[Theory]
Clydemutt change isnt real - Printable Version+- Lookism (https://bookism.net)
+-- Forum: Lookism Forums (https://bookism.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Shitty Advice (https://bookism.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread:
[Theory]
Clydemutt change isnt real (/showthread.php?tid=45691)Clydemutt change isnt real - Ropium - 17-01-2026
Any more than tidal change or gravitational change are real. It's just called the tide or the climate. The nature of climate is to constantly be changing on a micro and macro level depending on time scale.
Qed. Midwits defeated once again
RE: Clydemutt change isnt real - Iblameher - 17-01-2026
Your claim is basically:
1. “Only tidal/gravitational changes are real changes.”
2. “Everything else is just ‘the tide’ or ‘the climate’.”
3. “Climate always changes anyway, therefore nothing special is happening.”
That’s not a proof. It’s a word game that tries to *define away* evidence.
Here’s the disproof.
---
## 1) “Real change” ≠ “only gravitational/tidal change”
This is instantly false because plenty of changes are real that have nothing to do with tides:
* Earth’s **axial tilt** varies (Milankovitch cycles)
* **Solar irradiance** varies
* **Volcanic aerosols** cool climate
* **Greenhouse gas concentrations** change (CO₂, CH₄)
* **Albedo** changes (ice cover, land use)
* **Ocean circulation** shifts (ENSO, AMOC variation)
None of those are “tidal change,” and all produce measurable physical changes.
So premise (1) is dead.
---
## 2) “It’s just called the climate” is not an argument
Saying “it’s the climate” is like saying:
* “People die all the time, so no specific death has a cause.”
Climate being variable does **not** imply every change is just natural baseline noise. That’s a classic fallacy: **appeal to nature** + **equivocation**.
If variability alone invalidated causation, then medicine would be impossible because bodies “always change.”
---
## 3) You’re smuggling in a false conclusion: “constant change” ⇒ “no external forcing matters”
Climate does naturally vary.
But what matters scientifically is:
* **magnitude**
* **rate**
* **pattern**
* **mechanism (forcing)**
Example:
A person’s weight fluctuates naturally every day.
That doesn’t mean a sudden, sustained +30kg in 6 months is “just weight doing weight things.”
Same with climate.
---
## 4) If your argument were valid, prediction would be impossible
But prediction works.
We predicted decades ago that increasing greenhouse gases would cause:
* warming of the lower atmosphere
* cooling of the stratosphere
* increased ocean heat content
* more downward infrared radiation at the surface
* warming nights faster than days (often)
* Arctic warming faster than global average
Those are not “tide” signatures. Those are signatures of greenhouse forcing.
If “it’s always changing” were enough to dismiss causation, these structured fingerprints wouldn’t exist — but they do.
---
## 5) Tides are not even the dominant driver of climate trends
Tides redistribute ocean water and energy locally and cyclically, but they do not generate a persistent multi-decade global temperature trend.
Tidal forcing is periodic. What we see is a sustained long-term energy imbalance:
the Earth system accumulating heat, mostly in the oceans.
A periodic cause doesn’t produce monotonic accumulation unless something is changing in the system’s radiative balance.
---
## 6) Your “QED” is invalid (formally)
A valid proof needs:
* clear definitions
* premises that are true
* reasoning that actually implies the conclusion
Your “QED” is just a rhetorical mic-drop after redefining “change” so that only one type counts.
That’s not logic. That’s **special pleading**: narrowing the definition of “real change” to exclude inconvenient categories.
---
### Bottom line
Climate changes naturally.
That does not mean **all** observed changes are explained by natural variability, tides, or gravity.
Your statement fails at the premise level and commits mult
iple fallacies.
If you want, I can also refute it in a more formal logic format (premises → contradiction).
RE: Clydemutt change isnt real - Ropium - 17-01-2026
Imagine bankrupting entire local governments and entire nation states for decades if not centuries from wind and solar farms and other scams because you think humans can control natural processes that have been going on uninterrupted for billions of years by driving electric cars around
RE: Clydemutt change isnt real - sinn - 17-01-2026
why does the brown keep posting idiot responses? somebody needs to shut him up
good thread BTW
RE: Clydemutt change isnt real - Altruist - 17-01-2026
(17-01-2026, 05:42 AM)Ropium Wrote: Imagine bankrupting entire local governments and entire nation states for decades if not centuries from wind and solar farms and other scams because you think humans can control natural processes that have been going on uninterrupted for billions of years by driving electric cars around
i love it when new accounts make posts this retarded early on, so i can block them and spare myself of extreme second hand embarrassment
RE: Clydemutt change isnt real - Paracelsus - 17-01-2026
(17-01-2026, 05:42 AM)Ropium Wrote: Imagine bankrupting entire local governments and entire nation states for decades if not centuries from wind and solar farms and other scams because you think humans can control natural processes that have been going on uninterrupted for billions of years by driving electric cars around
you are a goy