- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Here's a nice "f*ck you" to the Climate Change apostles (caution: sciency shite)
Posted on 11/19/14 at 9:58 am to baytiger
Posted on 11/19/14 at 9:58 am to baytiger
Don't hand me that. It may very well have been used, but "climate change" has replaced "global warming" in terms of phraseology.
I had never even heard the term "climate change" until that became the new standard phrase within the last few years.
I had never even heard the term "climate change" until that became the new standard phrase within the last few years.
2
Posted on 11/19/14 at 9:58 am to gatorrocks
quote:You're a bigger man than me!
I'm not even taking it down. It's my punishment.
However...
And that article is legit. But note that there are no actual named scientists quoted predicting a new ice age. That part gets a vague "scientists calculate that a 1% sunlight drop could cause it" without either naming the scientists or actually saying whether they are predicting it. (In fact, both Bryson and Gilman, as quoted in the article, turned out to be more or less correct.)
Let me steelman the cooling argument for a bit: If you want to make the case that scientists thought there was global cooling, you're better off citing RS71 than some TIME article. They were actual climatologists making an actual projection in their paper, and while you need an academic account to get to it, the abstract gives you a pretty good idea of the content.
But RS71 was an outlier even in its time. Most papers in the 60s and 70s predicted warming, and within a few years (before the warming trend had even become apparent yet) they were walking it back and acknowledging their miscalculation.
This post was edited on 11/19/14 at 10:12 am
Posted on 11/19/14 at 9:59 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:well I'm sorry you didn't pay attention, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter.
I had never even heard the term "climate change" until that became the new standard phrase within the last few years.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 9:59 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
I had never even heard the term "climate change" until that became the new standard phrase within the last few years.
Gonna go out on a limb here and say the sample size of Google Books is larger than "what you've heard."
This post was edited on 11/19/14 at 10:00 am
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:02 am to baytiger
You're full of shite. "Climate change" was not the popular terminology used when referring to global warming until just a few years ago.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:02 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
I find it humorous that the Rand Paul disagrees with his followers on GW. In fact most Republican leaders did including Bush until they realized the knuckledraggers weren't on board. Will be interesting if Paul goes the way of the others.
Neither Ron or Rand Paul have ever been on board with the consensus, as far as I know. They're doctrinaire libertarians, not Pigou Club types. They're going to take the doctrinaire position that it's a scheme for big government.
This post was edited on 11/19/14 at 10:03 am
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:03 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:look at the graph. At worst it was almost equal, and it only barely took the lead from about 1988-1993. That's 20 years ago
You're full of shite. "Climate change" was not the popular terminology used when referring to global warming until just a few years ago.
This post was edited on 11/19/14 at 10:05 am
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:04 am to Iosh
I know the term existed. I'm saying there has been a definite effort to replace the words global warming with the words climate change.
Kind of like how the word "liberal" became a dirty word and so they now call themselves "progressives".
Kind of like how the word "liberal" became a dirty word and so they now call themselves "progressives".
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:04 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
popular terminology
Not the same as scientific phraseology. What was being disseminated to the masses is not the same.
SFP is correct that "climate change" became the more used phrase in popular discussions once it was apparent that the "warming" was no longer happening.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:04 am to Vegas Bengal
Rand isn't on board as much as you think. Go watch his recent interview with Bill Maher. Maher didn't really like his answers on GW lol.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:04 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:So do you have any evidence for this or are you just gonna get madder and madder that your made-up talking point is made-up?
You're full of shite. "Climate change" was not the popular terminology used when referring to global warming until just a few years ago.
What do you think the "CC" in "IPCC" stands for?
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:07 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:The funny thing is, you're not wrong about this.
I know the term existed. I'm saying there has been a definite effort to replace the words global warming with the words climate change.
You're just wrong about who.
LINK
quote:
We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “environmentalism.” It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.
1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
This post was edited on 11/19/14 at 10:08 am
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:08 am to Iosh
Climate change is a real term that has been around for a long time. I'm not arguing that.
I'm saying whenever people got on camera to discuss global warming, it was referred to as global warming... not climate change.
Only within the past few years has the term climate change been popularized for the masses.
I'm saying whenever people got on camera to discuss global warming, it was referred to as global warming... not climate change.
Only within the past few years has the term climate change been popularized for the masses.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:15 am to Iosh
quote:
Iosh
Care to dispute the scientist? Or even question why Time magazine posted articles about the coming ice age, and also about the arctic being ice free by 1990 back in the 1970's, and how none of that happened, and why they are doing it today?
Or is your only response to this thread criticizing where the link to the time articles come from?
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:20 am to Iosh
quote:
Gonna go out on a limb here and say the sample size of Google Books is larger than "what you've heard."
well the academic usage is somewhat irrelevant if we're discussing common phrasing (esp proliferated by the media) with regards to the fear mongering and framing of the issue to the public. there was obviously a choice to use "global warming" and then a choice to use "climate change" when proliferating the theories to the public
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:24 am to baytiger
quote:
You're full of shite. "Climate change" was not the popular terminology used when referring to global warming until just a few years ago.
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:25 am to udtiger
Who the f**k is dcnfenergy? You might as well cite a bathroom wall as your source. How gullible can you get?
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:26 am to Iosh
quote:
Iosh
Care to dispute the global warming/climate change agenda? Care to tell us
1. What weather is attributed to man?
2. What should the temperature of Earth be year round, and exactly what factors at what specific points is causing the weather to do what weather does? For instance, if it is 80 degrees in march in the south, and not 70, what did humans do to change this? If it is in the 40's as it is now, in South Louisiana, what factors caused by man has caused this? What temperature should it be? SHould the temperature be the same throughout the world at all times?
3. Why has there been a shift from "global warming" to "climate change"? I know you are trying to divert from actually addressing the issue to arguing that its always been climate change, but if you are honest you know there has been a change in terminology by the politicians/media/paid scientists.
4. Do you care to discuss the articles merits that state that the change in weather around the globe is due to ..... WEATHER and not man?
5. Why do you liberal global warming nazis not take an approach of, "we must all be good stewards of this planet" instead of "any change in weather is attributed to SUV's".
6. Care to discuss why man made CO2 is attributed to the change in CO2 emissions, and not the more bountiful expulsion of CO2 by all life on this planet?
7. Care to discuss the climate change of the little ice age? The climate change of Europe from a tropical to a more temperate environment 600 years ago? Why is all climate change prior to recordable data considered natural and any slight gust of wind attributed to man?
8. Care to discuss why the scientific community has rejected global warming and the climate change scientists?
9. Care to discuss the hacked emails of the global warming/climate change scientists that state that their findings do not coincide with man made climate change?
10. Care to discuss why CO2 is the driver of temperature on Earth when it makes up .004% of the atmosphere? Care to discuss why CO2 is considered a driver of climate change as opposed to water vapor?
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:26 am to Layabout
quote:
Who the f**k is dcnfenergy? You might as well cite a bathroom wall as your source. How gullible can you get?
Why don't you read the actual fricking document, dumbass.
This post was edited on 11/19/14 at 10:33 am
Posted on 11/19/14 at 10:28 am to Layabout
quote:
Who the f**k is dcnfenergy? You might as well cite a bathroom wall as your source. How gullible can you get?
this is an argument i detest, especially when discussing GW. the media/progs have labeled all people with opposing views as kooks. so if you cite them, you're citing a kook. it's set up to literally preclude any dissent.
that's scary stuff. that's catholic church in the dark ages mythology kind of shite
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News