DENNY! Make $10,000 FAST!

[Denny Crane]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one Denny. The Nazis conducted careful experiments on just exactly how much arsenic it takes to kill someone. Like you've pointed out we don't have a duplicate earth that is sans humans to conduct experiments on.

But we both agree that there is absolutely nothing that we silly humans can do to this planet that would make our existence on it more difficult. We're just passengers on this big blue marble. Everything is beyond our control.

We can pollute the planet, sure. But CO2 isn't an example of it.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

What this has to do with the increase of a tiny amount of CO2 levels, which I agree with (but not near the highest levels of CO2 in Earth's history) destroying earth, I think only you know at this point.

There is no way CO2 can destroy the earth. It's impossible.

 

[PapaG]

We can pollute the planet, sure. But CO2 isn't an example of it.

Arsenic and asbestos are scientifically proven polluters of both the earth and humans, as proven and replicated repeatedly in laboratories all over the world.

Models and consensus for AGW, when the models are already shown as inaccurate, isn't science. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

 

[PapaG]

There is no way CO2 can destroy the earth. It's impossible.

OK, you got me. I agree. The earth is the earth, and humans trying to change it for our supposed survival needs is the biggest poison to it.

Gaia4life!

 

[Denny Crane]

There is no way CO2 can destroy the earth. It's impossible.

Not .04%. Not .05%. Not .06%.

We might hit .06% in a few hundred years.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

OK, you got me. I agree. The earth is the earth, and humans trying to change it for our supposed survival needs is the biggest poison to it.

Gaia4life!

We will intentionally change the climate in certain areas of the earth to make it more hospitable and beneficial to us humans. Fact. And it will be done for profit. That also is a fact.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Not .04%. Not .05%. Not .06%.

We might hit .06% in a few hundred years.

Again, CO2 can not destroy the earth. There can be 100% CO2 and the earth would still be here.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Again, I agree that asbestos is very harmful, as has been proven in controlled scientific settings. There are people who will say anything for money; I'm of the belief that the data manipulation from the AGW Believers illustrates this as a fact, just as some scientists could be paid to say asbestos isn't harmful. Money talks, and bullshit follows in this day and age. I didn't believe the scientists who said asbestos wasn't harmful to humans. Only idiots did, IMO.

What this has to do with the increase of a tiny amount of CO2 levels, which I agree with (but not near the highest levels of CO2 in Earth's history) destroying earth, I think only you know at this point.

It's your little biting comment that make your post so damn jerky it is hard to have any kind of discussion with you.

You should stop and think why posters react to you so negatively. It's not what you have to say but the way you say it.

Anyways, I have no interest in have a discussion with someone who thinks they know it all and act like are superior in every topic they discuss. If I feel like venting and being a dick one night, maybe we can fun venting session. Till then go be a SPD to someone else.

 

[PapaG]

Again, CO2 can not destroy the earth.

Yes, I caught you trap the first time. Can we move on to discussing the science of this, rather than semantic gotchas?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Yes, I caught you trap the first time. Can we move on to discussing the science of this, rather than semantic gotchas?

I was replying to Denny.

 

[Denny Crane]

Again, CO2 can not destroy the earth. There can be 100% CO2 and the earth would still be here.

CO2 can make things really warm at several orders of magnitude higher concentration.

I saw it on mythbusters once. They pumped CO2 into a sealed greenhouse and at between 1% and 7% (vs. the .04% we have now), they saw a 1 degree F increase.

 

[PapaG]

It's your little biting comment that make your post so damn jerky it is hard to have any kind of discussion with you.

You should stop and think why posters react to you so negatively. It's not what you have to say but the way you say it.

Anyways, I have no interest in have a discussion with someone who thinks they know it all and act like are superior in every topic they discuss. If I feel like venting and being a dick one night, maybe we can fun venting session. Till then go be a SPD to someone else.

I don't think I know it all. I don't know if there is a god, and I don't know if AGW is a fact, as Further claims. I'm quite willing to admit things I don't know or understand. What bothers me is people who claim to know things as fact, when a basic scientific method isn't even used to prove these facts. People already drove Mags away from this board for purporting to "know" there is no god. I have to laugh at that arrogance, just as I laugh at the arrogance of the AGW Believers. I'm as agnostic on AGW as I am religion/gods. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

 

[PapaG]

I was replying to Denny.

...and, he missed it for the second time.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

There is no control for any possible experiment. You can't go back in time, exterminate humanity, then measure to see if the current temperature would be different.

The models are bullshit. GIGO, and it is garbage in. The atmosphere does not operate on some limited number of equations. Only a little chaos invalidates it all.

You cannot accurately simulate the outcome of a basketball game. In reality, a guy might stub his toe in the shower which causes him to miss a few shots he normally makes. That's chaos. You can program in that player stubbing his toe at his house, but what about at the stadium? Now you have two cases to model. There are soooo many more than two. Chaos.

If you could model a basketball game accurately, why risk injury to the players when you can use the model's results?

Basketball is many many many many orders of magnitude easier to model and get right (but we never will, chaos) than the climate.

I don't justify inaction because of unknowns. I justify minimal action because of what I do know.

CO2 can make things really warm at several orders of magnitude higher concentration.

I saw it on mythbusters once. They pumped CO2 into a sealed greenhouse and at between 1% and 7% (vs. the .04% we have now), they saw a 1 degree F increase.

Wait, so there is no control for any possible experiment unless it's on Mythbusters?!?

That's kinda funny.

 

[Denny Crane]

Wait, so there is no control for any possible experiment unless it's on Mythbusters?!?

That's kinda funny.

That isn't a control. It's only proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Sheesh.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

That isn't a control. It's only proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Sheesh.

I think someone filled your greenhouse with laughing gas. Can't wait to see it next season on Mythbusters.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/control+experiment

control experiment
n

1. an experiment designed to check or correct the results of another experiment by removing the variable or variables operating in that other experiment. The comparison obtained is an indication or measurement of the effect of the variables concerned

 

[PapaG]

I think someone filled your greenhouse with laughing gas. Can't wait to see it next season on Mythbusters.

I'm not sure you understand a controlled setting versus an uncontrolled setting.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'm not sure you understand a controlled setting versus an uncontrolled setting.

I do, I just find it hilarious that Denny is using Mythbusters to argue against scientific data.

 

[PapaG]

I do, I just find it hilarious that Denny is using Mythbusters to argue against scientific data.

The Mythbusters' experiments are conducted in a much more controlled setting than anything that global scientists can put together to justify AGW. AGW science has infinite variables, because the data is literally compiled from a sample of the entire planet. Mythbusters usually can keep their variables down to a much more manageable level, with wind, temperature, humidity, altitude some of the variables.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The Mythbusters' experiments are conducted in a much more controlled setting than anything that global scientists can put together to justify AGW.

What?!?

Filling a greenhouse with gas is not a scientific anything.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/projects/greenhouse.html
d'oh?

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/lesson_plans/Modeling the Greenhouse Effect.pdf

d'oh?

 

[Denny Crane]

SlySkateboardDog

 

[SlyPokerDog]

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/lesson_plans/Modeling the Greenhouse Effect.pdf

d'oh?

I sure wouldn't use any data from that to prove or disprove anything but that is a nice little experiment for kids to do.

 

[Denny Crane]

I sure wouldn't use any data from that to prove or disprove anything but that is a nice little experiment for kids to do.

Denier!

 

[PapaG]

Obama is literally using the same argument about cigarettes tonight in front of an audience of fundraisers. What an absolute doofball.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/26/us-usa-obama-climatechange-idUSKBN0F106920140626

"In most communities and work places, et cetera, when you talk to folks, they may not know how big a problem, they may not know exactly how it works, they may doubt that we can do something about it, but generally they don’t just say, no, I don’t believe anything scientists say," he said, to laughter.

He likened evidence that human activity causes global warming to the medical profession's confidence in the health risks of smoking.

"I’m not a doctor either, but if a bunch of doctors tell me that tobacco can cause lung cancer, then I’ll say, OK," he said. "Right? I mean, it’s not that hard."

 

[PapaG]

What?!?

Filling a greenhouse with gas is not a scientific anything.

Actually, it is, at least being measurable within a controlled environment. Again, when the entire earth is the control group, it's a bit hard to conduct experiments on two fractions of the entire earth's being.

 

[PapaG]

Denny, you really do fascinate me. You're so skeptical of "science" you don't believe in, such as AGW, yet for something even more ridiculous in theory like the Big Bang, you can't provide any proof it happened, and often contradict yourself without knowing it. I'm a born cynic, btw. I remember waiting to get out of the altar boy smock as a 6th grader so I could get home to watch the NFL, and wondering the entire time why my parents were wasting their time on praying to something that we couldn't possibly prove to exist.

 

[Denny Crane]

[video=youtube;Avo0-8GvBlA]