66 replies to this topic

[pstall]

the climate may be "always changing" in that conditions that determine climate always are, but they are changing at a very different rate now compared to what is typical. furthermore, climate, unlike weather, is typically reasonably stable over time.

re: why it's "not global warming" anymore, it's because it isn't going to be universally hotter everywhere all the time, and it's not just that it'll be a little warmer, the actual climates of different regions will be shifting, and not all in the same way.

or adding a moniker that is just a tad bit nebulous makes it easier to avoid total accountability.

[SZ James]

I still hear both terms used all the time

[TANTRIC-NINJA]

The George Bush weather machine did it..

[pstall]

I still hear both terms used all the time

well yeah. NOW you do. ha

[Jase]

weird. my actual college textbooks on the subject tended to lend plenty of credence to the skeptical point of view. So much more than the journalists and politicians of today.

Must've been them biased jesus-riding-velociraptor texas textbooks I've been hearing so much about.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

I still hear both terms used all the time

we all got together one day and decided to stop calling it global warming and start calling it climate change to cover our asses because global warming is objectively wrong, having been effortlessly refuted by noted huddle poster and leading member of the john birch society twylyght

but then we immediately decided to keep calling it global warming so that when pstall caught on to our "climate change" scheme we could be like "nah bro we've been using both terms the whole time"

it was the perfect crime

[twylyght]

yeah... another thread... another topic with no sign of how predictions of just a decade ago have panned out. Can't discuss the actual numbers, so we start another thread hoping it will stick this time.

[pstall]

for some, climate change has been quite the scheme. don't think people are making money off this will little to no regard for helping the climate.
the only change is going from someones pocket to theirs.

thats more my beef than what is going on. no doubt pollution and all those 98.6's running around are hurting the environment.

[Delhommey]

So in other words the whole seems to you to be some kind of money making scheme. A ruse or even "conspiracy", if you will.

[twylyght]

Never let a crisis go to waste

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

for some, climate change has been quite the scheme. don't think people are making money off this will little to no regard for helping the climate.
the only change is going from someones pocket to theirs.

thats more my beef than what is going on. no doubt pollution and all those 98.6's running around are hurting the environment.

there's grant money out there for all kinds of research. why is there so much pushback from the uneducated public against climate science (and evolution, on that note), but they still trust science enough to, idk, get on a plane and fly around the world? could it be that authority figures are spreading propaganda?

[twylyght]

How's that prediction thing panning out for ya?

[pstall]

i have no problem with grant research. research being the key word.

why is it some of you that when someone takes a dif angle or approach instead of the way you do, you instantly assume they totally disagree with you or are some inbred toothless wonder who eats tv dinners who has no understanding of anything?

this is kind of easy. are there not people who are capiltalizing on climate change and pocketing large sums of money and have no real motive to find any solutions? if you don't think so please kindly stop operating heavy machinery.

[gospodin shuttlesworth]

why is it some of you that when someone takes a dif angle or approach instead of the way you do, you instantly assume they totally disagree with you or are some inbred toothless wonder who eats tv dinners who has no understanding of anything?

uh because in the case of climate change deniers, the "dif angle or approach" you speak of is essentially "what if science isn't real? ever think of that, 97% of climate experts who agree that people are causing global warming?"

this is kind of easy. are there not people who are capiltalizing on climate change and pocketing large sums of money and have no real motive to find any solutions?

i didn't know you had to have "a real motive to find solutions" in order for your work to be real, actual science. i mean really are you saying that it doesn't count if it isn't solution oriented? this is some kind of weird straw man and shift of the goal posts because literally no one is saying that there isn't money in research, AND science doesn't have to be solution oriented. when a scientist says "hey there's an asteroid out there with a 35% chance of hitting earth and causing a mass extinction event in 25 years" he's not really offering any solutions so idk does this count as science?

[PhillyB]

everyone i know who denies global warming without knowing anything about it incidentally also believes that the earth is 5000 years old (ironic because the pleistocene ended ~11000 years ago and related global temperature fluctuations are kind of at the core of their argument that it just happens naturally with zero bearing on human activity.) in both instances science is seen as an actual entity, a bogeyman that's joined forces with hitler, satan, murder, communism, obama, homelessness, etc. to blind the LIEberal DEMONcrats and get them to usher in marxist doctrine that will end this great nation. reagan help us

pretty strong correlation IMO