# I'm sick of this Global Warming! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 16, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440 "2013-08-16T18:57:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/281 "2013-09-07T18:09:18Z")
There’s that counterproductive attitude again. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/282 "2013-09-07T18:18:57Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > There’s that counterproductive attitude again. Dodge #7, really, just more evidence that all along you were just JAQing off all this time. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/283 "2013-09-07T18:58:13Z")
WTF? This is a valid question: > [@](#): > > Now calm down there lad. we are still working out the kinks in the communication process. > > Do you find the following terms other ways of talking about “the greenhouse theory of global warming”? > > the CO2 theory > AGW > global warming theory > theory of global warming > AGW theory > Climate change > greenhouse effect warming > abrupt climate change > > Would you agree they are all talking about the same thing? And if we use them we understand what is being said? With all your love of science, don’t you think it’s helpful in a discussion for people to define their terms? Why not just answer? If you’re so sure of your position, you should be happy to have FXMastermind take you through a line of questioning and _still_ prove him wrong. One reason these debates always rehash the same stuff is a reluctance on your part to plant a flag in the ground. Make a clear claim that can be refuted and defended. Sheeze, you’d probably save yourself about 25 hours of typing a week! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/284 "2013-09-07T18:58:36Z")
**GIGO** , as always I marvel at your reluctance to give a simple and straightforward answer upon request. In the past, I’ve seen you delay for weeks before eventually supplying the response you (a) already know and (b) could easily provide right at the outset; why not skip straight to doing so now? Why spend post after post after post on all sorts of other things when you could just do the useful part first? When asked by **FXMastermind** about “the definition, explanation and predictions that the theory makes”, you could respond in no time flat with a single sentence – _“oh, the current predictions will be proven incorrect unless we see at least X increase in global average temperature between year Y and year Z,”_ say – and, if you’re so inclined, you could swiftly follow up with a crisp and brisk sentence about hurricanes and tornadoes likewise. I know you could; you’ve reluctantly done so before, and merely need to repeat yourself here. But, as before, you prefer to wait for an unnecessarily long time, and then wait a bit longer, and then for some reason keep waiting, as if to say _no, it’s not yet a good time to simply mention what I have in mind._ Why be coy? If you’re going to relay your to-the-point answer in the end anyway, why not just trumpet it at the beginning? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/285 "2013-09-07T19:15:14Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > WTF? This is a valid question: > > With all your love of science, don’t you think it’s helpful in a discussion for people to define their terms? Why not just answer? If you’re so sure of your position, you should be happy to have FXMastermind take you through a line of questioning and _still_ prove him wrong. > > One reason these debates always rehash the same stuff is a reluctance on your part to plant a flag in the ground. Make a clear claim that can be refuted and defended. Sheeze, you’d probably save yourself about 25 hours of typing a week! No, you are obtusely ignoring that the issue was the global warming theory, in this case the one from Plass and the follow ups, what FXMastermind is doing is indeed not dealing with that and going for further JAQs It is not a discussion indeed just avoidance of the facts. And the lie from you is that I indeed did answer, yes 3 times, the fact that you are ignoring that is enough to see that indeed you also prefer to ignore and not deal with one of the most important lines of evidence. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/286 "2013-09-07T19:18:12Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > **GIGO** , as always I marvel at your reluctance to give a simple and straightforward answer upon request. > > In the past, I’ve seen you delay for weeks before eventually supplying the response you (a) already know and (b) could easily provide right at the outset; why not skip straight to doing so now? Why spend post after post after post on all sorts of other things when you could just do the useful part first? > > When asked by **FXMastermind** about “the definition, explanation and predictions that the theory makes”, you could respond in no time flat with a single sentence – _“oh, the current predictions will be proven incorrect unless we see at least X increase in global average temperature between year Y and year Z,”_ say – and, if you’re so inclined, you could swiftly follow up with a crisp and brisk sentence about hurricanes and tornadoes likewise. > > I know you could; you’ve reluctantly done so before, and merely need to repeat yourself here. But, as before, you prefer to wait for an unnecessarily long time, and then wait a bit longer, and then for some reason keep waiting, as if to say _no, it’s not yet a good time to simply mention what I have in mind._ > > Why be coy? If you’re going to relay your to-the-point answer in the end anyway, why not just trumpet it at the beginning? I already did, you are not paying attention, or you just got a request for help from FX that as usual omitted what I did reply already to him, the avoidance is now coming from him and really, seeing stupid things repeated like :“there is no theory” or “no evidence for water vapor feedback” calls to a request of an acknowledgement that continue to keep those points is bananas, otherwise there is not much to discuss and FXMastermind knows it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/287 "2013-09-07T19:22:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I already did, you are not paying attention, or you just got a request for help from FX that as usual omitted what I did reply already to him, the avoidance is now coming from him and really, seeing stupid things repeated like :“there is no theory” or “no evidence for water vapor feedback” calls to a request of an acknowledgement that continue to keep those points is bananas, otherwise there is not much to discuss and FXMastermind knows it. Do you honestly believe **FXMastermind** knows what hypothetical future evidence you think would suffice to prove you wrong? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/288 "2013-09-07T19:32:32Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Do you honestly believe **FXMastermind** knows what hypothetical future evidence you think would suffice to prove you wrong? When someone does not acknowledge the posts to the science that shows that he was wrong regarding the “there is no theory” item there is not much to discuss, we will not be able then to deal with the follow up item, that is to deal with the evidence that would be needed to show that the evidence from the downward radiation can be falsified. And actually I posted already to the latest research that does confirm the basic theory, \*\*that \*\*is being avoided now. (At the simplest, one just needs to show that the values found of the downward radiation and that the wavelengths that CO2 captures infrared radiation and releases it are faulty and that the downward energy reported is actually decreasing to falsify it.) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/289 "2013-09-07T19:32:53Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Do you honestly believe **FXMastermind** knows what hypothetical future evidence you think would suffice to prove you wrong? Evidently its the fault of people other than him that readers are unclear on what his specific position is. He does this repeatedly, responding to the simplest question with long posts filled with cites galore and charges of dodging, idiocy, ignorance, etc. The hilarious thing is that he professes to be so carfelu when it comes to the debate, but he fails miserably in the most fundamental aspect. Communicating his positions clearly and being willing to set a position concisely. Fuck, one of the first thing one learns in debate class is to make sure terms are defined. The next is probably to be able to clearly state your position and to make sure your opponent does the same. I expect now he’ll come here and claim that a desire for him to state thing clearly and concisely is “dodging” the issue, or a demonstration of ignorance about the complexity of the issue. Maybe even with a thousand more words and 25 more cites to the vaunted _science._ :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/290 "2013-09-07T19:39:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > When someone does not acknowledge the posts to the science that shows that he was wrong regarding the “there is no theory” item there is not much to discuss, we willnot be able then to the follow up item, that is to deal with the evidence that would be needed to show that the evidence from the downward radiation can be falsified. > > And actually I posted already to the latest research that does confirm the basic theory, \*\*that \*\*is being avoided now. > > (At the simplest, one just needs to show that the values found of the downward radiation and that the wavelengths that CO2 captures infrared radiation and releases it are faulty and that the downward energy reported is actually decreasing to falsify it.) Here’s an idea. And I would think you would love all the ignorance you could fight if you did this. Not to mention, save the world. Seriously, let’s assume that everything you’ve ever written on the subject is 100% correct. Problem is, most people who do not agree with your position are unclear on what it is, and what the direct support for that base position is. So, start a new GD thread about Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever else term you feel best. State you position in a bolded paragraph of no more than say, 50 words, with whatever supporting info and cites you’d like to supply under it. And let the ignorance slaying begin. I’d love to see that thread. I think others would, as well. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/291 "2013-09-07T19:47:49Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Evidently its the fault of people other than him that readers are unclear on what his specific position is. He does this repeatedly, responding to the simplest question with long posts filled with cites galore and charges of dodging, idiocy, ignorance, etc. The hilarious thing is that he professes to be so carfelu when it comes to the debate, but he fails miserably in the most fundamental aspect. Communicating his positions clearly and being willing to set a position concisely. > > Fuck, one of the first thing one learns in debate class is to make sure terms are defined. The next is probably to be able to clearly state your position and to make sure your opponent does the same. > > I expect now he’ll come here and claim that a desire for him to state thing clearly and concisely is “dodging” the issue, or a demonstration of ignorance about the complexity of the issue. Maybe even with a thousand more words and 25 more cites to the vaunted _science._ :rolleyes: The truth is that deniers are experts on not dealing with the definitions, as pointed before we are simplifying here as AGW is demonstrated not by a single line of evidence, and even after this attempt at simplifying you come to defend the one that never wants to learn, pathetic. Occam razor just comes to tell me that the simplest answer here is that we are seeing just JAQ from the contrarians. https://www.youtube.com/embed/w9SGw75pVas?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque&list=PL9F83037965294F38 > [@](#): > > In the many responses I get to these videos, it appears that a number of people want to deny, or are not even aware, that there is a scientific foundation to the overwhelming consensus on climate change. > > Many people want to see the single paper or the single bit of proof a magic bullet that seals the case for global warming of course that is not how science works, the massive body of evidence for climate change has been built up from global observations from over 150 years. > > In fact, the science is built on thousands of publications and many decades of observation. > > In this video we’ll go over some of the fundamental discoveries, the > basic facts that we know beyond a doubt, about global warming. > Of course, many people will never believe science, because they believe that > anything that challenges their world view, is all part of a secret, > global conspiracy. And the one simplified line we are dealing with can be seen at 3:21, there are also links to the evidence so, once again the beef I have is just the willful ignorance at avoiding what was linked to many times in the past. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2013, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/292 "2013-09-07T19:50:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Here’s an idea. And I would think you would love all the ignorance you could fight if you did this. Not to mention, save the world. Seriously, let’s assume that everything you’ve ever written on the subject is 100% correct. Problem is, most people who do not agree with your position are unclear on what it is, and what the direct support for that base position is. So, start a new GD thread about Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever else term you feel best. State you position in a bolded paragraph of no more than say, 50 words, with whatever supporting info and cites you’d like to supply under it. And let the ignorance slaying begin. I’d love to see that thread. I think others would, as well. Here is an idea, deal with the specific line of evince here, or just acknowledge that indeed there is no good explanation to deny that evidence, then we can continue. Of course the one we need to deal with here is FXMastermind ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/293 "2013-09-08T01:15:24Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > You’re asking some pointless questions, that’s why nobody’s engaging you. Actually, right from the first post I was making several points, all of which actually are science based. But that wasn’t going to fly. > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Global warming is real and man is causing it. That is the opposite of science. It’s just a vague claim about something undefined. Gigobusters specious definition is, of course, completely wrong. This will be explained in depth in another post. > [@Marley23](#): > > Moved to the BBQ Pit (from MPSIMS) so the OP can rant in peace. At this point it was obvious there is some serious preconception about pointless shit, but it’s the Dope, so it won’t actually matter. > [@vontsira](#): > > A decade or two ago, lots of people were getting very hot-and-bothered about the hole in the ozone layer. What happened to that? > [@Mithras](#): > > We got our act together and stopped sending shit into the atmosphere that destroyed the ozone layer. Completely false of course. No sense asking for a cite, or getting sidetracked into another ball of internet poo. The very real and scientific reason for the OP (and subsequent posts about cold and snow) was introduced here, but as it’s the Dope, it didn’t matter. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Well, there is little doubt the predictions of the IPCC and the consensus and the models were right. > [Global warming set to bring colder, snowier winters](http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/48293) > > [Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming](http://news.discovery.com/earth/cold-winter-snow-weather-global-warming-101222.htm) > > Damn you global warming. Damn you all to hell. Of course by then it was a Pit thread. But that’s no reason to act like a complete fuckhole. Is it? Oh yeah, of course it is. It’s the Dope, where a serious scientific discussion is something to avoid at all cost. Which makes it a perfect tactic to annoy the living fuck out of the ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/294 "2013-09-08T01:43:58Z")
And that is dodge #8. Of course we do know that an ignorant like you is getting annoyed. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/295 "2013-09-08T10:20:12Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If you’re so sure of your position, you should be happy to have FXMastermind take you through a line of questioning and _still_ prove him wrong. > > One reason these debates always rehash the same stuff is a reluctance on your part to plant a flag in the ground. Make a clear claim that can be refuted and defended. Sheeze, you’d probably save yourself about 25 hours of typing a week! Although that sounds good in theory, there are a few problems with it as an approach. First, it appears that **Gigobuster** has little or no actual understanding of the issues involved. I don’t think he’s capable of explaining any of the concepts involved in his own words. That’s why he relies so much on cutting and pasting from sites like Realclimate. It’s also why one can see him completely missing the point of a post. Second, he is probably subconsciously afraid to say anything concrete lest he be contradicted by some evidence or argument he is unaware of. You see this phenomenon among TV psychics who are typically careful to make their statements vague. Last, the entire global warming theory needs to be ambiguous as far as I can tell. It needs to be so that warmists can simultaneously claim that (1) lots of scientists agree with them; (2) there is lots of evidence supporting their position; (3) there is little evidence contradicting their position; and (4) Western countries, especially the United States, need to drastically limit CO2 emissions otherwise really bad things will happen. So I can predict with a good deal of confidence that you will never see **Gigobuster** lay his cards on the table and submit to questioning about his position. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/296 "2013-09-08T11:09:35Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > First, it appears that **Gigobuster** has little or no actual understanding of the issues involved. I don’t think he’s capable of explaining any of the concepts involved in his own words. That’s why he relies so much on cutting and pasting from sites like Realclimate. It’s also why one can see him completely missing the point of a post. That may all be quite true, but it actually doesn’t matter. Ignorant blowhards are common online, and it sort of comes with the territory, you have to ignore them, or find a way to use their brick wall mentality as a sounding board. The biggest waste of time is the sheer volume of noise and chaff they can fire off, especially when a board allows copy and paste of walls of text. > [@brazil84](#): > > Second, he is probably subconsciously afraid to say anything concrete lest he be contradicted by some evidence or argument he is unaware of. You see this phenomenon among TV psychics who are typically careful to make their statements vague. Clearly, but you also see some hesitation from actual real science when dealing with unknowns, and especially chaotic systems like weather, and by definition, climate. We still don’t have a solid understanding on climate and general circulation, though certainly we are approaching a level of computing where we can make good guesses a week out. But I can’t fault the general nature of predictions, in regards to weather/climate, based on historic evidence, both can pretty much do anything at will it seems, and we don’t yet understand how and why. But to latch on to this uncertainty as weakness or deliberate deception is a find line to navigate. Of course it doesn’t help that it’s all so political and effects the very foundation of our civilizations, > [@brazil84](#): > > Last, the entire global warming theory needs to be ambiguous as far as I can tell. It needs to be so that warmists can simultaneously claim that (1) lots of scientists agree with them; (2) there is lots of evidence supporting their position; (3) there is little evidence contradicting their position; and (4) Western countries, especially the United States, need to drastically limit CO2 emissions otherwise really bad things will happen. OK now you run right smack into the giant wall of “oh fuckme” and everything gets all complicated in ways that a supercomputer still can’t model. If I try to expound on most of that I am over my head in the deep end of the shit pool. > [@brazil84](#): > > So I can predict with a good deal of confidence that you will never see **Gigobuster** lay his cards on the table and submit to questioning about his position. Again, you may be right, but it just doesn’t matter. If anyone does lay their cards on the table, somebody will take a dump on them, then steal the cards. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/297 "2013-09-08T11:46:47Z")
Returning to Global Warming, or AGW theory, or Climate Change, or **Inadvertent climate modification** , or Disruptive climate change or global climate change or what ever somebody uses, there is a very good reason to define terms before spewing forth fro the dubious fount of wisdom. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > [Google Ngram Viewer: Global Warming,global warming,Climate change,climate change](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Global+Warming%2C+global+warming%2C+Climate+change%2C+climate+change&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=) > > Global warming started dropping off, climate change wins, except Climate Change drops off and Global Warming wins. > > That’s odd > [@Marley23](#): > > You don’t get to cite books until you work out that month vs. day thing. I didn’t think anyone would actually look at the Ngram data, which is sort of a shame, as it was vital to the later points. Certainly Marley missed it. Why does [climate change so dominate global warming](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=global+warming%2Cclimate+change&year_start=1900&year_end=1970&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=), up until 1989, when the two terms start sharing the world stage? [global warming or climate change](http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=global+warming%2Cclimate+change&year_start=1988&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=) ? The mundane self proclaimed internet expert will spew ignorance like a firehose, but when you see them avoiding a simple question, while at the same time spending endless hours on long incomprehensible screeds, it’s an obvious bluff. The real science, rather than the amateur efforts of skepticalscience, is interesting. And unlike the boring stupidity of the AGW faithful, it’s educational as well. > [@](#): > > The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled “Global Warming,” just one of many examples. But we don’t use \*\*global warming \*\*much on this website. We use the less appealing “ **climate change**.” Why? > > **To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases**. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?” That’s simple enough. Why wouldn’t skepticalscience know this? Or any of the genius idiots here who quite simply never shut up? Unless they are asked a simple question? Oh right, because skepticalscience/realclimate doesn’t know it, how could they? > [@](#): > > Broecker’s term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it " **inadvertent climate modification**."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate? > > For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So “ **inadvertent climate modification** ,” while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge. There’s a term you won’t find on skepticalscience _inadvertent climate modification_ Of course you also won’t find “global warming theory” or “AGW theory” or “theory of global warming” either, so it’s all good. > [@](#): > > The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide’s impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned “inadvertent climate modification.” Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: “if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.” > > In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker’s usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used “global warming.” When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used “climate change.” So we see good reasons for terminology, and why it matters. > [@](#): > > During the late 1980s one more term entered the lexicon, “ **global change**.” This term encompassed many other kinds of change in addition to climate change. When it was approved in 1989, the U.S. climate research program was embedded as a theme area within the **U.S. Global Change Research Program**. So why is “Global Warming” such common belief? > [@](#): > > But **global warming** became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to **global warming**. He said: “global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming.” Hansen’s testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded. Global change never gained traction in either the scientific literature or the popular media. So global warming is simply the warming due to greenhouse gas changes, nothing more. And certainly it is based on physics, and the physics of greenhouse gases is known well enough that predictions based on increases are well known, at least to a scientist. Clearly not to the idiots here that I asked direct questions about it. It’s actually very simple to explain why we predict increased CO2 will cause warming, and when and how and where. > [@](#): > > But temperature change itself isn’t the most severe effect of changing climate. **Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone**. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So “ **global climate change** ” is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we’ve chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming. [What’s in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html) Thanks NASA. But don’t worry. some fuckhead with a warming hard on will be along to explain to you why skepticalscience knows everything and why you are wrong. But be assured, I will make fun of them. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/298 "2013-09-08T11:53:40Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > hy be coy? If you’re going to relay your to-the-point answer in the end anyway, why not just trumpet it at the beginning? Because attention whores don’t want anything to end. Much less be shown to be wrong in any way. Who the fuck knows? Plus, I think he was Googling like crazy trying to find an answer. I already knew there wasn’t one at skepticalscience, and it’s obvious he doesn’t actually know much. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/299 "2013-09-08T11:58:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Fuck, one of the first thing one learns in debate class is to make sure terms are defined. The next is probably to be able to clearly state your position and to make sure your opponent does the same. > > I expect now he’ll come here and claim that a desire for him to state thing clearly and concisely is “dodging” the issue, or a demonstration of ignorance about the complexity of the issue. Maybe even with a thousand more words and 25 more cites to the vaunted _science._ :rolleyes: Oh yeah, and it’s called trolling. I don’t even think he realizes it’s a kind of trolling. It’s probably second nature at this point, and the adrenaline rush alone means it just won’t stop. Not that there is anything wrong with getting that kick from the internet, but you got to expect somebody is going to eventually notice. The charged emotional response, the repetition, the huge copy and paste, the hurry to any and all topics AGW pops up in, this sort of thing has been around since Usenet. Same shit, different subject. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/300 "2013-09-08T12:15:16Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Although that sounds good in theory, there are a few problems with it as an approach. > > First, it appears that **Gigobuster** has little or no actual understanding of the issues involved. I don’t think he’s capable of explaining any of the concepts involved in his own words. That’s why he relies so much on cutting and pasting from sites like Realclimate. It’s also why one can see him completely missing the point of a post. > > Second, he is probably subconsciously afraid to say anything concrete lest he be contradicted by some evidence or argument he is unaware of. You see this phenomenon among TV psychics who are typically careful to make their statements vague. > > Last, the entire global warming theory needs to be ambiguous as far as I can tell. It needs to be so that warmists can simultaneously claim that (1) lots of scientists agree with them; (2) there is lots of evidence supporting their position; (3) there is little evidence contradicting their position; and (4) Western countries, especially the United States, need to drastically limit CO2 emissions otherwise really bad things will happen. > > So I can predict with a good deal of confidence that you will never see **Gigobuster** lay his cards on the table and submit to questioning about his position. Good points all, which indicates that our caped Reverend Save the World From Climate Change And Those Who Don’t Agree with Me On It won’t be producing that thread any time soon. But this observation needs to be highlighted: > [@](#): > > It’s also why one can see him completely missing the point of a post. The debate with him is often like someone trying to wrestle fog. Someone will ask a simple direct question or make a clear point and his response is everything and nothing at the same time. So, yeah, I know damn well he won’t be producing that thread. I think the notion of him stating a clear position of what he believes in less than 50 words had him hyperventilating. I asked it mainly to draw attention to the fact the he refuses to do the minimum that someone acting in good faith would do. I gotta say, It is beyond me as to why someone who is as emotionally invested in the topic as he is would refuse to clearly present his case. It’s as if doing so is Kryptonite to him. Once he does it the fog dissipates and he ceases to be. Still, it’s beyond weird. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440.md?page=16)