Climate change has won out over Global Warming

[JEDI]

it used to be global warming.

now it's climate change.

all the news channels are saying climate change now, instead of what it really is... global warming.

Why cant the dems ever counter the repubs word factory? 🙁
(ie: they lost to partial birth abortions too)

 

[sandorski]

It's both actually, but they are not inter-changeable or exactly the same thing. Just 2 closely related phenomena.

 

[Vic]

I wonder, instead of this slight warming trend, would you prefer a new Ice Age? The last one ended only 0.00000267% of the earth's age ago. Oh wait, that's right... you're a "denier" if you actually have scientific/geological understanding that the earth isn't static.

Here's a tip, OP: global warming isn't a political phenomenon. So quit trolling.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Vic
I wonder, instead of this slight warming trend, would you prefer a new Ice Age? The last one ended only 0.00000267% of the earth's age ago. Oh wait, that's right... you're a "denier" if you actually have scientific/geological understanding that the earth isn't static.

Here's a tip, OP: global warming isn't a political phenomenon. So quit trolling.

No, no ice age or increase. We're perfect now. Every single country, every point on every map is at the perfect temperature. For us to deviate from this spells unmeasurable disaster for us all.

 

[charrison]

Actually it is a win by the Gw proponents as they dont have to rely of warming actually happening. They can now blame any unusual weather events on what used to be know as global warming.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Vic
I wonder, instead of this slight warming trend, would you prefer a new Ice Age? The last one ended only 0.00000267% of the earth's age ago. Oh wait, that's right... you're a "denier" if you actually have scientific/geological understanding that the earth isn't static.

Here's a tip, OP: global warming isn't a political phenomenon. So quit trolling.

No, no ice age or increase. We're perfect now. Every single country, every point on every map is at the perfect temperature. For us to deviate from this spells unmeasurable disaster for us all.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. The only problem with this thinking is that it would require additional intervention, except this time, instead of by accident, with the assumption that we possess god-like powers to accurately control our environment. Of course, we don't, so the only possible result would be disaster.

BTW, referring to your sig, carbon credits are even worse than hypocrisy. It's the new fascist markets. Virtually everything consumable has carbon in it, so everyone would be required to purchase offset credits whenever they buy or sell, with commissions going to the carbon brokers for every transaction. The whole scheme would make Visa/MC look like child's play.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: JEDI
it used to be global warming.

now it's climate change.

all the news channels are saying climate change now, instead of what it really is... global warming.

Why cant the dems ever counter the repubs word factory? 🙁
(ie: they lost to partial birth abortions too)

I guess i missed what this has to do with Republicans.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Vic
I wonder, instead of this slight warming trend, would you prefer a new Ice Age? The last one ended only 0.00000267% of the earth's age ago. Oh wait, that's right... you're a "denier" if you actually have scientific/geological understanding that the earth isn't static.

Here's a tip, OP: global warming isn't a political phenomenon. So quit trolling.

No, no ice age or increase. We're perfect now. Every single country, every point on every map is at the perfect temperature. For us to deviate from this spells unmeasurable disaster for us all.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. The only problem with this thinking is that it would require additional intervention, except this time, instead of by accident, with the assumption that we possess god-like powers to accurately control our environment. Of course, we don't, so the only possible result would be disaster.

BTW, referring to your sig, carbon credits are even worse than hypocrisy. It's the new fascist markets. Virtually everything consumable has carbon in it, so everyone would be required to purchase offset credits whenever they buy or sell, with commissions going to the carbon brokers for every transaction. The whole scheme would make Visa/MC look like child's play.

Oh, quite sarcastic 🙂

I think CC are crap because a person who buys them is still wantonly burning up filth regardless. They're a bit like feeding somebody who's starving to death to atone for murdering somebody else. Why not feed that person and NOT murder somebody else? Even if CC in theory were worth a damn, there is no reason the person who's buying them could not at the same time fly on commercial jets or live in a 3k instead of 12k square foot house.

In regards to the rest, oil is used in plastics and fertilizers and everything, I can see that we'd need to start paying a percentage on everything if we wanted to go down that road.

 

[Jeff7]

I thought proponents of global warming theory wanted it called "climate change." People hear "global warming" and immediately assume that it will be 120 degrees in the middle of winter in Alaska, and down south, you won't have to worry about E. Coli, because it'll be over 160F at noon. People hear "warming" and think it'll feel really hot everywhere. GW just means an increase of a few degrees Fahrenheit in the world's average temperature.
"Climate change" refers to the same process, and does so (hopefully) without causing such widespread confusion.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I thought proponents of global warming theory wanted it called "climate change." People hear "global warming" and immediately assume that it will be 120 degrees in the middle of winter in Alaska, and down south, you won't have to worry about E. Coli, because it'll be over 160F at noon. People hear "warming" and think it'll feel really hot everywhere. GW just means an increase of a few degrees Fahrenheit in the world's average temperature.
"Climate change" refers to the same process, and does so (hopefully) without causing such widespread confusion.

Exactly, I think both groups of people got it wrong so far. It's not yet another example of conservatives subverting language to get their way, and it's not an example of liberals being intentionally vague because it makes their argument easier.

"Climate change" is a more accurate phrase to describe what's happening, end of story.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Vic
I wonder, instead of this slight warming trend, would you prefer a new Ice Age? The last one ended only 0.00000267% of the earth's age ago. Oh wait, that's right... you're a "denier" if you actually have scientific/geological understanding that the earth isn't static.

Here's a tip, OP: global warming isn't a political phenomenon. So quit trolling.

very well said!!:thumbsup:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I thought proponents of global warming theory wanted it called "climate change." People hear "global warming" and immediately assume that it will be 120 degrees in the middle of winter in Alaska, and down south, you won't have to worry about E. Coli, because it'll be over 160F at noon. People hear "warming" and think it'll feel really hot everywhere. GW just means an increase of a few degrees Fahrenheit in the world's average temperature.
"Climate change" refers to the same process, and does so (hopefully) without causing such widespread confusion.

Exactly, I think both groups of people got it wrong so far. It's not yet another example of conservatives subverting language to get their way, and it's not an example of liberals being intentionally vague because it makes their argument easier.

"Climate change" is a more accurate phrase to describe what's happening, end of story.

The only problem is, climate here on earth has never been static.

So now, any usualy weather gets blamed on this climate change.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I thought proponents of global warming theory wanted it called "climate change." People hear "global warming" and immediately assume that it will be 120 degrees in the middle of winter in Alaska, and down south, you won't have to worry about E. Coli, because it'll be over 160F at noon. People hear "warming" and think it'll feel really hot everywhere. GW just means an increase of a few degrees Fahrenheit in the world's average temperature.
"Climate change" refers to the same process, and does so (hopefully) without causing such widespread confusion.

Exactly, I think both groups of people got it wrong so far. It's not yet another example of conservatives subverting language to get their way, and it's not an example of liberals being intentionally vague because it makes their argument easier.

"Climate change" is a more accurate phrase to describe what's happening, end of story.

The only problem is, climate here on earth has never been static.

So now, any usualy weather gets blamed on this climate change.

Ah yes, I forgot that particular rule of science...things are only true if they DON'T allow your ideological opponents to make convenient arguments. :roll:

You're right, it does allow people who don't know what they are talking about to blame EVERY bit of weather on climate change. But that's a political problem, science doesn't care. It's too bad, but it has nothing to do with the truth of that statement.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I thought proponents of global warming theory wanted it called "climate change." People hear "global warming" and immediately assume that it will be 120 degrees in the middle of winter in Alaska, and down south, you won't have to worry about E. Coli, because it'll be over 160F at noon. People hear "warming" and think it'll feel really hot everywhere. GW just means an increase of a few degrees Fahrenheit in the world's average temperature.
"Climate change" refers to the same process, and does so (hopefully) without causing such widespread confusion.

Exactly, I think both groups of people got it wrong so far. It's not yet another example of conservatives subverting language to get their way, and it's not an example of liberals being intentionally vague because it makes their argument easier.

"Climate change" is a more accurate phrase to describe what's happening, end of story.

The only problem is, climate here on earth has never been static.

So now, any usualy weather gets blamed on this climate change.

Ah yes, I forgot that particular rule of science...things are only true if they DON'T allow your ideological opponents to make convenient arguments. :roll:

You're right, it does allow people who don't know what they are talking about to blame EVERY bit of weather on climate change. But that's a political problem, science doesn't care. It's too bad, but it has nothing to do with the truth of that statement.

However on the problems is that science end of GW is doing nothing to contain these problems. No, they are using to further advance their agendas. Take the hurricanes for an exampled. We have had two quiet hurricane seasons, when katrina type storms were supposed to be the norm. Al gores movie tells us that the oceans will 20 feet, but even the IPCC say worst case we are looking at 18 inch rise.


Then no one can even say if a warming of the earth is even going to be a bad thing.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: charrison
Then no one can even say if a warming of the earth is even going to be a bad thing.

We can certainly say it has happened before and will happen again. With or without our existence.

 

[IGBT]

..yes. now if we can only get an alaskan inuit girl to show up in front of congress and cry on command and blubber on about global cooling.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I thought proponents of global warming theory wanted it called "climate change." People hear "global warming" and immediately assume that it will be 120 degrees in the middle of winter in Alaska, and down south, you won't have to worry about E. Coli, because it'll be over 160F at noon. People hear "warming" and think it'll feel really hot everywhere. GW just means an increase of a few degrees Fahrenheit in the world's average temperature.
"Climate change" refers to the same process, and does so (hopefully) without causing such widespread confusion.

There's a flip side to that argument which has also been proposed. People stuck in Alaska, or the central northern states, or the northeast, during the winter will bow down and thank God when global warming comes and makes it a little less harsh. Warm is a soothing word; it reminds us of cups of cocoa, sitting in front of the fire place, wrapped in a blanket. It is comforting, and that it would happen on a global scale is grand. People who understood the true ramifications of global warming were worried that the term was, if anything, not terrifying enough, so they proposed "catastrophic climate change (which conveniently got them out of trying to explain how global warming could trigger an ice age; scientifically a sound theory, but the terminology just doesn't mesh for most people)."

Climate change is a more sensible term to use in discussions about the long term effects of global warming, because despite the present upward trend in average temperatures, the effects of a melting ice cap at one or both poles, or the interruption of ocean currents, is guesswork at best, and generally seems to suggest that the Earth, or portions of it, will get very cold, very quickly.

 

[yllus]

I have to join Jeff7 on this. I thought the push to change the terminology to "climate change", something I feel is much more appropriate, was being driven by the pro-GW theory camp.

P.S. Global warming saves lives. (More of a provocative statement to spark discussion than a fact.)

 

[Starbuck1975]

Isn't this just a semantics game...isn't global warming simply a subset of the category climate change?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: charrison
Actually it is a win by the Gw proponents as they dont have to rely of warming actually happening. They can now blame any unusual weather events on what used to be know as global warming.

100% on the money with that comment.

Much easier to prove climate change than global warming.