• Current Events, Politics
    & Science

    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • CEPS Moderators: cduggles | JessFR | tathra

The Anthropogenic Climate Change Debate Thread

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,221
"I would say that extreme events are exactly what climate change is expected to cause"
You would only say that because the narrative shifted over the years and that's what it currently is. I used to just be warming (well before, that cooling). Then the warming stopped so the name changed and now literally anything can be blamed on this unproven theory of manmade CO2.

We had wilder hurricanes, droughts and floods, in the early 1900's. Nothing that's happening now is really out of the ordinary. Even CO2 at 400+ parts per million is not incredibly high, and the Earth is actually greening because of it.

The altering of data (as we also saw directly in the CLimategate scandal) shows that proving a warming trend is a political movement. I am disgusted and disappointed that the BOM an institution we should trust for scientific data would actually alter their figures. It brings up a lot major questions and potential problems.
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,945
No, that's bullshit. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The scientific community realized that global warming as a label was a misleading description of the phenomenon, and over time it started being referred to climate change for that reason.

If that had not happened, you'd be saying.. Pretty much exactly what you're saying anyway. That if it's unusually cold anywhere, that discredits climate change. Which is total bullshit.

In other words, people like you go "oh we are having extreme cold, global warming debunked". So more reasonable people become concerned that people don't grasp the problem. So a more accurate label is created. Then people like you go "see? They're changing the name because they know people see through their lies".


It's just as bullshit as the other typical retort, that if any extreme weather event ever happened in the past, even if it's happening far more frequently now it's discredited.
 

quiet roar

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
5,010
Attack the source when you have no argument or do not wish to face the facts.

If it's true what this person is saying, what would you say to that?
And if it's not true?
 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,221
If it's not true then happy days, their readings are accurate but evidence shows it is - and evidence shows in the Climategate emails that climate scientsts have altered data to push their narrative. There are other examples.

Why would they need to do that if they're being honest? Why would they be scared if the climate was getting colder?
 

Xorkoth

Sr. Mod: PD, TR, TDS, P&S
Staff member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
39,317
Location
Shadowmeister v0
Everything's a "-gate" with you.

I realize that doesn't address what you're saying.

Your facts are fake and you're swallowing the kool-aid and nothing you can say will convince me otherwise because I have facts, too.

That about sums up all these conversations, it's why they're frustrating and never go anywhere.
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,945
In fairness, no forum discussion goes anywhere.

Even in individual threads you can start at page 1, then zoom forward a year later to page 60 or so, and it's exactly the same arguments with the same counter arguments. It's always circular.

It happens because they're not properly structured arguments between preset groups of individuals. With nothing to keep the argument from flowing on its own inertia from one unsettled point to the next until old ones show up again. It just goes round and round with no progression.

Im not sure how you fix that, I'm not sure if it's possible to fix, I'm not even entirely certain it's a problem rather than the nature of informal discussion.

But it's not something unique to JGrimez by any means.
 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,221
Everything's a "-gate" with you.
"gate" just means scandal and you can go look into Climategate if you care about experts altering data.
Not many have really addressed this, now I'm just getting personal attacks.
 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,221
In fairness, no forum discussion goes anywhere.
I disagree, I put forth a lot of valuable (relative term) information here. I also learn things sometimes, and engaging in a debate (usually) makes one do extra research and verification of their claims. That's the idea behind forum discussion, anyway. I like how I get blamed for others being uninformed.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. And y'all are just ignoring the smoke (and focusing on carbon dioxide lel)
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,945
Grimez, is there any issue at all you've actually changed your mind about as a result of posting here?

And I don't mean "I used to love trump, now I REALLY love trump", I mean actually switching from one side of an issue to another.

Ever?
 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,221
lol I like Trump a lot less actually but that's due to his actions and less to what I've read here.

From when I first came to post in CEP back in the mid-2000s to now, my stances on many issues have changed quite dramatically.
But recently, no.
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,945
But has anyone ever changed your mind here?

I try very hard to make sure I've gone through all the arguments in what I believe, so it's rare I find someone makes an argument that actually causes me to change my mind.

But im not perfect, it has happened, and it has happened here.

One of the most notable examples I can think of is regarding the electoral college. I used to generally support the electoral college. But then someone here made an argument against it, one I hadn't properly considered, that I found I could not reconcile.

Since then, I've increasingly started to think that I was wrong, that the electoral college ultimately isn't supportable. I would say that I've flipped from general support, to mild disagreement. In other words, from one position to the opposite.

So it's rare, but I am open to changing my mind, and it has happened thanks to people here.

What I'm asking is has that ever happened to you, and is there ANY evidence that would truly change your mind to an entirely different position on say, trump obstructive justice or something.

Cause everything I've seen leads me to believe the answer is no. That there is nothing that could ever change your mind on most issues.
 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,221
That's just blatantly incorrect. These are personal attacks. I've stated many times that I've changed my stance on a number of issues., You say that I would never change my mind on most issues, Have I changed your mind on anything? I've taught you a lot but I'm afraid you did not bother to really listen.
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,945
You haven't answered my question though. I didn't ask if you'd ever changed your opinion in any way ever. I asked if you'd ever changed your opinion to the point of taking the opposition position on a subject as you used to, as a result of an argument or discussion here on bluelight.

That was the specific question I had, and I had it because I suspect that it's impossible to convince you no matter what the evidence says, and never having changed your mind would be consistent with that.

Oh and again, it seems super hypocritical that you'll post hours worth of YouTube videos for people to watch, and argue that I and others ignore the evidence you present, all the while refusing to read the mueller report. The very report you've repeatedly claimed was a witch hunt. But won't even look at it.
 

Pete556

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
2,182
Location
My manhole
does anyone here litter or always put their rubbish in a bin? I usually throw mine away u less someone is looking not proud to admit
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,945
does anyone here litter or always put their rubbish in a bin? I usually throw mine away u less someone is looking not proud to admit
I usually try not to litter. But yes I have littered with cigarette butts before. I've also on rare occasions when I couldn't see a better option improperly disposed of used needles. I don't mean by just leaving them for anyone to find, that's fucked up, I just mean by say, putting them (capped and usually with the needle destroyed) in an improper bin.

In that instance the problem was that I couldn't risk being searched and having needles be found. So I had to find a way to get rid of them quickly.

Apart from those rare exceptions I generally try not too litter as much as possible.
 

Derschieber

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
578
Location
western australia
The Climate Change Cult-Religion has made far too many prophecies that did not come to pass.
Politicians love this kind of non-sense, because it gives them the illusion of purpose. It is a tool politicians use to give the impression that we "need" them for our survival, when in fact they are virtually incapable of being productive, and thus being desperately dependent on us.

"Look everyone !! The world is coming to an end. You need US to fix this !!"

It's a good con with the tell-tale social justice add-on:

"If you don't vote for us (the saviors of the world), you're a bad person"

Politicians will keep this ball in the air for as long as there are foolish people who believe they can become good people by joining the cult.
In the mean time, useless politicians are growing fat on our money, whilst laughing at us, behind closed doors.
 
Last edited:

Derschieber

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
578
Location
western australia
If all you eco-warriors still haven't figured out just how badly you are being played like a fiddle, take a look back to where the insanity started:

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

June 30, 1989

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

Feeling foolish yet?
If so, there is hope for you yet.

Continue reading about your End-of-the-world doomsday cult here:
 
Last edited:

Pete556

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
2,182
Location
My manhole
If all you eco-warriors still haven't figured out just how badly you are being played like a fiddle, take a look back to where the (your) insanity started:

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

June 30, 1989

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

Feeling foolish yet?
If so, there is hope for you yet.

Continue reading about your End-of-the-world doomsday cult here:
I like your passion you remind me so much of a friend of mine lovely black lady she can be a bit direct for some peoples liking though lol :)
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,945
If all you eco-warriors still haven't figured out just how badly you are being played like a fiddle, take a look back to where the insanity started:

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

June 30, 1989

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

Feeling foolish yet?
If so, there is hope for you yet.

Continue reading about your End-of-the-world doomsday cult here:
This is kinda a logical fallacy.

It argues that because one person makes a bad argument for a position, then the position itself is discredited. It is in fact possible to make an alarmist and inaccurate argument for a correct position.

People who aren't scientists frequently make passionate, sometimes even alarmist arguments for a generally correct scientific position. That doesn't make the underlying position invalid.

It's the science and scientists (specifically ones who work in the relevent field, in this case climatology) that people should listen to.

You're taking one guy making alarmist predictions and saying "see they were wrong, therefore the entire position is wrong!". But that's just silly.
 
Top