4 ms·
>"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 th
by nonbel 9y ago
>"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).
- lisper 9y ago> They said "there is no evidence" No, they said (according to you -- the link you posted is actually dead) that they have no evidence. Just because they don't have it (yet) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
- nonbel 9y agoThe url was cutoff at the end when I pasted my earlier post. The article is still up: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170602112819.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170602112819.h... Sure, I was paraphrasing. The point is that their statement presumes that the evidence could exist, while you were interpreting it to mean you can't get such evidence since it is impossible to link any one event to climate change.