Yeah, dude, you don't get to take the carefully phrased, deliberately hedged, so as not to claim a finding which wasn't even studied language that scientists use in their research as a matter of principle, and argue that it means anything but that.
All that says, in essence, is "We haven't studied that question specifically". It's even followed by:
> However, it is widely accepted that warming ocean and atmospheric temperatures have been a factor in earlier disintegrations of ice shelves elsewhere on the Antarctic Peninsula, most notably Larsen A (1995) and Larsen B (2002).
They point out that this is one of the fastest warming places on Earth, a feature which will certainly not have hindered the development of the rift in Larsen C.
Out-of-context, incomplete quoting is a terribly disingenuous debating tactic.
>"We haven't studied that question specifically".
I really don't find this plausible. This is obviously a huge event getting tons of news coverage that they have been waiting for, for many years. Climate change is also a huge important topic that it is obvious to link to this one.
Despite all this, you want to interpret their phrase as "we didn't get around to checking for that yet", just so you can go on with your beliefs.
No, it's because, to properly do "science" you can (generally) meaningfully only ask a single question at a time.
This is an observational finding, not an investigative one. That means these specific scientists are there to observe and document the event, not tell us why it happened. That's someone else's paper, which is probably being written right now.
That you don't seem to understand that fundamental aspect of the process of science more or less completely obviates anything you have to contribute to the discussion, unless you'd like to keep lobbing accusations of confirmation bias.
EDIT: phrasing.
>"No, it's because, to properly do "science" you can (generally) meaningfully only ask a single question at a time."
I have never heard this before and do not see why that would be the case... it sounds like something a person unfamiliar with science would make up.
>"This is an observational finding, not an investigative one. That means these specific scientists are there to observe and document the event, not tell us why it happened. That's someone else's paper, which is probably being written right now."
This seems to presume the "observing" scientists are less familiar with the literature on their topic of expertise than all the random internet posters who have already linked it to climate change.
It is either that or everyone has somehow avoided looking at the relationship between the breakup of the ice shelf and climate change (which I find totally implausible, if that is true I will suspect there is some type of mischief involved here).
> to properly do "science" you can (generally) meaningfully only ask a single question at a time.
No, that's not true. There's no rule in science against asking as many questions as you want simultaneously. There's no inherent reason that the same team that is observing Larsen C could not also find and publish evidence that the current calving is caused by climate change.
The reason they have no evidence that the Larsen C calving is caused by climate change is that it is virtually impossible to definitively link any single event, no matter how extreme, to climate change. Glaciers calve, sometimes dramatically, with or without climate change. Climate change just makes it happen more often. (Until all the glaciers melt; then calving happens less often.)
In fact, it is entirely possible that the Larsen C calving in fact has nothing to do with climate change, that it really would have happened regardless. That doesn't mean that it should not serve as a reminder that climate change is in fact happening.
> The team say they have no evidence to link the growth of this rift, and the eventual calving, to climate change
So? No single event can ever be definitively linked to climate change. Glaciers calve, sometimes dramatically, with or without climate change. Climate change just makes it happen more often. (Until, of course, all the glaciers melt completely. Then calving will happen less often.) So the fact that a team of scientists can't find evidence linking one event to climate change is wholly unsurprising. That doesn't mean that climate change isn't happening, or that this event should not serve as a reminder that it is happening, it is caused by humans, it is an existential threat to civilization, and that we could stop it (or at least mitigate it) a lot more effectively if there were fewer people burying their heads in the sand and raising specious arguments.
>"No single event can ever be definitively linked to climate change."
I also doubt this is what they meant. They said "there is no evidence", which presumes that there could be evidence. Your interpretation denies that it would be possible to get the evidence which leads to self contradiction.
The most likely interpretation to me is that they think this breakup is just something that was bound to happen, probably because they believe the process began hundreds of years ago or something.
That one doesn't lead to any self-contradictions or presume bizarre behavior from the people who study this ice shelf (like the other one suggested here that they have failed, for at least years if not decades, to ever investigate the relationship of the breakup with climate change).