4 ms·

Why did the narrative change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Because you can't prove the climate changes. The climate has been changing since the ear

Why did the narrative change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Because you can't prove the climate changes. The climate has been changing since the earth was created and it will continue to change. Can someone tell me when Miami will be underwater like you tell me it will be? Give me a date range...something specific. Since it's science and it can be "proven" then someone should be able to tell me that. And if that date comes and goes and it doesn't happen do you promise to back down or will you make up an excuse? Of course you won't back down. You'll just tweak your theories. Until then why take issue with taxing U.S. companies w/ carbon taxes or whatever you're calling it nowadays and focus on the real carbon polluters....China, Latin America?

SquareWheel 11y ago
Since when were there all these conspiracy nuts on HN?
- tptacek 11y ago
  Don't call people nuts, even when they're very wrong about things. All you accomplish by doing that is making people wonder whether this is a religious debate that they shouldn't care about.
csallen 11y ago
You sound like you haven't ready any of the leading evidence or arguments for climate change at all.
- jotux 11y ago
  What's sad is 60 seconds of googling would point him to a paper answering the exact question he believes cannot be answered: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf >Analysis based on previously published relationships linking emissions to warming and warming to rise indicates that unabated carbon emissions up to the year 2100 would commit an eventual global sea-level rise of 4.3–9.9 m
  - usertaken 11y ago
    I've heard different years and that's why I bring it up....because the "science" has been disagreeing on this point. Does this take into account the emissions deal w/ China? Because that should push that figure out a couple years or decades from that 2100 figure, no? How much? It's science. Boils down to if you believe the authors are giving an unbiased viewpoint. They receive funding from someone, no? Do those sources benefit from taxing emissions?
    - jotux 11y ago
      https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions....
Bud 11y ago
The "narrative" hasn't changed. The terminology of "climate change" was actively pushed by Republican strategist Frank Luntz, however, so if that's what you are referring to, there is your answer. https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326 https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326 BTW, we have been focusing on China; that's why the US brokered an emissions deal with China recently, which you would already know if you were seriously interested in the issue, as opposed to just being a troll.

SquareWheel 11y ago

Since when were there all these conspiracy nuts on HN?

tptacek 11y ago
Don't call people nuts, even when they're very wrong about things. All you accomplish by doing that is making people wonder whether this is a religious debate that they shouldn't care about.

csallen 11y ago

You sound like you haven't ready any of the leading evidence or arguments for climate change at all.

jotux 11y ago
What's sad is 60 seconds of googling would point him to a paper answering the exact question he believes cannot be answered: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf >Analysis based on previously published relationships linking emissions to warming and warming to rise indicates that unabated carbon emissions up to the year 2100 would commit an eventual global sea-level rise of 4.3–9.9 m
- usertaken 11y ago
  I've heard different years and that's why I bring it up....because the "science" has been disagreeing on this point. Does this take into account the emissions deal w/ China? Because that should push that figure out a couple years or decades from that 2100 figure, no? How much? It's science. Boils down to if you believe the authors are giving an unbiased viewpoint. They receive funding from someone, no? Do those sources benefit from taxing emissions?
  - jotux 11y ago
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions....

Bud 11y ago

The "narrative" hasn't changed. The terminology of "climate change" was actively pushed by Republican strategist Frank Luntz, however, so if that's what you are referring to, there is your answer. https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326 https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326 BTW, we have been focusing on China; that's why the US brokered an emissions deal with China recently, which you would already know if you were seriously interested in the issue, as opposed to just being a troll.