Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   100 different governments and thousands of scientists will be meeting in Japan this week to perpetuate the global warming myth   (reuters.com) divider line 15
    More: Followup, global warming, Japan, Rajendra Pachauri, climate change, scientists, models of scientific inquiry, animals and plants, food supply  
•       •       •

611 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Mar 2014 at 1:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-03-23 03:24:24 PM  
5 votes:

sure haven't: "climate change", subby. It's called climate change now.

That way the Internet Intellectuals can attribute anything to it.


Do you enjoy being a dupe of cynical shills like Frank Luntz? That notion that "climate change" is a diversionary tactic by those stupid liberals is... Well, here:

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now.  However, this is simply untrue.  For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C).  Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'.  The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today).  The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'.  There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago.  There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change.  Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.
The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat.  Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

It's time for us to start talking about "climate change" instead of global warming and "conservation" instead of preservation.
"Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change "sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale." While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.



So stuff a sock in it, you willful ignoramus. Better yet, keep spouting your manufactured drivel, so we can better recognize you as part of the problem.
2014-03-23 02:20:20 PM  
3 votes:
"climate change", subby. It's called climate change now.

That way the Internet Intellectuals can attribute anything to it.
2014-03-23 05:59:46 PM  
2 votes:
Global climate change a.k.a. seasons.
2014-03-23 04:07:15 PM  
2 votes:

06Wahoo: Face it, the climate is far more complex than we believe it to be, and most of the "science" around it (as though science is simply the truth, not the search for the truth) is really just an attempt at branding that the data doesn't back up.


Dunning Kruger at its finest. You don't understand the science so it must be wrong.
2014-03-23 03:55:06 PM  
2 votes:

a particular individual: sure haven't: "climate change", subby. It's called climate change now.

That way the Internet Intellectuals can attribute anything to it.

Do you enjoy being a dupe of cynical shills like Frank Luntz? That notion that "climate change" is a diversionary tactic by those stupid liberals is... Well, here:

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now.  However, this is simply untrue.  For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C).  Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'.  The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today).  The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'.  There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago.  There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change.  Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.
The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat.  Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environm ...


Heh, of course he isn't going to believe it.  We hear about the "consensus" and the "settled science", yet they couldn't predict the "pause" that we keep hearing about.  And those polar ice caps that were supposed to disappear years ago have done anything but.  Oh, and who can forget that "weather isn't climate", except when it supports climate change (if that is even the case, since there seems to be little agreement on whether we will have more extreme weather events or less).

Face it, the climate is far more complex than we believe it to be, and most of the "science" around it (as though science is simply the truth, not the search for the truth) is really just an attempt at branding that the data doesn't back up.

But whatever you or any others who buy into it want to think, doesn't bug me. I'll be just fine with you taking this as a troll if you don't want to open up your mind to information that falls outside of your world view.
2014-03-23 02:47:19 PM  
2 votes:

sure haven't: "climate change", subby. It's called climate change now.

That way the Internet Intellectuals can attribute anything to it.


This cold/mild/hot season is proof of climate change...unless you use it to counter my point. Then you are an unenlightened noob. And it is ok for Al Gore to not act like it is real.
2014-03-23 02:16:51 PM  
2 votes:
Its doesn't matter. Our flavor of Capitalism means we will see it to its end game and not do a damned substantive thing about it.
2014-03-23 12:37:08 PM  
2 votes:
I'm believe after fully understanding how dire the situation is they'll walk away from this meeting with an actionable plan that will be implemented immediately...and I suspect next week McDonalds' employees will be making 15 an hour, weed will be legal, and the top tax rate will be 90%.
2014-03-24 12:20:32 AM  
1 votes:
The myth is that models of the future are anything other than pure speculation.
2014-03-23 06:11:29 PM  
1 votes:
Oh and keep them warm when it's cold and make clothing for them. Not to mention charging their iPhones and such. All 7+ billion without Fossil Fuels.

The short version is fine.
2014-03-23 06:07:32 PM  
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: Spare Me: I dunno. They have been selling it's all caused by humans. There's only one way to reduce modern civilization's effects on the climate, reduce the world human population. It's not a climate problem, it's a biology problem if you want to actually distill the message.

The science says that humans have pushed the GHG levels out of balance. That's the thing about science, it is still true even if you don't believe it.

The "only way" you describe is just concentrated stupidity. Nobody sane is recommending that. There are plenty of proposals that will have a positive effect without mass death ... sorry to burst your psychotic bubble.


Okay Einstein. How do you feed 7+ billion people without Fossil Fuels? Riddle me that.
2014-03-23 05:34:39 PM  
1 votes:

Slaxl: jjorsett: If all those dire effects come to pass, won't that decimate the world population, and wouldn't that be a good thing? Everything that's bad for the environment is due to humans, so the fewer of us the better.

Most people aren't bothered by global warming because of what it will do to the planet, but in fact most people are bothered because of what knock on effects that will have on humans. So no, billions of people starving to death because of global warming isn't what everyone standing up and saying "let's do something about global warming before it's too late", wants.


I dunno. They have been selling it's all caused by humans. There's only one way to reduce modern civilization's effects on the climate, reduce the world human population. It's not a climate problem, it's a biology problem if you want to actually distill the message.
2014-03-23 02:40:34 PM  
1 votes:

sure haven't: "climate change", subby. It's called climate change now.

That way the Internet Intellectuals can attribute anything to it.


Why is it that deniers always hang their hats on easily disprovable lies?

I am not going to explain this one again but I'll give you a hint - G.W, Bush.
2014-03-23 02:26:45 PM  
1 votes:
Wait, is Algore going to fly there in his private B-767? Wouldn't using Skype have been a nice non-CO2 heavy method of getting concerned scientists together? Is  An Inconvenient Truth II (Now It's Called Global Cooling) due out soon? WillMichael Moore direct?

/ Chinese cow farts cost less than Calf. cow farts!
// It's weather, not climate, when you experience it!
/// Global Sea levels rising, just ask those dutchmen on their dikes and Salt pond workers in SF Bay!
/V God will pay for all the CO and CO2 from Volcanoes and Forest Fires! It's organic and natural! But atheists will have to make up the difference if there is no $$$ in the bank!
V Time for a write-in campaign for Obama in '16!
2014-03-23 01:07:30 PM  
1 votes:
Only 40 percent of Americans and 39 percent of Chinese view climate change as a major threat, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 39 nations in 2013.

Welp, that ends that idea.
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report