You’ve read all 19 of these scientific articles but you can’t make a single statement about them, other than they’re right.
Global warming is causing the climate to change. When the temperatures warmed up, the jungle receded and allowed human ancestors to evolve into savanna dwellers … oh … I see what you mean now … fucked the Earth up bad didn’t it.
The alarmists started using the term “climate change” a few years back when it began becoming apparent to anybody who bothered to pay attention that this “global warming” thing just wasn’t happening the way that they had claimed it would happen.
But in a perverse way, it actually benefited them. Now they can claim that mankind is causing EVERY strange weather event, regardless of what it is.
Would you mind providing a precise definition of “climate change”? Is it simply the claim that the climate is changing regardless of the cause of the change and the nature of the change? Or is it something more specific than that?
Brazil and FX still shouting at clouds?
I guess the models were right.
Yeah, global warming will be a godsend for what ever replaces us.
I did not refer to 19 papers but four, and since I am not a scientist, then it’s obvious that I accept what they say. If you argue that they are wrong, then you are free to come up with a peer-reviewed paper that challenges them.
Yes, because the Sacred (But Undefined) Theory of Global Warming predicts the End of the Human Race. Except when it doesn’t, of course.
You can’t really blame the sheeple, they have actually told that sort of shit by real expert climate scientist.
A top New Zealand researcher has used a prestigious award ceremony in Christchurch to warn that humans face extinction by the end of the century. "After 40 years, I'm part of a huge community of scientists who have become alarmed with our discovery, that we know from our knowledge of the ancient past, that if we continue our present growth path, we are facing extinction," Barrett said. "Not in millions of years, or even millennia, but by the end of this century."
VANCOUVER, B.C. – In a live radio interview on December 20, 2004, Professor Peter Barrett, Director of Victoria, NZ University's Antarctic Research Centre, repeated his published warning that extinction of humankind and human society as we know it may come about within 100 years because of impending climate change and ecological catastrophe – unless humankind can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Of course it’s all gone down the memory hole officially , but people remember. So does Google, in a roundabout way. (the archives were all blocked from quoting the direct sources)
Be kind, the brainwashed are rarely healed by mocking them.
No wait, found one.
.
English is a simple language, with nouns, like “climate,” and verbs, like “change.” You can dress it up with extra words if you need to explain it to children, the simple, or the willfully ignorant (you can choose which group you belong to) and make it “a change in the climate.” However, the words change roles, with “change” being used as a noun and “climate” as the adjective making it more specific, and when used in a sentence like “You deny climate change,” “You” is the subject, “deny” is the verb, and “climate change” is the object.
I hope that helps.
Well, it was a monumentally stupid thing to say. From your link, "Dr Tim Naish of the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, who has worked with Dr Barrett in Antarctica for many years, said he talked to him at length after his speech notes were reported and said, "I don’t think he meant to say that in 100 years we’ll all be gone.
‘I personally, and I think the majority of scientists, would find his comments, as they were reported, hard to defend from a scientific basis,’ Dr Naish said." And it was not in the final draft of the speech he gave ten years ago; we all can use some editing now and then, and that sounds like a “D’oh!” moment. AND Barrett’s really a Cheesehead, not a Kiwi (I always thought NZ looked like Wisconsin with mountains), so what does he know?
So what you have is a ten-yr-old story about a speech that wasn’t actually given. Weak sauce, indeed.
English is not as simple as you might think. For example, “red tide” is not necessarily red in color. And a “tidal wave” is not necessarily the result of tidal forces. Sometimes phrases are not used to mean what might be suggested by a strict reading of the definitions of their components.
You’re welcome for fighting your ignorance.
I belong to the group of people who wants to pin down what you are saying so that your claims can be scrutinized.
As I understand your definition of “climate change,” I absolutely positively do not deny climate change. Clearly the climate has been changing for billions of years. Clearly the climate has changed since the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period and the last Ice Age and so on.
Do you seriously believe that anyone in this thread denies “climate change” as you define it?
Absolutely. Do you seriously believe that anyone in this thread denies “climate change” as you have defined it?
I wouldn’t waste much time on this one.
But it does illustrate how evasive some people are. It’s a lot like dealing with psychics.
Well, FXmastermind believes it is limited to “global warming,” as in the same effect happening everywhere. Others deny anthropogenic climate change and that the vast amounts of carbon sequestered underground for millions of years can be dumped back into the atmosphere with no ill effects and that this is all a normal warming cycle and there is nothing we had to do with it and nothing we can do to help, so yeah, unless you want to get pedantic about definitions (and I know you and the others love to), several people here deny my definition of “climate change.” The “anthropogenic” is implied because our contributions to the problem cannot be denied by anyone who has the merest inkling of how the planet works. The rest of you stick your fingers in your ears and care not the slightest about future generations of humans or anything else.
Evasive? Moi? Please provide examples. I’m normally as clear as mud.
Does that mean “yes” or “no”?
Who in this thread denies that mankind’s activities are likely to have some kind of effect on the climate? Certainly not me.
Anyway, you asserted that “the issue is ‘climate change’” which by your own definition is any change in the climate, regardless of the cause, regardless of the degree, and regardless of good or harm.
Are you now backing away from your claim?
If by “pedantic,” you mean “precise,” then of course. And it’s not a matter of love. It’s because warmists (for the most part) like to hide their position behind a cloak of ambiguity.
No it’s not. You defined “climate change” as a “change” in the “climate.” I asked you what you meant by the phrase; you could have easily stated “I mean a change in the climate which is caused by mankind’s activities”
But instead you arrogantly launched into a mini-dissertation about how “English is a simple language.” Well it’s not as simple as you think.
If you break down the phrase “climate change” into its components, there is NOTHING implied about man-made causes.
So I will ask you again what you mean by “climate change.” Do you mean any change in the climate which is caused by mankind’s activities, regardless of the magnitude and effects of the change? Or do you mean something else?
Or are you sticking with your earlier arrogance?
What exactly about how the planet works do you think is being denied?
Or perhaps they are more concerned with assessing the truth of the situation than pretending to be morally superior.
Do you agree that clear thinking requires reasonably precise definitions?
Nope.
Of course. Arrogance is one of my most attractive qualities.
For them it is mere pretence. They have been given the tools and we have shown how to use them. At that they have failed. Oops.
Thank you for using the wiggle word “reasonably.” I rarely post without some.
At times like these, with yet another record cold summer event (last year it was in August, which started off this train wreck), it might help to step back and throw in some science and shit. OK, I don’t actually think science and facts and data, reality if you please, will make a damn bit fo difference to the true believer, but I’m sure it will be enjoyable to the hard nosed skeptic and the scientific minded.
Well, we know how that turned out. But hope springs eternal. Since we have a an actual newcomer, who no doubt has not been reading along, lets re-post a bit of the old science, which shows up every 500 posts or so.
See? If you know anything about the subject, it’s not hard to type out some fact based science shit on demand. It’s basic stuff. Which is why the stunning refusal, avoidance and gish galloping the alarmists engage in, when asked direct questions, is always so irritating, but ultimately amusing.
The media whores of course are in the usual bind, when faced with weather events that don’t fit into their script/ Certainly if it was a record heat wave hitting the heartland right now, we would be hearing all about how it’s climate change, global warming, you see we told you so. But record summer cold? How do you report that?
Read more: http://www.examiner.net/article/20140716/News/140719227#ixzz37gzkivvU
Can you blame record summer cold on global warming? (climate change)
What’s the protocol? Like when the first epic snowy and cold as fuck winters started (2006/7), then it was “oh cold winters will still happen, it means nothing”. After eight years of it the story is “climate change is causing the colder winters, with more snow”, but what about summer cold? (which is also happening in Europe and Russia and China and India and so on) How is that supposed to be reported?
Will anyone buy that now colder summers are caused by global warming/climate change/AGW? At what point does it become so absurd even a well paid media whore can’t bring themselves to say it? Hell, even Tamino has trouble keeping up sometimes. Just what is the official story we are to repeat?
But what about the science? Here’s the simple version. AGW/climate change means the most warming in winters, at high latitudes, with land temperatures warming much faster than oceans. It means more rain, less snow, warmer night time lows, and less snowpack. It means the NH warms faster than the SH, glaciers, ice caps and sea ice all decrease, and the ocean rises, faster each year. It means fewer late frosts, fewer early frosts, a longer growing season, with winters in the NH becoming milder. With less snow.
With less
fucking
snow.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/reducedsnow_more.htm
http://www.caryinstitute.org/discover-ecology/podcasts/not-just-hot-summers-climate-change-will-affect-winter-too
http://www.epa.gov/climatestudents/impacts/signs/snowpack.html
That right from the theory, based on the physics of the enhanced greenhouse effect theory of climate change. Or of global warming, since in no scenario does the enhanced greenhouse theory lead to a colder world. That’s the science. More CO2 means warmer, and the expected warming is specific, based on the physics behind the theory.
More warming in winter than other seasons.
The most warming at high latitudes, not in the tropics.
More warming at night.
Decreasing sea ice, glaciers and ice caps.
An increase in sea level rise.
Less snow in winter, more rain.
We now return you to the regularly scheduled fuckhead stew.
I know, I know, I will probably get in trouble for spreading a bunch of SCIENCE! around in the pit, rather than going off half cocked and ignorant, spewing about how wrong other people are, how angry we should be that other people are not doing what we want them to, and even worse, they are being skeptical and shit about things that are absolute facts. Like how global warming is fucking everything up and corporations are to blame and how it’s all very very very bad and we should be scared and angry and stop wasting fossil fuels typing out shit on computers, that sort of thing.
I guess I’m just a rebel with out a cause.
Because the folly and ignorance of mankind just doesn’t rile me that much.