4 ms·

First it was called "Global Warming", then when the planet cooled after the end of the local solar cycle they started calling it "Climate Change" -- because you

by MCRed 11y ago

First it was called "Global Warming", then when the planet cooled after the end of the local solar cycle they started calling it "Climate Change" -- because you can't deny the climate changes. And anyone who disagrees with AGW is labeled a "denier". I think that even AGW proponents know the science is not on their side-- they just don't care, because they want more government power over the economy. Demonizing a substance created by your very breath easily leads to pretty much the ultimate in tyrannical power.

jacobolus 11y ago
That’s a load of crap. International organizations call it “climate change” because the effects are much broader than increased temperature, but also include changes to air and ocean currents, precipitation levels, sea level rise, and a rise in average global temperatures isn’t uniform over the globe. The term “climate change” has been in use by scientists since the 50s, and the term “global warming” was introduced in Broeker’s 1975 paper “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwar... Both terms have been in wide use since that time. No one has abandoned the term “global warming”, which is still an apt description of the fundamental change.
- MCRed 11y ago
  Sigh. Yeah, sure. You want to do an analysis of newspaper headlines over the past 30 years? You think they will agree with you? Cause I know they won't. Also, calling people denier is proof positive of my point. The down vote brigades are just icing on the cake. You guys don't care about science, you reject the scientific method completely, and you rely on propaganda, demonization and silencing your critics. If the science was on your side, why the need for such dishonesty?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago
    I think there was a shift in the term news people used, and I think it happened as the topic became more politicized. That's worth making note of, since it likely is a technique intended to shape opinion. Someone somewhere decided Climate Change was more marketable. But the news media isn't scientists, and from what I've found, they used Climate Change a long time ago, well before the media did.
kansface 11y ago
> AGW is labeled a "denier". And rightly so, when the overwhelmingly vast consensus, among scientists, is that the thing exists. > I think that even AGW proponents know the science is not on their side Outlandish claims require proof. > they just don't care, because they want more government power over the economy. as do global conspiracy theories involving the implicit cooperation of the entire scientific community and multiple governments. > Demonizing a substance created by your very breath This is not relevant to the discussion, at all.
ocschwar 11y ago
"I think that even AGW proponents know the science is not on their side-" Of the scientists who discovered the AGW problem, a substantial portion was made up of right wingers: John Tyndall: British Tory. Svante Arrhenius: Swedish aristocrat and pro-marketeer. Charles Keeling: staunch Republican. Those are the big names.

by MCRed 11y ago

jacobolus 11y ago

That’s a load of crap. International organizations call it “climate change” because the effects are much broader than increased temperature, but also include changes to air and ocean currents, precipitation levels, sea level rise, and a rise in average global temperatures isn’t uniform over the globe. The term “climate change” has been in use by scientists since the 50s, and the term “global warming” was introduced in Broeker’s 1975 paper “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwar... Both terms have been in wide use since that time. No one has abandoned the term “global warming”, which is still an apt description of the fundamental change.

MCRed 11y ago
Sigh. Yeah, sure. You want to do an analysis of newspaper headlines over the past 30 years? You think they will agree with you? Cause I know they won't. Also, calling people denier is proof positive of my point. The down vote brigades are just icing on the cake. You guys don't care about science, you reject the scientific method completely, and you rely on propaganda, demonization and silencing your critics. If the science was on your side, why the need for such dishonesty?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  I think there was a shift in the term news people used, and I think it happened as the topic became more politicized. That's worth making note of, since it likely is a technique intended to shape opinion. Someone somewhere decided Climate Change was more marketable. But the news media isn't scientists, and from what I've found, they used Climate Change a long time ago, well before the media did.

kansface 11y ago

> AGW is labeled a "denier". And rightly so, when the overwhelmingly vast consensus, among scientists, is that the thing exists. > I think that even AGW proponents know the science is not on their side Outlandish claims require proof. > they just don't care, because they want more government power over the economy. as do global conspiracy theories involving the implicit cooperation of the entire scientific community and multiple governments. > Demonizing a substance created by your very breath This is not relevant to the discussion, at all.

ocschwar 11y ago

"I think that even AGW proponents know the science is not on their side-" Of the scientists who discovered the AGW problem, a substantial portion was made up of right wingers: John Tyndall: British Tory. Svante Arrhenius: Swedish aristocrat and pro-marketeer. Charles Keeling: staunch Republican. Those are the big names.