Can We At Least Get One Thing Straight About Climate Change?

Every time I come on this forum I see 15 new posts that go something like this:


"So Global Warming...*wait it's cold outside*...I mean 'Climate Change'...

followed by some combination of:
or or


Everybody's constantly acting like this is some convenient new term the scientists just made up yesterday to cover their bases on the complexity of the issue. It's apparently the number one argument on ATS for why Global Warming is clearly a scam.

Really all it does is show how many people around here have absolutely no clue what they're talking about.

If this is seriously your starting point then you should automatically disqualify yourself from weighing in on any of the more controversial and complicated stuff. Half of you are always jumping on board to bash the IPCC but it really makes me wonder if you even know what IPCC stands for?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was founded in 1988. Look it up.

Or have a look here at all the pretty reports they've released since 1990. See those big fancy words they put right at the top, even 20 years ago?



My point is just because the MEDIA is calling it one thing or another these days - in the scientific community it's always been about climate change...and that has never ever...ahem..."changed".

You guys are constantly bragging how everybody else is such a sheep and so manipulated by the MSM - well maybe it's time to take a look in the mirror and ask yourselves how much YOU'VE been manipulated by all the counter-propaganda of the not-so MSM.

Don't believe me?

Instead of immediately jumping on this thread to regurgitate some "fact" about Global Warming being a hoax because "climate is always changing", or it's actually cooling now, or "all the planets are heating up" and the Sun's responsible, how about taking a look from the other side of the fence to see how these are all actually purposely misrepresented versions of the truth (even those damn emails). In other words disinfo - PROPAGANDA.

These myths and tons of others have all been debunked many times on this forum - but nobody ever seems to notice because they're too busy giggling uncontrollably every time they hear the words "Climate Change".

I found articles going back to the 70s using the term. Even further back you can find the likes of Plass (and others) using 'Climatic Change'.

The funny thing is that the only evidence I've seen of anyone showing preference for one term with no relationship to scientific clarity or validity is the Luntz memo.

He suggested that the republicans use the term 'climate change' preferentially as people believe it sounds like going on holiday.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by melatonin]

Haha, why doesn't that surprise me...

But anyway be careful bringing up the 70's melatonin because you know some denier will be along any second to point out those evil scientists were ALL trying to scare us over global cooling back then.

(for those of you reaching for the reply button - it's another myth!)

Global warming is just another way the government uses to raise taxes, keep the people in fear, and keep peoples attentions centred on what they choose

Climate change is for people who forgot they learned that it does that in 5th grade and like to run around screaming OMGZ THE CLIMATE IS GOING TO CHANGE!!!!!

Co2 is proven effect. Not a cause.

Back to school with you guise.

reply to post by Elethiel


Yeah great post - now do you wanna back that up with some sort of tangible proof you even understand how the "taxing" is going to work?

You know - instead of just repeating these empty cliches over and over just like every other automaton on this board.

reply to post by watcher73


Thanks for proving my point.

reply to post by mc_squared


The IPCC is full of "cherry picked" liberal mumbo jumbo.
You're better off reading the hacked emails.
Here is the truth. -Hiding the decline = hiding the truth -
"The earth has been cooling for the last 10 years and we CAN"T
explain it."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
I think i can explain it.
HAARP has 2 main staions. - Alaska & Norway
Get out a globe and put your fingers on their locations.
In my opinion they turn them both on and then just sit back
and watch the "Jet Stream" head south and cool the Earth.
This is why the Earth has been cooling for the last 10 years.
More info here.
U.S. Navy

------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be hard for you to believe but we have the technology
and the means to control our weather.


[edit on 15-1-2010 by Eurisko2012]

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by watcher73

 

Thanks for proving my point.

Dont thank me for proving something you never had.

Here let me add this: OMG the UN is a plot by the NWO for global governance its been in the works for decades...but hey their IPCC, also in the works for decades, is real.

Calling it climate change instead of global warming is akin to calling the genesis "theory" intelligent design. It's name, no matter how long its been in existence is just that, a name. We have no control over it. The milankovich cycles prove this beyond any reasonable doubt.

So if you want to get something straight, it should be your logic.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by watcher73]

So after the 70's global cooling scare you get the IPCC. Then the IPCC turns propaganda machine and you get global warming and carbon taxes.

No connection there at all.

Call us deniers all you want. If you have to equivocate your intellectual superiors to NAZIs then so be it. It's a logical fallacy the unthinking often make.

If you want to talk about greening things up then fine. I can handle that cause. But pollution does not = climate change, and co2 is not a pollutant and its definitely not a cause.

Got that straight yet?

Originally posted by watcher73
So after the 70's global cooling scare you get the IPCC. Then the IPCC turns propaganda machine and you get global warming and carbon taxes.

No connection there at all.

Call us deniers all you want. If you have to equivocate your intellectual superiors to NAZIs then so be it. It's a logical fallacy the unthinking often make.

If you want to talk about greening things up then fine. I can handle that cause. But pollution does not = climate change, and co2 is not a pollutant and its definitely not a cause.

Got that straight yet?

Haven't you heard the new question for 2010?
"Are you a Global Warming Hoax denier?"

reply to post by mc_squared


Well said. I'm sick and tired of these misinformed people cropping up on every thread that has even a passing mention of weather or climate.

Some are undereducated so that is excusable but those who are wilfully ignorant are unforgivable.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


You lost me at "liberal".

reply to post by phoenix103


You are showing that your ego is in control of your mind. You think that anybody who questions the science is "undereducated" or "ignorant". Anybody who questions you is stupid. That's how they are using your own ego against you, because you would never want to be affiliated with the "stupids". You will continue believing the lies because you could never admit to yourself that you were wrong.

Maybe one day.

Originally posted by watcher73
Got that straight yet?

1. How does the fact that we have no control over unrelated things like Milankovitch cycles suddenly absolve of us of all guilt in the way WE affect our environment?

That's like me saying I should be allowed to come over and knock your house down because sometimes earthquakes happen and there's nothing you can do about it.

2. Go read some history books or look up people like Svante Arrhenius or G. S. Callendar. The idea of GHG related Global Warming wasn't concocted after the 70's. It has been around for over 100 years. So their goes that theory of yours down the toilet.

3. Stop smugly telling other people to get an education about something when you don't have one yourself. That was my point and you proved it with your "CO2 is an effect" argument. If you actually understood anything about this process you would know:

- How climate FEEDBACK cycles work.

- How they show the relationship between Carbon and Temperature is a TWO-WAY street. Either one can lead the other and the reason we see all this evidence that temperature leads carbon in the historical record is because there was never any people around before to artificially pump it out first.

- How - (and now read this part very carefully because it hammers home the point of how ridiculous your argument is) - tempurature leading carbon in ice core records was predicted before it was verified by people like James Hansen to help PROVE the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

- It proved this theory because it helped show how important GHG's are in affecting climate during things like Milankovitch cycles (which are too weak to explain the observed cooling and warming on their own).


So yeah - YOU got that straight yet?


You know the reason I leave so many links to youtube videos in my posts is because I know you guys won't bother actually digging up the papers to read and educate yourselves straight from the source rather than the propaganda. But you don't ever even consider looking at both sides of a story.

Seriously - take 8 measly minutes out of your life to at least try and understand what you're talking about before you go around telling everyone else to educate themselves.

Originally posted by seattletruth
reply to post by phoenix103

 

You are showing that your ego is in control of your mind. You think that anybody who questions the science is "undereducated" or "ignorant". Anybody who questions you is stupid. That's how they are using your own ego against you, because you would never want to be affiliated with the "stupids". You will continue believing the lies because you could never admit to yourself that you were wrong.

Maybe one day.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the science. The issue here is that nobody bothers questioning the propaganda telling them the science is a lie. See the above post to watcher for the 43876921360th example of this happening on ATS.

reply to post by mc_squared


Hi MC2

This whole debate, IMHO, is a total red herring - and always has been.

Whilst we were all yelling about CO2, AGW, and whether a rise of two degrees in 'x' years may or may not lead to Waterworld, what might we have focused on instead?

How about:

* Poisoning of our oceans
* Over-population
* The chopping down of rain forest
* Over-fishing of the seas
* Loss of natural habitats/ paving of the planet
* Emergence of new diseases due to environmental pressures (Ebola)
* Extinction/hunting of hyper-sentient species (gorillas, whales, dolphins)
* Emergence of super-bugs and hybrid-bugs due to intensive agriculture practices (bird flu, swine flu, MRSA etc)
* Poor use of land (eg for so called 'biofuels' rather than food)
* Overuse of pesticides, herbicides and GM techniques

All of these things are far more tangible, more predictable and measureable, less speculative and more easily resolved (apart from population: the real 'elephant in the room') than trying to counter the 5% man-made component of a benign gas that sustains plant-life. Even if CO2 did affect planetary warming, how were we ever going to influence the other 95% for which we weren't responsible?

This nonsense about AGW and CO2 has done an immense disservice to environmentalism. Those who perpetrated this nonsense, whether in ignorance or criminality, joined hands with the despoilers of the planet.

History will judge them.

reply to post by Namron7

Hi Namron

I agree with the spirit of your post that there is a much bigger picture of how we treat our environment. But the Global Warming issue is a good introduction to this and don't underestimate just how much of a serious effect even a 2 degree increase could have.

The big issue isn't even really how much the climate will change - it's how fast. Even a 2 degree warming over the next 50 years could have enormous consequences:

By 2050 Warming to Doom Million Species, Study Says

"Climate Change", even on up through the 1970's/1990's, referred to natural changes in our climate. That is exactly what the term means, nothing more, nothing less. It was not until recently that it was construed to represent human forcing of our climate, which is properly labeled as Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I worked with/studied this subject before the mainstream public even gave half-a-blinks worth of observation to the findings, and in no way at the time was it ever referred to by the scientists involved as "Climate Change".

You can link away all you want, but I base my conclusion off of my very own observations and first-hand experiences.

Originally posted by phoenix103
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

You lost me at "liberal".

So then you read the "cherry picked" part and have no reply?

Oh thats right, the 'hacked' emails prove that part.

You dont have a reply.