Climate Change - so I'm starting to panic a bit

Posted by: Adam-West

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: Adam-West

I aint no rocket appliantist, but even I understand how burning fossil fuels reintroduces all the co2 that's been out of the carbon cycle for millions of years causing global temps to increase due to the well documented greenhouse effect, how is this such a hard thing for climate change deniers to understand?

Because those same scientists (I use it loosely) said pay the carbon tax or we have an ice free world by 2017. Guess what? We didnt have a choice to pay and we still have ice.

Question for anyone in NBR - have you ever participated in a Climate Protest?

open YOUR eyes man, why are you willing to be on the wrong side of history on this?

Marcus doesn't think scientists are actually scientists....  and MIT isn't really a good school.

http://news.mit.edu/2019/first-climate-symposium-gobal-warming-1003

Anyone who is smart is from Trump University.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Question for anyone in NBR - have you ever participated in a Climate Protest?

Several times.

Posted by: ReductiMat

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

.

So Reductitron asked me this in the Trump thread regarding climate change:

**"we humans are not to blame in the least"

How would you design the science experiment to prove that?

It'd be quite easy actually. Consider most so called climate deniers believe it's the Sun and Volcano's not humans to blame. So we'd try to prove which gas simply blocks more heat and or light. So, we'd have two ballons, thermometers, some grow/heat lights, light sensors and one cylinder of CO2 and another of SO2 (sulfur dioxide, the same gas volcano's belch out).

First, insert light sensors and thermo's into ballon.

Second, fill one balloon with each different gas. Make sure to compesensate % in case one is denser..

Third, monitor readings of light and heat inside the ballons in different situations. Left out in the day light all day, then place inside an aquarium/hot box, leave lights over it, check readings of light and heat and compare. Maybe submerge them in sea water to check underwater differences.

If the SO2 has lower readings, then Shogun is technically right and has been right all along and ALL Y'ALL ARE A BUNCH OF FOOLS FOR FALLING FOR TRULY MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. Cool part about this is, any local University can perform this experiment. Probably a decent grower could too lols.

Jesus man, that's not how science works.

It is entertaining reading someone who doesn't believe science is real explain their idea of a science experiment though. I'm crying 😂

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus.

So Reductitron asked me this in the Trump thread regarding climate change:

**"we humans are not to blame in the least"

How would you design the science experiment to prove that?

It'd be quite easy actually. Consider most so called climate deniers believe it's the Sun and Volcano's not humans to blame. So we'd try to prove which gas simply blocks more heat and or light. So, we'd have two ballons, thermometers, some grow/heat lights, light sensors and one cylinder of CO2 and another of SO2 (sulfur dioxide, the same gas volcano's belch out).

First, insert light sensors and thermo's into ballon.

Second, fill one balloon with each different gas. Make sure to compesensate % in case one is denser..

Third, monitor readings of light and heat inside the ballons in different situations. Left out in the day light all day, then place inside an aquarium/hot box, leave lights over it, check readings of light and heat and compare. Maybe submerge them in sea water to check underwater differences.

If the SO2 has lower readings, then Shogun is technically right and has been right all along and ALL Y'ALL ARE A BUNCH OF FOOLS FOR FALLING FOR TRULY MAN MADE GLOBAL ARMING. Cool part about this is, any local University can perform this experiment. Probably a decent grower could too lols.

Its how it starts though and its simple and uncovoluted.

In terms of science stating an answer it starts with a question or theory that has some reasonable measure of success, or a question for which there is no known answer. The problem with your experiment is that it's not needed as science already knows the answer to your question. Where your experiment really fails though in relation to climate change is that it makes no consideration for the level of these and other gases in the atmosphere and what their sources might be. Unfortunately, for deniers who assume that solar flares and volcanic activity contribute a great enough effect to climate change as to render human causes inconsequential, they happen to be wrong on that point. It's is pretty clear by now that human activity is the most significant contributor to climate change, particularly over the past 100 years or so and many would argue even going all the way back to the Industrial Revolution.

Yes you've asked a very simple question, unfortunately it's one that happens to provide very little insight into what's driving climate change.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus.

So Reductitron asked me this in the Trump thread regarding climate change:

**"we humans are not to blame in the least"

How would you design the science experiment to prove that?

It'd be quite easy actually. Consider most so called climate deniers believe it's the Sun and Volcano's not humans to blame. So we'd try to prove which gas simply blocks more heat and or light. So, we'd have two ballons, thermometers, some grow/heat lights, light sensors and one cylinder of CO2 and another of SO2 (sulfur dioxide, the same gas volcano's belch out).

First, insert light sensors and thermo's into ballon.

Second, fill one balloon with each different gas. Make sure to compesensate % in case one is denser..

Third, monitor readings of light and heat inside the ballons in different situations. Left out in the day light all day, then place inside an aquarium/hot box, leave lights over it, check readings of light and heat and compare. Maybe submerge them in sea water to check underwater differences.

If the SO2 has lower readings, then Shogun is technically right and has been right all along and ALL Y'ALL ARE A BUNCH OF FOOLS FOR FALLING FOR TRULY MAN MADE GLOBAL ARMING. Cool part about this is, any local University can perform this experiment. Probably a decent grower could too lols.

Its how it starts though and its simple and uncovoluted.

It starts with a theory that has some reasonable measure of success or a question for which there is no known answer. The problem with your experiment is that it's not needed as science already knows the answer to your question. Where your experiment really fails though is that it makes no consideration for the level of these and other gases in the atmosphere and what their sources might be. Unfortunately, for deniers who assume that solar flares and volcanic activity contribute a great enough effect to climate change as to render human causes ineffectual they happen to be wrong. It's is pretty clear by now that human activity is the most significant contributor to climate change, particularly over the past 100 years or so and many would argue going all the way back to the Industrial Revolution.

Yes you've asked a very simple question, unfortunately it's one that happens to provide very little insight into what's driving climate change.

Read your first sentence and your last attempt at a statement, then get back to me. As in, if there's no known answer, why are you claiming to have one?

**Posted by: Hepcat

**It is entertaining reading someone who doesn't believe science is real explain their idea of a science experiment though. I'm crying 😂

Oh I believe science is real and it exists (obviously). Just we are most definitely infallable and completely misguided.  Also, remember what I said about jumping through hoops over the years for nsmb users? I didnt exactly prove myself wrong on that one did I?

Posted by: Adam-West

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: Adam-West

I aint no rocket appliantist, but even I understand how burning fossil fuels reintroduces all the co2 that's been out of the carbon cycle for millions of years causing global temps to increase due to the well documented greenhouse effect, how is this such a hard thing for climate change deniers to understand?

Because those same scientists (I use it loosely) said pay the carbon tax or we have an ice free world by 2017. Guess what? We didnt have a choice to pay and we still have ice.

Question for anyone in NBR - have you ever participated in a Climate Protest?

open YOUR eyes man, why are you willing to be on the wrong side of history on this?

How about tell me if I'm wrong in that statement first?

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Read your first sentence and your last attempt at a statement, then get back to me. As in, if there's no known answer, why are you claiming to have one?

lol - you need to re-read what I said, because what you think I said and what I actually did say aren't even close.

Posted by: syncro

It starts with a theory that has some reasonable measure of success or a question for which there is no known answer.

Yes you've asked a very simple question, unfortunately it's one that happens to provide very little insight into what's driving climate change.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Read your first sentence and your last attempt at a statement, then get back to me. As in, if there's no known answer, why are you claiming to have one?

lol - you need to re-read what I said, because what you think I said and what I actually did say aren't even close.

Perhaps you need to clarify things yourself. Did the simple question I asked start theory or is it the question with no answer?

Keep in mind, I'm two pitchers in right now so bring your A-game.

Sorry, thats almost two pitchers in.. Its my monday.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Perhaps you need to clarify things yourself. Did the simple question I asked start theory or is it the question with no answer?

Keep in mind, I'm two pitchers in right now so bring your A-game.

not biting, although i have edited my post for clarity/readability.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Perhaps you need to clarify things yourself. Did the simple question I asked start theory or is it the question with no answer?

Keep in mind, I'm two pitchers in right now so bring your A-game.

not biting, although i have edited my post for clarity/readability.

Shows no sign of editing or extra clarity. And all of a sudden you dont want to pick an e-fight with a half drunk but all y'all will pick on the idiot savante all day e'ry day?

Puuuuuuuuusiiiiiiiiiiiiies.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Perhaps you need to clarify things yourself. Did the simple question I asked start theory or is it the question with no answer?

Keep in mind, I'm two pitchers in right now so bring your A-game.

not biting, although i have edited my post for clarity/readability.

Shows no sign of editing or extra clarity. And all of a sudden you dont want to pick an e-fight with a half drunk but all y'all will pick on the idiot savante all day e'ry day?

Puuuuuuuuusiiiiiiiiiiiiies.

check again, edit time says 2:15.

I'll drop similar "advice" I gave to tungsten a few days ago...

You have a  nasty habit of developing convoluted arguments and obfuscating them as well. Often I've seen people ask you direct questions that catch you or discredit what you're saying and instead of answering them you go rambling off in a slightly different direction. You've done it to me. I don't know how chup does it, but I certainly know I've gotten tired of it and it seems others have as well. If you have some credible info that casts doubt on certain aspects of climate change then share it, most of us here seem to be genuinely interested or concerned enough about the topic that we want to get the real good. But if you have critique don't go getting upset when people call you on it. It seems you often dangle around with just enough of a sliver of truth simply to try and rile people up, and I know it's a game for you as we've talked about it in pm's. If you want to continue with that BS in the Trump thread or others then go for it, but quit fucking up this thread I started with your mostly nonsensical bullshit. It's gotten to the point where I'd just rather tell you to fuck off and I'd do the same in person.

Enjoy your beer.

oh and by the way, I'm only saying this cause I'd rather not see it get to that point.