Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'
The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.
[I]Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".[/i] Global warming vs climate change
Guess what? The world is not your back yard. The western states have been having a very warm, very dry winter. Whether we are seeing effects of global climate change or just seasonal variations is debatable, I suppose, but don't make the right wing mistake of thinking your thermometer reading is the be all and end all of scientific inquiry.
So then we can agree that the above is irrelevant and showing where "scientists" (used loosely) are fudging numbers is a better indicator of what is going on.
a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'
The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.
[I]Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".[/i] Global warming vs climate change
It is true that skeptics downplay the negative, but by the same token, climate change believers run around crying that the sky is falling. In truth, things might change slightly, but chances are that we are not heading for a Darwinian utopia as skeptics claim nor massive climate devastation that AGW proponents claim.
So then we can agree that the above is irrelevant and showing where "scientists" (used loosely) are fudging numbers is a better indicator of what is going on.
I put more stock in what the "scientists" have to say than what a drug addled radio talk show host tells me.
Why, yes! Everybody knows that the Great lakes are the Entire Global Planet!
Never mind the polar vortex shifting much colder air further south because of decreasing arctic ice. Ignore all that.
If it's cold outside my front door, there's no global warming.
Unbelievable. I give up.
Tokyo buried in snow for first time in decades. Record cold. Global enough?
The climate is changing. No doubt. We can't ignore warm temps in Alaska or record cold temps elsewhere. Portland is digging out and just set a record lo-hi temp.
Even when the scientist has been shown to have fudged his numbers?
Who did that and did it negate the opinions of the overwhelming majority of climatologists? Whatever the case they all have more credentials than oxy man.
Who did that and did it negate the opinions of the overwhelming majority of climatologists? Whatever the case they all have more credentials than oxy man.
A few posts back. Hansen did. He's still treated as an authoritative source by the true believers.
Global warming is a nonsense argument. It's a loose theory at best.
Loose like the ice that breaks off from the shrinking glaciers and polar ice caps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven
why is it, that the Northeast gets a blizzard and below freezing temps for a week, and it is national news, with pictures of the furballs on the freeways, etc.,
HOWEVER, if it is below zero in Montana and Wyoming, with several inches of snow, for a week or more, the news takes no notice??
There are more of us than there are of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Even when the scientist has been shown to have fudged his numbers?
If a scientist can fudge numbers, just think what a drug-addled radio talk show host can do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
