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

But but but - that graph doesn’t include volcanos or sunspots!  

Can’t fool me, XCAD is clearly a Soros-funded bot. Wake up sheeple.

Posted by: tashi

Wake up sheeple.

Yah, there a XKCD for that, too!

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wake_up_sheeple.png

Posted by: chupacabra

Shogun, something you should look into when you read these sites that talk about how the climate is always changing (talking point number one), is how it has always changed.  It usually moves slowly, and when it hasn't there is always a reason, like volcanism or a meteor impact.  One of the more recent abrupt changes was the Younger Dryas period and we are just now seeing that is was likely from a meteor impact centered in Greenland almost 13,000 years ago. You agree that the climate is changing rapidly, so where is the massive volcano or meteor to explain why?  We are the meteor buddy.  The science on this is stronger than the link between cigarettes and cancer.

Have you missed the part about the Sun?

What was the reason behind me stepping up with an elementary level science experiment? It wasnt to be mocked again, thats for sure.

Posted by: syncro

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.

Pretty sure we've done this before. Everyone seems to think I'm not only here to prove every conspiracy but that I actually can prove everything. lol riiiiight.

Seriously, how can I prove half of what I post? Like this what I meant when I said I post some hilarious shit and you guys just cant grasp or relate. Maybe because you guys still have an Ego and I'm hanging onto my imagination. And conversely, if I know that I cant prove it with the same tools the majority of other people have, then why the hell should I just accept what you guys say? Sometimes it is personal opinion. Other times, it's idealistic logic.

When I post things that are factual, anyone of you step up and claim sources are wrong or biased. Like you in the Trump thread with the DNC corp comment. You checked your sources which just magically over rides mine? Then I have to link to a Judge's quote claiming otherwise and you guys will still claim I'm wrong.

There was no edit time when I posted that. And you guys are particularly guilty of avoiding certain questions I ask. Like just above: if I didnt say I was a few beers in, you would've replied with.... ?

Posted by: syncro

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

...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.

I thought I'd fuck more shit up and reply to this part seperately. I'm not sure how long ago those pm's were but things might've changed since then. You wouldnt be the first to say either of those and do you really think I care if you told me fuck off in person let alone online? In fact, I'm sure in a direct or some round about way, you did in some other thread a long time ago.

Are you guys actually going to solve climate change, in this thread, through some awesome collab when none of you even knew about the plastic collecting machines being implemented for the ocean gyres?! You guys planning the next protest? I see none of that lol

Eat me dude.

Re: "the part about the sun": NASA: The sun isn't causing climate change.

Volcanoes and climate change: NASA: Volcanoes aren't significant contributors to climate change.

Scale is important.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: chupacabra

Shogun, something you should look into when you read these sites that talk about how the climate is always changing (talking point number one), is how it has always changed. It usually moves slowly, and when it hasn't there is always a reason, like volcanism or a meteor impact. One of the more recent abrupt changes was the Younger Dryas period and we are just now seeing that is was likely from a meteor impact centered in Greenland almost 13,000 years ago. You agree that the climate is changing rapidly, so where is the massive volcano or meteor to explain why? We are the meteor buddy. The science on this is stronger than the link between cigarettes and cancer.

Have you missed the part about the Sun?

What was the reason behind me stepping up with an elementary level science experiment? It wasnt to be mocked again, thats for sure.

he didn't miss the part about the sun, he just knows that the reasearch into the effects of the sun has shown that it's impact has not been as significant as the anti-climaters would like to believe.

edit: like tashi said scale is important which is what I was explaining to you in another post. you can't lose sight of the big picture by focusing on single events.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Are you guys actually going to solve climate change, in this thread, through some awesome collab when none of you even knew about the plastic collecting machines being implemented for the ocean gyres?! You guys planning the next protest? I see none of that lol

Eat me dude.

The point is that there are a bunch of people here who are genuinely interested about the topic and are trying to have a conversation on it that is based in some level of reality. I can't necessarily speak for the others, but it seems some of us are not inclined to have to deal with a stream of mostly bs speculation presented as truth. It's not that I don't want you to participate, I just don't want you to participate in the manner that you are. I'd prefer if you were adding to the conversation instead of tending to take away from it.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Pretty sure we've done this before. Everyone seems to think I'm not only here to prove every conspiracy but that I actually can prove everything. lol riiiiight.

Seriously, how can I prove half of what I post? Like this what I meant when I said I post some hilarious shit and you guys just cant grasp or relate. Maybe because you guys still have an Ego and I'm hanging onto my imagination. And conversely, if I know that I cant prove it with the same tools the majority of other people have, then why the hell should I just accept what you guys say? Sometimes it is personal opinion. Other times, it's idealistic logic.

When I post things that are factual, anyone of you step up and claim sources are wrong or biased. Like you in the Trump thread with the DNC corp comment. You checked your sources which just magically over rides mine? Then I have to link to a Judge's quote claiming otherwise and you guys will still claim I'm wrong.

There was no edit time when I posted that. And you guys are particularly guilty of avoiding certain questions I ask. Like just above: if I didnt say I was a few beers in, you would've replied with.... ?

Again can't speak for the others, but what I think is that on average you tend to degrade the conversation not add to it.

RE the factual thing and checking sources when it comes to DNC "private company" comment I explained that in the trump thread. I'll simply add that this is part of the obfuscation that I think you tend to do - it's tiring.

Fair enough about the edit time - I was just pointing it out. I think sometimes people don't answer your questions because there's no point - either your questions/assertions are well known to be incorrect or they've been answered before.

Well said.

Posted by: tashi

Perfect 👌

Posted by: syncro

Fair enough about the edit time - I was just pointing it out. I think sometimes people don't answer your questions because there's no point - either your questions/assertions are well known to be incorrect or they've been answered before.

Or they dont answer them because they dont actually have the means to, much like I dont have the means to answer you guys half the time. Like I said probably on this page, if you take the stance I do on purpose, just let me know how things go for you let alone time and time again.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Pretty sure we've done this before. Everyone seems to think I'm not only here to prove every conspiracy but that I actually can prove everything. lol riiiiight.

Seriously, how can I prove half of what I post? Like this what I meant when I said I post some hilarious shit and you guys just cant grasp or relate. Maybe because you guys still have an Ego and I'm hanging onto my imagination. And conversely, if I know that I cant prove it with the same tools the majority of other people have, then why the hell should I just accept what you guys say? Sometimes it is personal opinion. Other times, it's idealistic logic.

When I post things that are factual, anyone of you step up and claim sources are wrong or biased. Like you in the Trump thread with the DNC corp comment. You checked your sources which just magically over rides mine? Then I have to link to a Judge's quote claiming otherwise and you guys will still claim I'm wrong.

There was no edit time when I posted that. And you guys are particularly guilty of avoiding certain questions I ask. Like just above: if I didnt say I was a few beers in, you would've replied with.... ?

Again can't speak for the others, but what I think is that on average you tend to degrade the conversation not add to it.

RE the factual thing and checking sources when it comes to DNC "private company" comment I explained that in the trump thread. I'll simply add that this is part of the obfuscation that I think you tend to do - it's tiring.

Fair enough about the edit time - I was just pointing it out. I think sometimes people don't answer your questions because there's no point - either your questions/assertions are well known to be incorrect or they've been answered before.

Aaaaaand I'm still waiting on your answer from three quotes ago now. You guys are really bad for doing what you claim I do (not answering ?s). And how much winning do you think I'd be doing against the whole global climate science establishment? You guys just link up articles and accept it.

If I debase a conversation, perhaps you give yourselve's too much credit. Like I said, whats the point of this thread? Panic the masses? I was once accused of driving fear through the Ebola thread... ahhh memories.

And you realize if I wasnt posting in this thread, it'd be dead like the rest of NBR ?