• 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

swilow

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
31,754
Location
Your double slit
You cannot back up any of your claims and you expose how little you know of this subject, and are just following people that you don't truly understand. It's weird
More ad homs?

I'm not going waste time proving I know a little about the subject to you specifically because I'm not going to change your mind. You can take that as an admission of some sort but I'm being genuine, I cannot be bothered doing something that is pointless.

Stop deflecting and ignoring questions by hypocritically leveling ad homs at me.
Well, I'm not sure where I insulted you but I certainly didn't intend to. My apologies for whatever it was.

Again, I don't feel any need to answer your questions tbh. Why should I? What point will that serve? I've tried and you just call the science fake.

You are making claims in this thread and I'm going to rebut them in the laziest way possible and I'm not gonna hunt around googling for sources or whatever for this argument. There is no point with you.

Well first you need to show that you actually understand what you're claiming, before you can even think of changing anyone's mind.
But I'm not trying to change your mind. How many times do I need to say that?

Are you going to comment on Mann vs Ball?
Are you going to give me the name of one climate scientist that you support?
Are you going to comment on the post above regarding denying poor children access to cheap energies which will result in their deaths?
To all of that, no. They are red herrings that do nothing to prove your ice age hypothesis and aim ONLY to try and expose MY own ignorance. Not the fallibility of the AGW argument or even criticising the science behind it or backing up your claim. You're trying to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about as if that will disprove AGW but the debate is about climate change, not me.

You just focus obsessively on the proponent of an argument.
 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,221
-
Again, I don't feel any need to answer your questions tbh. Why should I? What point will that serve? I've tried and you just call the science fake.
Some of it is fake. Either the science you're pushing or the science I'm pushing is fake because they conflict, would you agree?
Well you know a court of a law is a good place to duke it out.
The climate denier won a case against the global warming scientist - who refused to present his science in court.
Do you think this is noteworthy or remarkable at all? I'm going to assume you'll say no - because it directly opposes your narrative of good scientists presenting good science.
You've got nothing to say here so you ignore it.

But I'm not trying to change your mind. How many times do I need to say that?
I just want you to be brave and honest enough with how much you actually understand, and how exactly you have come to form your opinions.

To all of that, no. They are red herrings that do nothing to prove your ice age hypothesis
This is a separate issue. Now you're conflating issues. Mann vs Ball further shows AGW science is questionable. The second question is because I'd like to know which scientists you follow (since you claim to follow scientists) which has led to you forming your opinions. The last issue is regarding how much you care for the world and the poor people. Because I believe people like yourself are ignorantly hypocritical, on one hand you're pushing climate change because you claim to care about the world and the people living on it, yet you will ignore the direct deaths that will occur as a result of you pushing climate change energy "solutions".

Not the fallibility of the AGW argument or even criticising the science behind it or backing up your claim.
This is a direct lie. What do you think the court case is about? it's about the fallibility of the AGW argument, and the climate change proponent was bluffing. He couldn't back up his claims with science. The only explanation is that he's been lying and pushing fake science that he didn't want to introduce to the courts, and so he lost the case.

You're trying to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about as if that will disprove AGW but the debate is about climate change, not me.
No this won't disprove the AGW agenda as I've debated with people who are much more proficient in maths and science and they will push AGW. I just believe that the vast majority of people who push this climate change stuff have very little idea what they're talking about, and are almost completely oblivious to the politics involved. I've discussed this with you for a while and presented a ton of information, so there's no excuse for you to remain ignorant on this issue.

You just focus obsessively on the proponent of an argument.
I don't care about you. I don't know anything about you, apart from your knowledge regarding the issue of AGW.
 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,221
is that all you guys got out of my posts? 😂

Alasdairm can you name one climate scientist that that you follow the work of?
 

Xorkoth

Sr. Mod: PD, TR, TDS, P&S
Staff member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
39,317
Location
Shadowmeister v0
Only 38% Of Americans Believe Humans Mainly Responsible For Climate Change
If I didn't know who was posting this I would assume they were trying to suggest that Americans are ignorant and easily misled. Especially because the quote it highlights is about how America has the largest percentage of outright climate change deniers. And, I totally agree with that assessment. I don't see how it helps your stance though.
 

alasdairm

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
60,921
Location
south lake tahoe, ca
Alasdairm can you name one climate scientist that that you follow the work of?
no thanks. i could but i won't.

you told me a little while ago that you think i don't believe what i am writing or that i am just lying. you've already made up your mind - hugely ironic as that is. there's no point discussing anything with you because you don't sincerely want or respect my answer.

alasdair
 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,221
If I didn't know who was posting this I would assume they were trying to suggest that Americans are ignorant and easily misled. Especially because the quote it highlights is about how America has the largest percentage of outright climate change deniers. And, I totally agree with that assessment. I don't see how it helps your stance though.
I'm just providing information, make of it what you will.
Norwegians are pretty switched on and they have a relatively high % of people doubting AGW.
But I'm not putting much sway into this polling.
 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,221
you told me a little while ago that you think i don't believe what i am writing or that i am just lying. you've already made up your mind - hugely ironic as that is. there's no point discussing anything with you because you don't sincerely want or respect my answer.
I've never said that everything you say is a lie, I just find many people (consciously or unconsciously) lie to protect their political ideology or tribe and refuse to admit when they've been wrong. I was wrong about Trump, you were right that he conned the public, I disagree with you on the intricacies and details of said con but overall I agree with that assessment based on what's happened (or hasn't happened) lately.

What you've said in this post I just view as a dodge. I don't think you have a thorough understanding of AGW or the politics involved. Obviously you're still free to chime and comment, but I also wanted to know from which sources (and specifically climate scientists) you are basing your opinions from.

Are you a fan of Michael Mann's climate work?
 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,221
That’s the purpose of this forum; you’re not the arbiter of anything here.
I wasn't pulling rank over you lol didn't mean to come across as possessing some kind of authority! I am just a lowly climate change-denying peasant, please take mercy on me O Venerable Leader of Forums.
 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,221
Screenshot_20190920-005218_YouTube.jpg

Only July 25th 2019, southern England experienced a very hot day and climate experts declared it to be "the new normal".
Sounds really bad hope the poms will be OK.

But let's look at the actual data from the Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia, the longest running temperature data-set in the world.
The graph compares the average daily max temperature in 1976 and this summer. The graph runs from June 1st to the end of August.

You can see there was a short heatwave and a very hot day this year on July 25 - 1 degree warmer than the hottest day in 1976 - but the heatwave of 1976 was much longer and the average temperature during the summer of 1976 was 5*F warmer than this summer.
In fact, other than 3 short heatwaves this summer (end of June, end of July, end of August), England wasn't hot at all this summer. Unlike the summer of '76 when they had several protracted heatwaves. (The summer of 1976 was probably the hottest and driest summer on record in England)

What kind of junk science and irrational thinking could have led anyone to believe that this one hot day on July 25th was the new normal?
Maybe the Independent made the story up as the press does all the time and no climate experts actually said that. But then there's been no outcry form the climate science community. Why not?
Because if a climate scientist were to speak up correcting this misrepresentation then they would lose their funding and their career would be destroyed.
 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,221
‘Climate Change’ is a continuation of the Cold War
-Ed Hoskins

Never forget that the Climate Change thing is a continuation of the Cold War and that Russia, China and even India are laughing at the West for the way it is destroying its energy economy to their benefit.

Understand that a nil operating margin for electricity generation in a developed economy is an existential National Emergency.

Understand that a coming Ice Age, to whatever degree, is the climate catastrophe that really is worthy of concern for future generations.

The reversion to a Little Ice Age is predicted for the near future, (within decades), and a Real Ice Age could well return this century, next century or this millennium.

In spite of the vast establishment that has been created to support Green policies and the resulting huge and probably unnecessary expenditures and the increased existential National economic risks, realise that even if Man-made Global Warming / Climate Change were a problem, it could not be effectively addressed by damaging the economies of the Developed World in attempting to control their emissions of CO2.

Understand that there is no Catastrophic risk from Anthropogenic Global Warming.

The major error is the conflation of man-made atmospheric CO2 with other truly toxic pollutants.

Atmospheric CO2 is after all plant food, the very stuff of life.

UK Energy and Climate Change Policy: 2017
 
Top