3 ms·

> I don't think it's called global warming anymore, it's called climate change. Global warming and climate change are one in the same. "Global warming" became

> I don't think it's called global warming anymore, it's called climate change. Global warming and climate change are one in the same. "Global warming" became the rallying cry for so many environmentalist quacks citing bunk science - people like Al Gore were universally skewered in the mainstream media - that it was toxic from a PR perspective. So they came up with a new term. "Climate change" has the exact same beliefs, political backers, scientists, corporate interests, and studies behind it as "global warming". It's just a new name. > I think we should start focusing on real solutions. The issue is that there is no scientific evidence that solutions are possible. The earth has gone through many dramatic "climate change/global warming" events, and these last occurred long before cars or other man-made pollutants existed. It will go through them again, regardless of how many carbon taxes are levied by liberals or Tesla's are sold. It's just a reality - mankind will eventually cease to exist on this planet regardless of what it does or does not do.

Oletros 11y ago
> So they came up with a new term. "Climate change" has the exact same beliefs, political backers, scientists, corporate interests, and studies behind it as "global warming". It's just a new name. Strange then that "climate change" name predates "global warming"
- downandout 11y ago
  The term may have been in use before, but it wasn't widely adopted by the global warming people until global warming became widely known as the near-exclusive domain of environmental extremists.
  - Oletros 11y ago
    The term was used by the scientists, that is what counts.
yongjik 11y ago
There must be a name for in-the-end-everybody-dies-so-why-bother logical fallacy... (For some reason, these same people are often pretty worried about the state of the economy. Nations have fallen since the beginning of history, and in the end every business and every nation collapse, so why don't we just let them fail and see if the next one is better?)
- downandout 11y ago
  It's quite a bit different. Economies were invented by people, are controlled by people, and therefore can be altered by people. The environment, however, has none of these characteristics. This is not a "logical fallacy" - it's simply a fact that the environmentalists of the world don't like very much and have spent billions of dollars (mostly of other people's money- i.e. your tax dollars) trying to get people to ignore. There is indeed a logical fallacy playing out in all of this, and that of course is that environmentalists/liberals are attempting to control something that all of the credible scientific evidence says we can't control. Controlling the universe, as it turns out, is much harder than bribing legislators to use the government resources to pursue one's agenda.
  - yongjik 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction Mankind has been altering environments since when they only had stone tools. Your argument is basically, "I don't believe modern humans (with its 7+ billion population and sustained alteration of the majority of land area) have any noticeable effect on the Earth's ecosystem, therefore scientists who say so are wrong." Stop being so willfully ignorant.
    - downandout 11y ago
      So your argument is that the ice age did not occur....how could it have, since the T-Rex did not have fossil fuels to burn, and fossil fuels are the source of all climate change events? Got it.

Oletros 11y ago

> So they came up with a new term. "Climate change" has the exact same beliefs, political backers, scientists, corporate interests, and studies behind it as "global warming". It's just a new name. Strange then that "climate change" name predates "global warming"

downandout 11y ago
The term may have been in use before, but it wasn't widely adopted by the global warming people until global warming became widely known as the near-exclusive domain of environmental extremists.
- Oletros 11y ago
  The term was used by the scientists, that is what counts.

yongjik 11y ago

There must be a name for in-the-end-everybody-dies-so-why-bother logical fallacy... (For some reason, these same people are often pretty worried about the state of the economy. Nations have fallen since the beginning of history, and in the end every business and every nation collapse, so why don't we just let them fail and see if the next one is better?)

downandout 11y ago
It's quite a bit different. Economies were invented by people, are controlled by people, and therefore can be altered by people. The environment, however, has none of these characteristics. This is not a "logical fallacy" - it's simply a fact that the environmentalists of the world don't like very much and have spent billions of dollars (mostly of other people's money- i.e. your tax dollars) trying to get people to ignore. There is indeed a logical fallacy playing out in all of this, and that of course is that environmentalists/liberals are attempting to control something that all of the credible scientific evidence says we can't control. Controlling the universe, as it turns out, is much harder than bribing legislators to use the government resources to pursue one's agenda.
- yongjik 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction Mankind has been altering environments since when they only had stone tools. Your argument is basically, "I don't believe modern humans (with its 7+ billion population and sustained alteration of the majority of land area) have any noticeable effect on the Earth's ecosystem, therefore scientists who say so are wrong." Stop being so willfully ignorant.
  - downandout 11y ago
    So your argument is that the ice age did not occur....how could it have, since the T-Rex did not have fossil fuels to burn, and fossil fuels are the source of all climate change events? Got it.