Why is it still called Climate Change instead of Global Warming?

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: grohl
Since global warming has been proven to be untrue and a farce? Just guessing.

:roll:

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: grohl
Since global warming has been proven to be untrue and a farce? Just guessing.

/facepalm

:laugh: Awww... can't be bothered to defend your cult?

Why waste their breath, you two are too indoctrinated by your own to even bother.

 

[DrPizza]

I propose this: Since everyone on both sides is so convinced they're right, we put our money where our mouths are. We agree on some set of rules as to what would constitute definitive proof, and all put some cash into some sort of escrow account. Then, we shut the hell up about the topic for 5 years, since no one is convincing anyone, and 1/2 the people these threads get 95% of their science facts from listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity, or some other loud mouth. 5 years from now, we look to see if there's proof. If so, winning side gets to split the pot in the proportions they put on the wager. I'm in for $100 on global warming.

 

[OCGuy]

So no matter what happens, they can appear to be correct.



Abnormally cold day? CLIMATE CHANGE!


Abnormally hot day? CLIMATE CHANGE!

 

[Underclocked]

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-c...arlin-Final-Report.pdf

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I propose this: Since everyone on both sides is so convinced they're right, we put our money where our mouths are. We agree on some set of rules as to what would constitute definitive proof, and all put some cash into some sort of escrow account. Then, we shut the hell up about the topic for 5 years, since no one is convincing anyone, and 1/2 the people these threads get 95% of their science facts from listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity, or some other loud mouth. 5 years from now, we look to see if there's proof. If so, winning side gets to split the pot in the proportions they put on the wager. I'm in for $100 on global warming.

Yet what are you doing to combat climate change? Shut off your computer, stop using your car, and turn off your A/C. Put up or shut up. Oh, wait. Thats right. You only want OTHER people to change.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: grohl
Since global warming has been proven to be untrue and a farce? Just guessing.

/facepalm

No after many of their conferences on gobal warming were snowed out they decided that they looked like arrogant turds predicting warming just so they can make a buck.

It's all about Money for Gore. Follow the money trail. It's all a marketing scheme to sell green products that have little or zero marketability unless they are mandated by the government.

Facepalm all you want Look Where Gore is dumping his resources in. Go Look at his house, jets, cars, lifestyle... guy is an energy animal.

Yes, I'm sure you're totally correct.

Your post definitely makes me want to facepalm some more though.

shocking post!

Want to refute Gores lifestyle?
Want to refute that many gobal warming conferances got snowed out in the springtime?
Want to refute that Gore is investing heavily in so called "green" alternatives?
Want to refute that GW was the buzzword for years until they looked rediculous and wanted to call it "Climate Change" this way they could be more ambigous and cover every angle.
Want to refute that the world has not gone through many different climate chages in it's lifetime?

Nope you'd rather just point and laugh just like what the liberal playbook tells you to do. Facts be damned just swiftboat people you saw how that worked. Why bother using your brain.
How Karl Rove of you.

Total Fail. All your points are completely Wrong or completely Moot.

That is what is nice about ATOT...even members like Exman can post, even if they know nothing about the subject!!

That's right you all just proved my last point very well. Ah more of the from the left repeat a lie back it up with data from people that either have an agenda, lose their job or get blackballed from their industry if they don't capitulate to the far left playbook.

I'm throwing Twisted lightbulbs at all all you greenniks! Oh noooeees! lol

 

[jackschmittusa]

OCguy

How timely of you to check in after I mention the dense people that don't understand.....oh, never mind.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I propose this: Since everyone on both sides is so convinced they're right, we put our money where our mouths are. We agree on some set of rules as to what would constitute definitive proof, and all put some cash into some sort of escrow account. Then, we shut the hell up about the topic for 5 years, since no one is convincing anyone, and 1/2 the people these threads get 95% of their science facts from listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity, or some other loud mouth. 5 years from now, we look to see if there's proof. If so, winning side gets to split the pot in the proportions they put on the wager. I'm in for $100 on global warming.

There's already abundance of proof, and the great bulk of it supports anthropogenic climate change. Why would you think even more proof would make any difference? The sad fact is that the opposition is driven primarily by ideology, not by science.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JEDI
Bush, thru the Repub word machine, threw out the term Global Warming and replaced it with a more business friendly sounding 'Climate change.'

So with the Dems back in control, why is Climate change still used?

Why hasnt it reverted back to Global Warming?

climate change is more accurate since its not 'warming' in all areas, nor is it a linear process as 'global warming' would imply.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: grohl
Since global warming has been proven to be untrue and a farce? Just guessing.

:roll:

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: grohl
Since global warming has been proven to be untrue and a farce? Just guessing.

/facepalm

:laugh: Awww... can't be bothered to defend your cult?

Awwww CAD, I'm glad you're back too. I would argue global warming with you, but you would probably complain that we were using climatology definitions for words instead of ones you invented in your basement.

that was the best thread.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: OCguy
So no matter what happens, they can appear to be correct.



Abnormally cold day? CLIMATE CHANGE!


Abnormally hot day? CLIMATE CHANGE!

as opposed to :

cold day? No climate change!

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I propose this: Since everyone on both sides is so convinced they're right, we put our money where our mouths are. We agree on some set of rules as to what would constitute definitive proof, and all put some cash into some sort of escrow account. Then, we shut the hell up about the topic for 5 years, since no one is convincing anyone, and 1/2 the people these threads get 95% of their science facts from listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity, or some other loud mouth. 5 years from now, we look to see if there's proof. If so, winning side gets to split the pot in the proportions they put on the wager. I'm in for $100 on global warming.

Yet what are you doing to combat climate change? Shut off your computer, stop using your car, and turn off your A/C. Put up or shut up. Oh, wait. Thats right. You only want OTHER people to change.

one individual changing without other people changing is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Rise in global average temperature while our Sun in in the cool part of it's sunspot cycle? I would call it Global Warming.

 

[waggy]

as other said. global warming locked you into a mindset that many could argue about. with climate change it opens it up to whatever someone wants to prove the point.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: JEDI
Bush, thru the Repub word machine, threw out the term Global Warming and replaced it with a more business friendly sounding 'Climate change.'

So with the Dems back in control, why is Climate change still used?

Why hasnt it reverted back to Global Warming?

What!! Don't you recognize another damn example of the Left stealing the Right's agenda? "Hiccup?":beer:<(as close as I could get to a shit eating grin)

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I propose this: Since everyone on both sides is so convinced they're right, we put our money where our mouths are. We agree on some set of rules as to what would constitute definitive proof, and all put some cash into some sort of escrow account. Then, we shut the hell up about the topic for 5 years, since no one is convincing anyone, and 1/2 the people these threads get 95% of their science facts from listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity, or some other loud mouth. 5 years from now, we look to see if there's proof. If so, winning side gets to split the pot in the proportions they put on the wager. I'm in for $100 on global warming.

Sure here are my conditions to prove global warming.
Option 1:
1. Every 10 square miles a temperature sensor with an accuracy of 1/100 of estimated change in temperature.
2. 10,000 years of data from said sensors.

Or make a computer model for the weather that is valid for a month.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I propose this: Since everyone on both sides is so convinced they're right, we put our money where our mouths are. We agree on some set of rules as to what would constitute definitive proof, and all put some cash into some sort of escrow account. Then, we shut the hell up about the topic for 5 years, since no one is convincing anyone, and 1/2 the people these threads get 95% of their science facts from listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity, or some other loud mouth. 5 years from now, we look to see if there's proof. If so, winning side gets to split the pot in the proportions they put on the wager. I'm in for $100 on global warming.

Yet what are you doing to combat climate change? Shut off your computer, stop using your car, and turn off your A/C. Put up or shut up. Oh, wait. Thats right. You only want OTHER people to change.

I don't use A/C. I've only driven my car when absolutely necessary; I car pool to work every day. You're nothing but an ass, FNE.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I propose this: Since everyone on both sides is so convinced they're right, we put our money where our mouths are. We agree on some set of rules as to what would constitute definitive proof, and all put some cash into some sort of escrow account. Then, we shut the hell up about the topic for 5 years, since no one is convincing anyone, and 1/2 the people these threads get 95% of their science facts from listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity, or some other loud mouth. 5 years from now, we look to see if there's proof. If so, winning side gets to split the pot in the proportions they put on the wager. I'm in for $100 on global warming.

Sure here are my conditions to prove global warming.
Option 1:
1. Every 10 square miles a temperature sensor with an accuracy of 1/100 of estimated change in temperature.
2. 10,000 years of data from said sensors.

Or make a computer model for the weather that is valid for a month.

Therefore, according to you, we can't come to any agreement about doing something about climate change for at least 10,000 years. :disgust:

As to your "computer model" statement, you show a complete lack of understanding about climate models. Let me make it REALLY simple for you:

We KNOW FOR SURE that if (say) 1000 people smoke two packs of cigarettes a day for decades, the rates of heart disease, lung cancer, emphysema, stroke, and death will be MUCH higher than for a matched, 1000-person control group of non-smokers. We CANNOT predict which specific people will get any of those diseases or will die. We CANNOT predict specifically WHEN those people will get those diseases or die. The fact that we cannot make specific predictions about which people will get sick with which diseases, and when, doesn't invalidate our ability to make very accurate predictions about the consequences of smoking over the broad population.

This is known as statistical modeling. The same applies for climate. A good climate model can predict with great confidence overall climate trends over a period of many years. Thus, we can predict that average global temperatures will increase. We can predict that there will be more and more-severe hurricanes. We can predict areas of the earth that will overall receive less rainfall, and areas that will overall receive more rainfall. But it is and will continue to be impossible to predict what the specific weather will be on specific days.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I propose this: Since everyone on both sides is so convinced they're right, we put our money where our mouths are. We agree on some set of rules as to what would constitute definitive proof, and all put some cash into some sort of escrow account. Then, we shut the hell up about the topic for 5 years, since no one is convincing anyone, and 1/2 the people these threads get 95% of their science facts from listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity, or some other loud mouth. 5 years from now, we look to see if there's proof. If so, winning side gets to split the pot in the proportions they put on the wager. I'm in for $100 on global warming.

Yet what are you doing to combat climate change? Shut off your computer, stop using your car, and turn off your A/C. Put up or shut up. Oh, wait. Thats right. You only want OTHER people to change.

I don't use A/C. I've only driven my car when absolutely necessary; I car pool to work every day. You're nothing but an ass, FNE.

I'm an ass but you are the one spewing insults in your post? I thought you were above that sort of thing? You seem to be every bit the troll you acuse me of being. Couldn't leave Limbaugh or Hannity out of your post could you?

The fact that you offer up your wager for 5 years tells me that you don't even get your science from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or other 'loudmouth', you get it from a Unicorn that shits rainbows and pots of gold.

The beauty of liberalism is that you can throw out shit like Global Cooling, and go OOPS, we mean't Global Warming.. then go OOPS we meant Climate Change.. there is never any consequences for you. Sure, in 5 years if Global Warming is proved as being wrong, you are out $100.. Unfortunately people will be out thousands of dollars in bullshit fees, taxes, penalties, etc.. And you will just go 'OOPS!' Guess I was wrong.

So take another toke off that joint - Lets see if that solves all of the world's problems. That rainbow shitting unicorn might come back and help us.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I propose this: Since everyone on both sides is so convinced they're right, we put our money where our mouths are. We agree on some set of rules as to what would constitute definitive proof, and all put some cash into some sort of escrow account. Then, we shut the hell up about the topic for 5 years, since no one is convincing anyone, and 1/2 the people these threads get 95% of their science facts from listening to Rush Limbaugh or Hannity, or some other loud mouth. 5 years from now, we look to see if there's proof. If so, winning side gets to split the pot in the proportions they put on the wager. I'm in for $100 on global warming.

Yet what are you doing to combat climate change? Shut off your computer, stop using your car, and turn off your A/C. Put up or shut up. Oh, wait. Thats right. You only want OTHER people to change.

I don't use A/C. I've only driven my car when absolutely necessary; I car pool to work every day. You're nothing but an ass, FNE.

I'm an ass but you are the one spewing insults in your post? I thought you were above that sort of thing? You seem to be every bit the troll you acuse me of being. Couldn't leave Limbaugh or Hannity out of your post could you?

The fact that you offer up your wager for 5 years tells me that you don't even get your science from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or other 'loudmouth', you get it from a Unicorn that shits rainbows and pots of gold.

The beauty of liberalism is that you can throw out shit like Global Cooling, and go OOPS, we mean't Global Warming.. then go OOPS we meant Climate Change.. there is never any consequences for you. Sure, in 5 years if Global Warming is proved as being wrong, you are out $100.. Unfortunately people will be out thousands of dollars in bullshit fees, taxes, penalties, etc.. And you will just go 'OOPS!' Guess I was wrong.

So take another toke off that joint - Lets see if that solves all of the world's problems. That rainbow shitting unicorn might come back and help us.

So, are you willing to wager $100? We'll each put the $100 in some sort of escrow. If it's definitively shown that global warming is true, I get the $200. If it's definitively shown that global warming is false, you get the $200.

 

[Fear No Evil]

So, are you willing to wager $100? We'll each put the $100 in some sort of escrow. If it's definitively shown that global warming is true, I get the $200. If it's definitively shown that global warming is false, you get the $200.

No.. because WHO is the judge of who wins? YOU? Al Gore? Obama? Some scientist who will benefit with millions of dollars in government money if he supports global warming? There is no unbiased judge in this fight.

And you aren't even defining the rules nearly enough to pull this off. There is global warming, there is MAN MADE global warming.. In 5 years we won't have enough data to prove EITHER is correct or incorrect.

 

[LunarRay]

Isn't this alot like 'Pascal's wager'? I mean if you simply accept Global Warming to be true and act accordingly you have everything to gain. The historians will praise this generation while if you act contrary to it and it is true, you have everything to loose and the historians wont be around either to tell. Maybe it is to do with the future regardless of the reality of today's knowledge. It can't hurt to go the route of 'acting in the best interest of our progeny'.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So, are you willing to wager $100? We'll each put the $100 in some sort of escrow. If it's definitively shown that global warming is true, I get the $200. If it's definitively shown that global warming is false, you get the $200.

No.. because WHO is the judge of who wins? YOU? Al Gore? Obama? Some scientist who will benefit with millions of dollars in government money if he supports global warming? There is no unbiased judge in this fight.

And you aren't even defining the rules nearly enough to pull this off. There is global warming, there is MAN MADE global warming.. In 5 years we won't have enough data to prove EITHER is correct or incorrect.

Ahhhh, the very definition of a troll. One who continues to proclaim something is false even after it's been proven time and time again to be true.

You're nothing but a troll.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

So, are you willing to wager $100? We'll each put the $100 in some sort of escrow. If it's definitively shown that global warming is true, I get the $200. If it's definitively shown that global warming is false, you get the $200.

No.. because WHO is the judge of who wins? YOU? Al Gore? Obama? Some scientist who will benefit with millions of dollars in government money if he supports global warming? There is no unbiased judge in this fight.

And you aren't even defining the rules nearly enough to pull this off. There is global warming, there is MAN MADE global warming.. In 5 years we won't have enough data to prove EITHER is correct or incorrect.

Ahhhh, the very definition of a troll. One who continues to proclaim something is false even after it's been proven time and time again to be true.

You're nothing but a troll.

Wait. So you are offering me the wager, but you've already determined the results? Who's the troll here? You post your wager while insulting the people you are offering it to. Who's the troll? You offer up a wager, don't even effectively define the rules, then call me a troll for not accepting it?

Thank you Elite Senior Trollinator for proving that your wager is nothing but BULLSCHIAT.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Isn't this alot like 'Pascal's wager'? I mean if you simply accept Global Warming to be true and act accordingly you have everything to gain. The historians will praise this generation while if you act contrary to it and it is true, you have everything to loose and the historians wont be around either to tell. Maybe it is to do with the future regardless of the reality of today's knowledge. It can't hurt to go the route of 'acting in the best interest of our progeny'.

Put down the joint. Blow out the smoke. And just listen for a second. If Global Warming DOESN'T exist, and we impose BILLIONS of dollars in taxes, spending, fees, fines, and punishments, Yes, there IS something to lose. People can lose their jobs, lose their savings, lose their freedoms.. all in the name of 'Global Warming' which may or may not exist. This is not Pascal's Wager..