pick the "mini-Ice Age" as your datum, things are bound to have warmed.

You asked me when I thought climate started warming. I should have clarified my earlier statement which is that climate change that is influenced by anthropogenic GHGs has been taking place since at least the 1800s.

Quote:Agreed! Let's do that.

I note that you completely ignored where I called you out for trying to pull a fast one. Maybe you should agree that I was very clear in what I meant when I said 'anthropogenic'?

Yes and while we're at it, Tim Flannery can pay back the government all the money that he scammed from them.

Quote:Most geologists get a broad base of Earth Science courses, including paleoclimate, so we'd be better than most.

Most you say? One of my good friends is a geologist, and he has much less idea about climate science than I do - by his own admission. Where he and I disagree of course is over climate modelling - the projections the IPCC and others have used to show that the climate will warm by as much as 12 degrees!

Quote:With an unsustainable carbon footprint. How do you even excuse a 500% CO2 emission level?

We represent 5% of the world's land mass and less than 1.5% of carbon emissions. Counting it by population is grossly misleading because we have a low population density - and I believe in firm policy to set a cap at the national population for sustainability. Other countries - notably China, India, UK and the rest of Europe, Japan, Singapore, etc have bred themselves well beyond the point of sustainability.

The global population in 2100 will stabilise at about 10 billion - do you disagree with this? It will cause huge problems if there is not free movement of people in parts of the world where shifting rainfall due to ongoing climate change will create disadvantaged countries. As I noted before a much more sustainable global population is 1 billion people. But just watch - once the infrastructure is built and in place for 10 billion it will cause economic crisis for the population levels to fall. We have created a god-damned fucking Ponzi scheme when it comes to all of this.

"So? Indonesia could have once looked like that too. What I said remains true - most of the surface area on Antarctica (about 60%) as it appears on our maps is over water and not land."

1) No, Indonesia couldn't have once looked like that. Indonesia is actually a series of islands and not a continental landmass
2) I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say about "most of the surface area on Antarctica (about 60%) as it appears on our maps is over water and not land." A. I don't know where the "60%" number comes from. B. Much of the SEA ICE is over the ocean, but not the continental lithosphere that comprises the continent of Antarctica

"Well no. We haven't seen a drastic change in the rate of sea level rise over the last millennia, have we?"

We are currently seeing a drastic increase in sea level rise:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v51...14093.html
[Image: nature14093-f2.jpg]

The effects of the Greenland ice sheet melting in panel A and for the Western Antarctic Ice sheet melting in panel B (note that the isostatic effect on each landmass will cause them to readjust upwards, creating relative sea level drops around the Greenland and Antarctic landmasses):
[Image: nature14093-sf1.jpg]

"And again, I reiterate the fact that I agree something needs to be done about ocean acidification, which is related to CO2. If you want to use that as your reason to curb CO2 emissions, and you can back it up with solid evidence I will get behind it. But as for climate - I grew up in the 90's. We were taught in school that from 2000-2010 the earth was going to warm by at least eight degrees Celsius, and up to 12 degrees. We were told if serious action was not taken by the year 2000 then it would be too late to do anything. It fucking scared the shit out of us as kids."

That is a terrible reason for not believing we should do something about anthropogenic climate change. Using the excuse that your teachers taught you something incorrect as a reason for ignoring the effects science is showing is just plain stupid. No country will remain unaffected because no country will be immune from the effects of global climate change. It will affect the distribution of moisture across the globe as well as the frequency and severity of storms. No one is isolated or buffered from these effects.

"Now there is almost no one that thinks it will rise by 6 degrees, let alone 8 by 2100. And if there are they are more fringe by us sceptics. I believe the climate from 2000-2100 will likely rise by 2-4 degrees, because that's what the science shows."

Yes, that is probably an accurate rate at which the OCEANS will warm. Not the corresponding climate or nor the seasonal ranges nor the air temperatures over landmasses.

For instance, the models suggest much greater warming of air temperatures in some parts of the world, like the Northeastern US for instance (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...text.html)

Keep in mind what an average means. On AVERAGE the oceans will warm 2-4°C, but some parts of the ocean will warm faster and to a greater magnitude than that and some less. The key point as it relates to climate is the heat storage capacity of water:
[Image: figure-15-03-03a.jpeg]
^ What that figure shows is that water doesn't immediately change phases when it hits certain milestone temps and pressures. It doesn't instantly melt when warming from -1°C to 0°C, it continues to absorb heat. That is why the oceans are so integral to climate because what this means is that when the oceans warm on average between 2-4°C, they are absorbing vast amounts of heat as evidenced by the temperature change.

"You asked me when I thought climate started warming. I should have clarified my earlier statement which is that climate change that is influenced by anthropogenic GHGs has been taking place since at least the 1800s."

This is when human industry started heavily modifying climate. But humans have effected change upon the environment ever since we started expanding our geographic ranges and began farming.

"Most you say? One of my good friends is a geologist, and he has much less idea about climate science than I do - by his own admission. "

Geology is a huge and diverse field. My colleagues who study igneous petrology have little understanding of climates, but my fellow geology colleagues who study paleoclimates and paleontology and geochemistry, well we do know what we are talking about with respect to climate change. Many of the climate scientists studying climate change and its effects, are Earth Scientists or Geoscientists...and both of these are new terms for GEOLOGIST when describing geologists who don't only study rocks.

"Where he and I disagree of course is over climate modelling - the projections the IPCC and others have used to show that the climate will warm by as much as 12 degrees!"

Models are used to test specific hypotheses. The fact that some modeled scenarios show unrealistic warming is based upon the simulation and does NOT mean that scientists are saying that this is an inevitable future prediction.

The point of the IPCC models is to use our understanding of the physics of climates to hypothesize what could happen under certain specific scenarios. They are not attempts to magically see into the future with a crystal ball. So, once again, if you're reasoning for not believing the hypotheses of the models is because some of the modeled scenarios are potentially unrealistic, that is incredibly reductionist. Or if your reasoning for not responding to climate change is because some of the modeled hypothetical scenarios seems unrealistic, you are being incredibly naive.

"We represent 5% of the world's land mass and less than 1.5% of carbon emissions. Counting it by population is grossly misleading because we have a low population density - and I believe in firm policy to set a cap at the national population for sustainability. Other countries - notably China, India, UK and the rest of Europe, Japan, Singapore, etc have bred themselves well beyond the point of sustainability."

It's your problem too whether or not you want to think about it. Regardless of who is to blame for the severity of the problem, it is a problem (a series of problems) that everyone will face. So sitting back and pointing fingers and saying that "these are the ones really contributing to the problem! Make them pay for it or suffer because of it!" is A. incredibly selfish and B. incredibly naive about the way the world works. Sure, it isn't fair that the previous generations left us a clusterfuck of a mess to deal with, but life isn't fucking fair so crossing your arms and throwing a fit is a childish and stupid thing to do. Grow up.

"The global population in 2100 will stabilise at about 10 billion - do you disagree with this? It will cause huge problems if there is not free movement of people in parts of the world where shifting rainfall due to ongoing climate change will create disadvantaged countries. As I noted before a much more sustainable global population is 1 billion people. But just watch - once the infrastructure is built and in place for 10 billion it will cause economic crisis for the population levels to fall. We have created a god-damned fucking Ponzi scheme when it comes to all of this."

Yes, global population is another problem entirely that will clearly be impacted by climate change. Yes, without advances in technology, our population will become unsustainably large. These are both great reasons to do something about climate change instead of doing nothing. Why? Let's list the reasons:
1) the world population isn't going to fix itself, but neither is climate. So that means even more people will be affected by climate change
2) no one lives in a bubble anymore. So humanitarian crises in one country will create problems for other countries too
3) with an ever increasing population, the anthropogenic effect will continue to persist and will become increasingly more exaggerated if we don't do something about it

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
01-12-2016, 08:42 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Aliza, another good question to ask your father is what scientists have to gain by propping up climate change research? Does he believe that these researchers would not have anything else to get grant money to study?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
01-12-2016, 09:12 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 10:06 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Oooooohhhhh.... clever question. Yeah, the key word is honest. My father believes that doctors and scientists working for tobacco are paid off, so I can draw a parallel with that.


In that case show him this link which demonstrates that the techniques used to deny the effects of passive smoking are now employed in exactly the same way by the same companies to deny the effect of carbon emissions.

The denial industry

Quote:For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco.



Quote: But what I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that manmade climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2016, 07:41 PM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2016 09:45 PM by Aractus.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(01-12-2016 08:40 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-11-2016 11:59 PM)Aractus Wrote:  And again, I reiterate the fact that I agree something needs to be done about ocean acidification, which is related to CO2. If you want to use that as your reason to curb CO2 emissions, and you can back it up with solid evidence I will get behind it. But as for climate - I grew up in the 90's. We were taught in school that from 2000-2010 the earth was going to warm by at least eight degrees Celsius, and up to 12 degrees. We were told if serious action was not taken by the year 2000 then it would be too late to do anything. It fucking scared the shit out of us as kids."

That is a terrible reason for not believing we should do something about anthropogenic climate change. Using the excuse that your teachers taught you something incorrect as a reason for ignoring the effects science is showing is just plain stupid.

No it is not a terrible reason. It's not just what our "teachers taught us", we were shown videos from climate scientists on this. In primary school. Children do not have critical thinking abilities - that is the world is very black and white to them and stuff is either true or false.

Your dismissal of this is very concerning. This is the whole reason why I'm a sceptic, and I feel we sceptics are validated in our scepticism because of it. We know we have been lied to, and even the current "consensus" amongst climate scientists now confirms this to be true. We are the ones who said that it wasn't going to be as bad as predicted; and now after 15 years of me consistently saying this we have a clear consensus that what we were saying is true. You cannot get better validation than that. The world was never going to increase by 8-12 degrees over the course of this century; and it wasn't going to be too late to implement change by the year 2000. We called out those alarmist lies for what they were, and now we see that exactly what out side said 15 years ago was true!

That's not just the only lie we were told, or that has been told by warmists and outright alarmist groups either. Who were also told us that climate change will result in more extreme whether events, and have even claimed specific events like Hurricane Katrina were caused by climate change! Again I remain extremely sceptical of these claims. Yes bushfires will increase in some areas - there I can agree, but strategies can be put in place (backburning, etc) to mitigate the risk. I hasten to add that I'm not denying that whether events may increase, I'm just sceptical that the will and sceptical of their severity.

I believe firmly that even without a global climate change that regional climate change would still cause the problem of climate refugees in about 60 years, probably not as severe, and that we need to plan and implement policy and action now to deal this!

Now as I've repeatedly said - I'm with you on ocean acidification, and if you want to use that as a justification to curb CO2 emissions I'm with you and all for it. I can get behind that. And I would like to see marine mammalian fishing allowed for all species other than dolphin in sustainable numbers. I think it's fucking hypocritical to tell Japan not to hunt Minke Whales, but we fish critically endangered species like Bluefin Tuna. If you want a proper debate on sustainability you need to get past the goddamned ideologies people have against certain things.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2016, 09:17 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 11:59 PM)Aractus Wrote:  So? Indonesia could have once looked like that too. What I said remains true - most of the surface area on Antarctica (about 60%) as it appears on our maps is over water and not land.

No. Indonesia never looked like that. Neither to the casual eye nor to more careful examination. Indonesia is a geopolitical entity made of a variety of crustal types and portions of several different islands.

Since you can't even come to grips with the reality of a continent I see little point in further discussion. In parting, here's some light reading from that should frighten a sane individual (Hansen et al., 1981).

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
01-12-2016, 09:43 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(01-12-2016 09:17 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Since you can't even come to grips with the reality of a continent I see little point in further discussion. In parting, here's some light reading from that should frighten a sane individual (Hansen et al., 1981).

Yes OK I'm wrong on that example, that's fine. Apparently India is its own continent though when counted by "continental crust" - and that's exactly what I mean when I say our 7-continent model of the world is grossly inaccurate and based on arbitrary delineations.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2016, 07:55 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(01-12-2016 07:41 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(01-12-2016 08:40 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  That is a terrible reason for not believing we should do something about anthropogenic climate change. Using the excuse that your teachers taught you something incorrect as a reason for ignoring the effects science is showing is just plain stupid.

No it is not a terrible reason. It's not just what our "teachers taught us", we were shown videos from climate scientists on this. In primary school. Children do not have critical thinking abilities - that is the world is very black and white to them and stuff is either true or false.

Your dismissal of this is very concerning. This is the whole reason why I'm a sceptic, and I feel we sceptics are validated in our scepticism because of it. We know we have been lied to, and even the current "consensus" amongst climate scientists now confirms this to be true. We are the ones who said that it wasn't going to be as bad as predicted; and now after 15 years of me consistently saying this we have a clear consensus that what we were saying is true. You cannot get better validation than that. The world was never going to increase by 8-12 degrees over the course of this century; and it wasn't going to be too late to implement change by the year 2000. We called out those alarmist lies for what they were, and now we see that exactly what out side said 15 years ago was true!

That's not just the only lie we were told, or that has been told by warmists and outright alarmist groups either. Who were also told us that climate change will result in more extreme whether events, and have even claimed specific events like Hurricane Katrina were caused by climate change! Again I remain extremely sceptical of these claims. Yes bushfires will increase in some areas - there I can agree, but strategies can be put in place (backburning, etc) to mitigate the risk. I hasten to add that I'm not denying that whether events may increase, I'm just sceptical that the will and sceptical of their severity.

I believe firmly that even without a global climate change that regional climate change would still cause the problem of climate refugees in about 60 years, probably not as severe, and that we need to plan and implement policy and action now to deal this!

Now as I've repeatedly said - I'm with you on ocean acidification, and if you want to use that as a justification to curb CO2 emissions I'm with you and all for it. I can get behind that. And I would like to see marine mammalian fishing allowed for all species other than dolphin in sustainable numbers. I think it's fucking hypocritical to tell Japan not to hunt Minke Whales, but we fish critically endangered species like Bluefin Tuna. If you want a proper debate on sustainability you need to get past the goddamned ideologies people have against certain things.

"No it is not a terrible reason. It's not just what our "teachers taught us", we were shown videos from climate scientists on this."

It is a terrible reason. You are quite literally saying that because of something that was oversimplified and then presented to you while you were getting your primary school education, you no longer trust the experts (scientists). That is an awful reason. I don't know what "videos" you are referring to but any scientist discussing the range of possibilities as previously hypothesized from prior models wasn't misleading you or lying to you. The science and the models have improved, climate change science isn't static, we do continue to improve our resolution and models year after year.

"In primary school. Children do not have critical thinking abilities - that is the world is very black and white to them and stuff is either true or false."

But presumably you do possess critical thinking skills. Instead you seem to be stuck in the childish mindset where you refuse to accept scientific information because you are being a "skeptic" which in this case seems to really mean "contrarian."

"Your dismissal of this is very concerning."

It should be. You should consider why I am dismissing such silly and immature reasons for rejecting science.

"This is the whole reason why I'm a sceptic, and I feel we sceptics are validated in our scepticism because of it. "

Instead you seem to be doubling down on it. You have scientists telling you about the mistakes you are making in your assumptions, but you continue to believe you are correct.

"We know we have been lied to, and even the current "consensus" amongst climate scientists now confirms this to be true."

Great Dodgy conspiracy BS. How "skeptical" of you

"We are the ones who said that it wasn't going to be as bad as predicted; and now after 15 years of me consistently saying this we have a clear consensus that what we were saying is true."

1) Asserting something without any actual substantive evidence is, at best, a lucky guess
2) It is also a straw man to assert that scientists were all alarmingly predicting catastrophe by now

"You cannot get better validation than that."

You can and it would be even better if it were valid validation.

"The world was never going to increase by 8-12 degrees over the course of this century; and it wasn't going to be too late to implement change by the year 2000. We called out those alarmist lies for what they were, and now we see that exactly what out side said 15 years ago was true!"

Still a straw man. Asserting that a group of "alarmists" is equivalent with what scientists were hypothesizing wholesale is asinine. Also, if you're going to say "alarmist" as a derogatory term, don't be hypocritical when someone calls people deniers. "First you need to clarify what he's "denying". Second, do not use offensive stigmatising language like "denier"! I remain a strong climate sceptic, but I'll tell you what I do believe in a future post."

"That's not just the only lie we were told, or that has been told by warmists and outright alarmist groups either. Who were also told us that climate change will result in more extreme whether events, and have even claimed specific events like Hurricane Katrina were caused by climate change! Again I remain extremely sceptical of these claims. Yes bushfires will increase in some areas - there I can agree, but strategies can be put in place (backburning, etc) to mitigate the risk. I hasten to add that I'm not denying that whether events may increase, I'm just sceptical that the will and sceptical of their severity."

This appears to be woefully ignorant of what the facts are regarding extreme weather events across the globe (which includes the spread and severity of things like droughts and the number of tornadoes from clusters and the way that storms like Superstorm Sandy changed courses drastically because of the downward surface flow of cold surface water along the Atlantic Coast, an event never recorded before by a storm like that).

"I believe firmly that even without a global climate change that regional climate change would still cause the problem of climate refugees in about 60 years, probably not as severe, and that we need to plan and implement policy and action now to deal this!"

All climate change is regional. There is no such thing as a global climate. So when we say "climate change" what we mean is a redistribution of regional climate regimes.

"Now as I've repeatedly said - I'm with you on ocean acidification, and if you want to use that as a justification to curb CO2 emissions I'm with you and all for it. I can get behind that. And I would like to see marine mammalian fishing allowed for all species other than dolphin in sustainable numbers. I think it's fucking hypocritical to tell Japan not to hunt Minke Whales, but we fish critically endangered species like Bluefin Tuna. If you want a proper debate on sustainability you need to get past the goddamned ideologies people have against certain things."

Couple of things:
1) Ocean acidification isn't the only good reason to address CO2 emissions. It isn't good enough to sit back and deny the role that a greenhouse gas plays in climate change
2) Fishing of all marine mammalian species helps in what way? That is a terrible idea with an even worse justification. Overfishing one species is NOT a valid reason to overfish any other.
3) If you want a proper debate on anything, you need to assume that you don't know more than the experts you argue against.

For example: "Yes OK I'm wrong on that example, that's fine. Apparently India is its own continent though when counted by "continental crust" - and that's exactly what I mean when I say our 7-continent model of the world is grossly inaccurate and based on arbitrary delineations."

That is far from the only thing you've been wrong about, but you are still doubling down on your original claim that continents don't exist. Once again, the fact that the way geology defines continents and the way continents have been defined historically and geopolitically are irrelevant. When discussing climate change, what matters are the physical (geologic) definitions of a continent.

Also, India is a sub-continent. It was once a continent before it slammed into Asia and began uplifting the Himalayas. It is now suturing onto the Eurasian Landmass and is no longer its own isolated continent. Asia, Europe, Antarctica, North America, etc, are all the consequence of crustal differentiation and accretion of various landmasses.

(side note: probably not wise to debate core geology concepts with two geologists when you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It isn't making you look intelligent or informed)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
02-12-2016, 08:34 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Maybe this will help.




Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
02-12-2016, 02:17 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
TBD, glad to have you in this thread. As well as Paleophyte. Aractus seems to be an example of a plausible, smooth-spoken guy who'd probably get away with this bullshit if you weren't there to point out the deficiencies. Here's to you Bowing

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: