• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Why arent Climate Change protesters using the phrase 'Global Warming' instead?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,057
4,128
136
Ah, yes... because your post equating Epstein to conservatives was just so meaningful and insightful. Definitely not a delusional attempt to associate your political opponents with something nasty at all.

Should just stick to calling them Nazis if you're going to be this shameless about it. ;)
Whoosh
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandorski

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
23,960
737
126
Yep. You're so deep I thought I was cutting through the BS when I really just didn't understand. Got it. Everyone can see that *I'm* the one who should feel shame here. Understood, captain.

I encourage everyone to read our exchange so that they can laugh at me for my misunderstanding and mischaracterization. I'm sure they will all agree with you (to my *endless* shame).
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,505
3,008
126
because with climate change, anything goes. what they really mean is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming but since that really has not occurred, they needed to coopt another term.
...what they really mean is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming but since that really has not occurred...
...global warming but since that really has not occurred...
...that really has not occurred...
Uhh, this isn't supposed to be a rorschach test but please... do tell.

 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
11,844
6,299
136
Someone posted this link in another thread yesterday, which answers this exact question.


Bad Argument/Myth #4: Global warming wasn’t happening so they changed to name to climate change

Reality: Scientists have been talking about climate change since day one. They changed the name because the term “global warming” is misleading and was leading to faulty arguments (like #1 and 2). The planet is warming on average, but climate change is also about shifts in rainfall patterns, sea level changes, ocean current changes, etc., not just warming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Commodus

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,093
991
136
I see your charts and raise you two more.






Looks much less impressive once you pull back a bit, don't it?
Yes, if only the climate scientists had thought to look at a longer time scale the entire body of scientists wouldn't have screwed up and come to the conclusion that humans are causing unprecedented warming with likely catastrophic consequences if left unchecked. Scientists are so fucking stupid. You should publish this in Nature.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and dank69

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
Yes, if only the climate scientists had thought to look at a longer time scale the entire body of scientists wouldn't have screwed up and come to the conclusion that humans are causing unprecedented warming with likely catastrophic consequences if left unchecked. Scientists are so fucking stupid. You should publish this in Nature.

I'd be fine with allowing your side to do whatever you wanted to fight climate change *IF* we could make some kind of binding agreement that you couldn't increase social welfare spending or taxes to cover up the pain and economic disruption you cause.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,210
456
126
Using “climate change” makes it not falsifiable unlike “global warming” due to locally observed natural and expected variation.

An advanced scientific understanding of life is normally pursued by people of high intelligence and involve the mastery of difficult material. The average person lacks the training to think scientifically, but because ignorant people, having no idea how ignorant they are, assume that climate is what is ourside their own front door. They imagine that if you called global warming global warming instead of climate change, every time it got cold outside would disprove the theory. Conservatives especially fall for this kind of low level thinking, and like most ignoramuses are very much self impressed by that thinking. But you know how it goes. A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
And these same people of high intelligence that used their mastery of difficult material like psychological manipulation are the ones that brainwashed the so called ignoramuses into the rampant polluting consumerism and self first lifestyle that has finally caught up to society and humanity at large,

now these self-proclaimed high intelligence hypocritical bastards realizing the effects of the pollution uninhibited consumerism creates, of which climate change is but one of many, want to stay in their ivory towers of ill-gotten gains while the deplorables have to sacrifice for the good of humanity.

After all it's the so called intelligent that invent the sophisticated schemes to fleece the little people as well as the machinery, methods, and wars to keep them in check, and when it all goes south on them just like poor management blaming the workers they point the finger at those beneath them.




 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
7,883
4,876
136
I'd be fine with allowing your side to do whatever you wanted to fight climate change *IF* we could make some kind of binding agreement that you couldn't increase social welfare spending or taxes to cover up the pain and economic disruption you cause.
Er... what? There will be a whole lot more pain and economic disruption if climate change goes unchecked. And this would effectively put freezes on social welfare spending and tax hikes across the board, since the right wing could just claim that any increases were due to climate change even if they were necessary for other measures.

Besides, this is the planet we're talking about. You do whatever it takes to keep human-made climate change within reasonable levels, because you don't get a re-do if you flood coastal cities or wipe out species that depend on a delicate climate balance. The notion that the right wing should be allowed to hold Earth hostage for a lower tax bill is ridiculous.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,512
3,264
126
And these same people of high intelligence that used their mastery of difficult material like psychological manipulation are the ones that brainwashed the so called ignoramuses into the rampant polluting consumerism and ................
What you are calling intelligence here isn't intelligence at all it's self destructive cunning. It is the product of arrested emotional development that leaves insatiable hunger instead of one's birthright, the infinite joy of being.

One of the minds greatest pleasures, made innate via evolution, is the satisfaction of curiosity raised by a childlike questioning mind the desire to know and master, and that can happen in true form only via inner honesty. This honesty is called the love of truth. It is that that drives the scientific mind that I describe. It is a joy that creates satisfaction out of curiosity rather than driven by insatiable lust. Intelligence as I describe it is feeling, the drive to know the peek experience of self actualization and self realization. When this is blocked by self doubt and self hate, there is cynicism and bitterness. All you ever hoped for, all you ever longed to see, all you aspired to and ever hoped could be,,,,,,, are real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,093
991
136
I'd be fine with allowing your side to do whatever you wanted to fight climate change *IF* we could make some kind of binding agreement that you couldn't increase social welfare spending or taxes to cover up the pain and economic disruption you cause.
And that is what makes you stupid. You are unwilling to support the nation allocating any resources to address what most scientists agree is the most pressing issue facing humanity.

I mean, I'd hate to disrupt the economy.


"A recent report examined how climate change could affect 22 different sectors of the economy under two different scenarios: if global temperatures rose 2.8˚ C from pre-industrial levels by 2100, and if they increased by 4.5˚ C. The study projected that if the higher-temperature scenario prevails, climate change impacts on these 22 sectors could cost the U.S. $520 billion each year. If we can keep to 2.8˚ C, it would cost $224 billion less. In any case, the U.S. stands to suffer large economic losses due to climate change, second only to India, according to another study."

But hey, that isn't for like 80 years. Fuck you, got mine, right. Oh wait.

"We are already seeing the economic impacts of the changing climate. According to Morgan Stanley, climate disasters have cost North America $415 billion in the last three years, much of that due to wildfires and hurricanes."

Well shit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,204
126
I call because your 2.3% is a losing hand.


Here’s the ocean heating.


Well it's clear that he has no scientific education sufficient to interpret worth a hill of beans. I can randomly pick a graph going back to the beginning of the universe, and my wasn't that a hot time back then!

What he doesn't dare do is go back to times where it is possible to have a significant impact and move forward. Note the continuing trend post WWII and counters with information about the ice age.

I'm convinced that the majority of deniers and apologists are ill equipped to grasp the basics much less the more complex aspects or their self interests prevents its application. I would have thought that Glenn was advanced enough in match to not go and dust off an old copy of "How to Lie with Stastics".

They don't understand what modeling is and science is of necessity a process of modeling, never reaching an "absolute".

That we haven't a complete understanding of gravity does not mean that uncertainty allows for a reasonable chance of survival when jumping off a high cliff but some argue that we should because of economic concerns.

God help us if one of them starts a discussion on the finer parts of the quantum realm. The mentality exhibited must insist that "flavor" is impossible as it has no equivalent in "reality" they accept, just like the consequences of retained heat.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,204
126
I'd be fine with allowing your side to do whatever you wanted to fight climate change *IF* we could make some kind of binding agreement that you couldn't increase social welfare spending or taxes to cover up the pain and economic disruption you cause.
Translation- I agree that I'll let you avoid or mitigate extinction-level catastrophes if you don't raise my taxes.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
Translation- I agree that I'll let you avoid or mitigate extinction-level catastrophes if you don't raise my taxes.
That's kinda the point of the pro-climate change side efforts. It isn't about building windmills, it's about wealth redistribution. That's what my comment refers to, most of the left would lose interest in the project otherwise.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,204
126
That's kinda the point of the pro-climate change side efforts. It isn't about building windmills, it's about wealth redistribution. That's what my comment refers to, most of the left would lose interest in the project otherwise.
But you said it explicitly. There is ducking it, the money is more important to you than anything else. As far as people who aren't sincere? Well the science doesn't care and if they stay out of the way that's good enough.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
But you said it explicitly. There is ducking it, the money is more important to you than anything else. As far as people who aren't sincere? Well the science doesn't care and if they stay out of the way that's good enough.
“Mitigating climate change” is about money when you remove the distractions. No one cares if their car runs on gasoline or fairy dust so long as they can still afford a car after you put in the regulations you seek.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,204
126
“Mitigating climate change” is about money when you remove the distractions. No one cares if their car runs on gasoline or fairy dust so long as they can still afford a car after you put in the regulations you seek.
Replace their cars.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,027
4,772
126
I'd be fine with allowing your side to do whatever you wanted to fight climate change *IF* we could make some kind of binding agreement that you couldn't increase social welfare spending or taxes to cover up the pain and economic disruption you cause.
the people who've dumped their waste products into the atmosphere shouldn't have to pay to clean up the mess they've made
-- glenn1, personal responsibility advocate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,289
3,499
136
I'd be fine with allowing your side to do whatever you wanted to fight climate change *IF* we could make some kind of binding agreement that you couldn't increase social welfare spending or taxes to cover up the pain and economic disruption you cause.
Always about the money. Please never change.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,512
139
106
Uhh, this isn't supposed to be a rorschach test but please... do tell.

you forgot the catastrophic part. so show me the catastrophe that has occurred and I will change my mind. otherwise, all I have seen is some generally mildly benevolent warming out of the LIA and not yet reaching the MWP or RWP let along the HCO.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,093
991
136
you forgot the catastrophic part. so show me the catastrophe that has occurred and I will change my mind. otherwise, all I have seen is some generally mildly benevolent warming out of the LIA and not yet reaching the MWP or RWP let along the HCO.
Wait, so you want to wait until after the catastrophe before we start to do anything? That sounds really backwards to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandorski

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,064
2,553
126
the moniker 'Climate Change' was created by those that wanted to minimize the issue.

Why isn't Global Warming used anymore, even by protesters?
I agree. Global warming it is for me!

Actually, I call it the global warming crisis. The word CRISIS in this is critical. I've been talking about it on my radio show, played a bunch or relevant music too.
 

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
15,197
2,171
55
I agree. Global warming it is for me!

Actually, I call it the global warming crisis. The word CRISIS in this is critical. I've been talking about it on my radio show, played a bunch or relevant music too.
Yes, I wonder why they haven't latched on to "crisis" more. Maybe it sounds too much like "Crysis"? :confused:



And thus gives the impression of a "climate Crysis" being about global cooling or something?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY