Originally posted by googlefudgeBoth are perfectly valid phrases and both have been used to describe this phenomena since long before you were born.
No the world is warming and that is [and causes] climate change.
Both are perfectly valid phrases and both have been used to describe this phenomena since long before you were born.
So you are wrong and ignorant as well as stupid.
When was I born? Since you are obviously implying that you are not wrong ignorant (or stupid), this should be an easy question for you to answer.
Originally posted by googlefudgeBoth are perfectly valid phrases and both have been used to describe this phenomena since long before you were born.
No the world is warming and that is [and causes] climate change.
Both are perfectly valid phrases and both have been used to describe this phenomena since long before you were born.
So you are wrong and ignorant as well as stupid.
Actually, the term 'global warming' didn't show up until long after I was born. In fact I can remember reading articles that said scientists believed the earth was going through a period of cooling, so I must be a lot older than even I thought I was...
Global warming and climate change refer to the same thing. The name change came about after some discrepancies in research data were discovered, leading many to believe it wasn't very clear whether global warming was taking place or not. The term 'climate change' is relatively innocuous and essentially meaningless, because all it basically means is that the climate changes... and that is something people have known for a very long time. The earth goes through regular cycles of climatic changes.
Originally posted by lemon lime"Climate change" refers to climate change caused by man. Obviously.
[b]Both are perfectly valid phrases and both have been used to describe this phenomena since long before you were born.
Actually, the term 'global warming' didn't show up until long after I was born. In fact I can remember reading articles that said scientists believed the earth was going through a period of cooling, so I must be a lot older ...[text shortened]... ]have[/i] known for a very long time. The earth goes through regular cycles of climatic changes.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]Both are perfectly valid phrases and both have been used to describe this phenomena since long before you were born.
Actually, the term 'global warming' didn't show up until long after I was born. In fact I can remember reading articles that said scientists believed the earth was going through a period of cooling, so I must be a lot older ...[text shortened]... ]have[/i] known for a very long time. The earth goes through regular cycles of climatic changes.[/b]
Global warming and climate change refer to the same thing.
No it doesn't and it never did. It is extremely simple; “global warming” means globally warming and “climate change” means climate change but not necessarily getting warmer and that is the difference in meaning. Global warming is always a kind of climate change but climate change is not always a kind of global warming.
The name change came about after some discrepancies in ...
There never was any such name change. They are two terms that are both still used today to refer to, just as they always have, different things.
The earth goes through regular cycles of climatic changes.
yes, which is irrelevant because science shows that the current global warming is not a part of one of those natural climate change cycles but is man made.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat's right. The expression is an abbreviation of man made climate change... previously known as man made global warming. And the expression man made climate change itself has become little more than a sound bite, something people are (obviously) supposed to say if they have been convinced that humans are seriously impacting the planet by the burning of fossil fuels... meaning coal and oil.
"Climate change" refers to climate change caused by man. Obviously.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you mean the concept that the world is subject to climate change then I would have to agree. In fact I don't know anyone who thinks climate is static and unchanging, or believes it is supposed to be static and unchanging.
The term is believed to have been coined in the 60s. The concept however is much older.
It was during the 60s and early 70s I first read about global cooling, which supposedly signaled the beginning of the next ice age. I don't know how the concept of global warming could have been promoted at the same time scientific consensus was leaning toward the globe cooling down, but this just illustrates how a name change would eventually be needed to avoid this sort of embarrassing appearance of conflict. Hence, global warming and/or cooling has been renamed "climate change".
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, I was referring to the concept that greenhouse gasses created by man could lead to global warming.
If you mean the concept that the world is subject to climate change ...
It was during the 60s and early 70s I first read about global cooling, which supposedly signaled the beginning of the next ice age. I don't know how the concept of global warming could have been promoted at the same time scientific consensus was leaning toward the globe cooling down,
I don't think that ever was the scientific consensus.
... but this just illustrates how a name change would eventually be needed to avoid this sort of embarrassing appearance of conflict.
Why do you think it is embarrassing? Scientists frequently come up with new ideas and new findings that conflict with older ideas and they usually revel in it rather than be embarrassed.
If scientists tomorrow discovered that the earth was going to cool down due to some newly discovered phenomena, they would not be embarrassed at all.
Hence, global warming and/or cooling has been renamed "climate change".
Or maybe you just made all that up - or have been misinformed by fellow deniers.
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeScientific consensus, hmm?
If you mean the concept that the world is subject to climate change then I would have to agree. In fact I don't know anyone who thinks climate is static and unchanging, or believes it is supposed to be static and unchanging.
It was during the 60s and early 70s I first read about global cooling, which supposedly signaled the beginning of t ...[text shortened]... appearance of conflict. Hence, global warming and/or cooling has been renamed "climate change".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't think that ever was the scientific consensus.
No, I was referring to the concept that greenhouse gasses created by man could lead to global warming.
[b]It was during the 60s and early 70s I first read about global cooling, which supposedly signaled the beginning of the next ice age. I don't know how the concept of global warming could have been promoted at the same time scientific consensus was le ...[text shortened]... e change".
Or maybe you just made all that up - or have been misinformed by fellow deniers.[/b]
I don't know if most scientists had signed on to it, but there were articles published expressing this scientific opinion. I do know it had to have been taken seriously enough for articles about it to appear in something like Scientific American.
Maybe articles about global cooling signaling the onset of a new ice age were published in science journals simply because the public expressed an interest in reading about it. But if that were true, wouldn't this smack of sensationalism and tabloid journalism to sell news stories rather than simply being hard science?
And who would benefit from spreading that sort of story around for public consumption? We know what fuels the global warming warnings and who benefits from it, but as far as anyone knew back then no one would benefit from warnings about global cooling and the possible onset of a new ice age.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOr maybe you just made all that up - or have been misinformed by fellow deniers.
No, I was referring to the concept that greenhouse gasses created by man could lead to global warming.
[b]It was during the 60s and early 70s I first read about global cooling, which supposedly signaled the beginning of the next ice age. I don't know how the concept of global warming could have been promoted at the same time scientific consensus was le ...[text shortened]... e change".
Or maybe you just made all that up - or have been misinformed by fellow deniers.[/b]
You are obviously guessing... if you spent only some of your time keeping up with real science news, and would read reputable science articles and journals, and spend less of your time being "informed" by your fellow non-deniers, you would actually know if what I was saying is true or not.
You would also have to be old enough to start reading and then keeping abreast of these developments as long as I have. Or you could go to the trouble of finding this ancient information for yourself, but then you still have to wonder if it's really true or not. Perhaps there's a world wide conspiracy to change historical documents, in order to reflect a reality you don't want to believe. So what can you believe, and who can you trust? I don't know. You're on your own, Bud... good luck.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI said consensus was leaning towards global cooling. I didn't say the overwhelming majority of scientists had bought into it. The consensus at that time (whatever the percentage might have been) wasn't influenced by environmental concerns or political pressure, so the whole thing turned out to be a relatively short lived flash in the pan.
Scientific consensus, hmm?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
This should go without saying, but public consensus usually doesn't match up with consensus within a science community. Unless someone is a part of an actively involved science community, they probably aren't going to have an accurate assessment of whether something is actually being taken seriously, or if it's just some interesting idea being kicked around for the fun of it.
I believe the consensus in favor of global warming today (whatever percentage that might be) is highly inflated, and mostly reflects an unwillingness of many scientists to go against a highly politicized movement to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. I seriously doubt if anyone was worried over losing their job back when global cooling came under some real scrutiny. But this is just my opinion, so there is no need for anyone to get their shorts twisted into a knot over someone expressing their opinion on a message board... at an internet game site. 😕😛
Originally posted by lemon limeYes, I said as much.
You are obviously guessing...
...you would actually know if what I was saying is true or not.
I know perfectly well that what you were saying is not true.
You would also have to be old enough to start reading and then keeping abreast of these developments as long as I have.
No, I wouldn't.
Or you could go to the trouble of finding this ancient information for yourself, but then you still have to wonder if it's really true or not.
Now I don't know what you are saying. It looks to me like you have lost track of what you were saying.