They might not have had to do this if it wasn’t a) a hyper-partisan political issue and b) an actual scientific discipline dependent on facts and figures and the scientific method (there are a very few who do treat it as a science in practice, but no one wants to listen to them beat down the Cult of Climastrology)
The New Language of Climate Change
Leading climate scientists and meteorologists are banking on a new strategy for talking about climate change: Take the politics out of it.
That means avoiding the phrase “climate change,†so loaded with partisan connotations as it is. Stop talking about who or what is most responsible. And focus instead on what is happening and how unusual it is—and what it is costing communities.
That was a main takeaway at the American Meteorological Society’s annual meeting this month, where top meteorologists and environmental scientists from around the country gathered to hear the latest research on record rainfall and drought, debate new weather prediction models and digest all manner of analysis on climatic mutations.
Too late. They decided that it was mostly/solely caused by Mankind, regardless of not having the scientific proof, and decided to run with it. Hence the change from global warming to climate change, and attempts at things like climate disruption and such. It’s so political now that even if it was truly real, as in the man-caused part, you’d never get the skeptics to believe it, and never get the Warmists to make the big changes in their own lives.
It’s dead. The very fact that they have to discuss this says all the world about it.
Educating the public and policymakers about climate change at a time when elected leaders are doubling down on denying that it is happening at all or that humans are responsible for it demands a new lexicon, conference attendees told me—one that can effectively narrate the overwhelming scientific evidence but not get sucked into the controversy fueled most prominently by President Donald Trump.
Which means it’s political.
Poor Gewndolyn.
She’ll have to learn a whole new set of lies.
TEACH: They decided that it was mostly/solely caused by Mankind, regardless of not having the scientific proof, and decided to run with it.
That’s incorrect (we’ll attribute it to your ignorance rather than your dishonesty). Based on the evidence, scientists concluded that CO2 added to the atmosphere was causing the Earth to warm.
No, they went for it after acid rain and the hole in the ozone didn’t scare people enough.
Gospozha Jeffery thinks is he keeps repeating the same lies all over again, we’ll believe them.
People who know the facts don’t fall for the Big Lie.
I’ve been saying this for years. Once the left latched it’s lying fangs onto “Global Warming” the jig was up. They turned what might have been an honest scientific discussion into a leftist political ploy by teaming it up with anti-capitalism and socialist politics and at that point lost the argument. That’s why if anything goes forward it must be done by force. They turned their science into their religion and we already have a religion.
“based on the evidence, scientists concluded…blah, blah, blah. They concluded the earth may be warming as it has before but based on evidence cannot prove and demonstrate man is causing it.
“Based on the evidence, we’re all gonna die…â€. Wait- there is no evidence.
Kye: They concluded the earth may be warming as it has before but based on evidence cannot prove and demonstrate man is causing it.
Actually, the evidence for global warming spans multiple scientific fields of study, such as the physics of the greenhouse effect, as well as observations of the land, sea, air, and from space.
Oh look! A shifting of the goalposts!
Many of which do not support the theory of AGM. More and more scientists are coming our saying the theory of AGM is deeply flawed and not actual science.
Obviously, they must be silenced.
gitarcarver: Oh look! A shifting of the goalposts!
How so? That the scientific evidence comes from different fields and methodologies increases confidence in the scientific support.
gitarcarver: Many of which do not support the theory of AGM.
The Earth’s surface, lower atmosphere, and oceans are warming; while the stratosphere is cooling, quantitatively consistent with an increase in the greenhouse effect. We also know that humans have significantly increased the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Not sure why you do not think this support anthropogenic greenhouse warming.
Isn’t the topic not “global warming” but rather “anthropomorphic global warming?”
When you and Jeffery talk about people denying that the world is warming, that’s not true and is in fact a lie that warmists used to try and discredit discussion. What is the issue is man’s contribution to the global warming.
You keep saying that but people of your ilk forget the the scientific method not only requires observation, but repeatable experimentation as well. There is observable data that may show the earth is warming, but that is not does not mean that CO2 one of the causes, an only cause, or contributes to the warming at all.
There was a theory that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, but the levels of CO2 and its affect is unknown and therefore not part of a scientific proof which you and others clamor about.
And for the record, for every discipline you bring up, there are those in those same disciplines that dispute AGW.
Because the earth has gone through warming periods before without human interaction at all.
As many have demonstrated, CO2 concentrations lag temperatures increases which is backwards if CO2 were to actually cause temperature increases. It is also known that CO2 is trapped in ice which means that when the earth warms naturally, CO2 is released in a natural cycle.
The fact of the matter is that when discussing AGW, what is passed off as “scientific” is anything but.
gitarcarver: people denying that the world is warming, that’s not true
You can’t have it both ways. “Skeptics” question the basic evidence of the Earth’s warming. One can’t conclude it’s warming (wink, wink) AND that scientists have faked the warming data. Let’s all agree that the Earth is warming at a rate between (0.123 C/decade per UAH; lower troposphere) and 0.195 C/decade per RSS satellite and surface/ocean thermometers). Fair enough?
Why is it warming? Skeptics hypothesize mostly natural causes but offer no evidence, or theories on causation. Climate scientists present evidence supporting the theory that increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing most of the warming.
gitarcarver: data that may show the Earth is warming
There you go again. “May” show warming? You can’t have it both ways. The Earth is warming.
gitarcarver: the Earth has gone through warming periods before without human interaction at all
And humans that don’t smoke can get lung cancer. So? Many factors can influence the overall temperature of the Earth’s surface, including greenhouse gases, volcanism, asteroid strikes, albedo, orbital changes, plate tectonics, Sun changes etc. The current period of rapid warming is consistent with the increase in CO2 resulting from humans burning fossil fuels. What is the competing theory offered by “skeptics”; what is the evidence supporting that theory?
gitarcarver: CO2 is trapped in ice which means that when the earth warms naturally, CO2 is released in a natural cycle
Good! A hypothesis. But it has been proven (C isotope ratios) that the current rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuel burning AND that the gigaton amounts released by burning are consistent with the amounts found in the atmosphere, oceans and captured by vegetation. Are these facts consistent with your hypothesis that the CO2 increase comes from melting ice?
If atmospheric CO2 does not effect troposphere temperature increases, why is the stratosphere cooling as predicted by theory?
gitarcarver: Isn’t the topic not “global warming†but rather “anthropomorphic global warming?â€
That’s right. So we have 1) The Earth is warming; 2) Humans are the primary cause of the warming.
gitarcarver: You keep saying that but people of your ilk forget the the scientific method not only requires observation, but repeatable experimentation as well.
Repeatable observations are required in science, not direct experimentation; otherwise archaeology and astronomy would not be considered science.
gitarcarver: There is observable data that may show the earth is warming …
So we are in agreement on the first. Keep that in mind when it becomes a matter of discussion on this forum.
gitarcarver: but that is not does not mean that CO2 one of the causes, an only cause, or contributes to the warming at all.
Just because it is warming doesn’t mean humans are the cause. Rather, we have evidence that humans are the cause.
gitarcarver: There was a theory that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, but the levels of CO2 and its affect is unknown and therefore not part of a scientific proof which you and others clamor about.
Well, that brings up physical experiments. Here’s the IR spectrum for CO2. Another fact we can determine from basic physics is the equilibrium temperature of the Earth, based on solar radiation, and albedo, which is a chilly -18°C. Instead, the Earth’s surface is a balmy +15°C. The difference is due to the greenhouse effect.
gitarcarver: Because the earth has gone through warming periods before without human interaction at all.
What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?! Climate scientists have identified many mechanisms which can affect climate, including solar irradiance, volcanism, orbital variations, continental drift, albedo, mountain building, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts.
gitarcarver: Oh look! A shifting of the goalposts!
The evidence supporting the theory of man-made global warming has always spanned multiple scientific disciplines.
Demonstrating that the evidence comes from multiple disciplines is cementing the goalposts, not shifting them. What do you mean “shifting of the goalposts!” in this case?
gitarcarver: they must be silenced.
Evidence to falsify the theory can be published all over the internet. How is it silenced? The current president of the US doesn’t accept the supporting evidence. The GOP does not. Most Republican voters do not. It’s only the scientific community and those that trust them and the process, that DOES accept the evidence for man-made global warming.
Do you feel that the theory is deeply flawed and doesn’t comport with the scientific method? If so, why?
The evidence supporting the theory of man-made global warming has always spanned multiple scientific disciplines.
Always? I had no idea 1980 represented always. And what “disciplines” are we covering?
Social Justice? Ecology?
Emmaline thinks creating new scams represents legitimate endeavor.
formwiz: what “disciplines†are we covering?
Physics, atmospherics, oceanography, glaciology, planetology, among others.
formwiz: Always? I had no idea 1980 represented always.
Most people would assume “always” refers to the duration of the issue, not the 14+ billion years since the Big Bang. Sorry for the confusion.
Arrhenius predicted global warming from CO2 some 120 years ago. Admittedly, it’s doubtful that Australopithecines gave greenhouse gases much thought. My apologies for the confusion.
And the evidence against it covers multiple disciplines, too.
I did my part to contribute to
global warmingclimate change! On Friday, and then again today, I burned debris in my fire pit, sending released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere! Friday it was cleared brush and some trash, and today it was the old hardwood flooring we removed, along with some cut off ends and the cardboard boxes in which the new hardwood came.dana,
Don’t beat yourself up (we realize you’re actually boasting)! Burning wood and trash is largely carbon neutral. If you’re at all interested in why that is, we can explain.
And later today, we’re going to take a fossil fueled trip to my sister’s house, where everybody is gathering to watch The Patriots defeat the Ewes in the Super Bowl!
AGW is a lie. Just as the Ozone hole was a lie. Neither scientific communities let you look at the research behind their proposals.
They simply write papers and say well we did this and this. Their models do not take into effect the sun. This is proven. Over 13000 scientists have signed a paper debunking AGW.
The Math behind the Greenhouse effect is in error. When I said there would be runaway warming based upon their theory Jethro er I mean Jacob er I mean Zachriel tried to saul alinksy my theory with ridicule. However there have been many experts in math prove their theory is incorrect.
The AGW crowd relies upon runaway greenhouse temperatures to FEAR MONGER you into letting an AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT tell you what to do and tax the shit out of you for no reason. It is simply a lie and a scam.
The AGW crowd uses the “ASSUMED CLOSE” when discussing global warming. That is a technique used y salesman, most notably car salesman which simply ASSUMES your going to buy the car and begins preparing the paper work as if you have already said yes when in fact you have not. Many people rather than to stand up for themselves or their values or their beliefs simply roll over.
the Assumed close wants you to roll over. The AGW group is now in full blow Assumed close mode.
Resist this BS. AGW is a scam of enormous proportions and more and more scientists are coming to realize how big of a scam it is. However once you have a billion screaming voices it is hard to be heard. We just need to scream back with our billion voices instead of rolling over and ASSUMING THEY ARE RIGHT because a lie repeated often enough is the truth.
The climate is a Chaotic system. In math you do not need to explain chaos. It does not require an explanation. This is why your weather man is almost always wrong. Its gonna snow. Well sorry folks it should have snowed…Etc. Etc.
StillAlive: Neither scientific communities let you look at the research
That is not true, although oft repeated by skeptics. That is not to say that scientists don’t commit fraud, overinterpret results or just make mistakes. After all, science is a human enterprise.
And that is why you never trust a single observation/result to support or falsify a theory. Recall Andrew Wakefield’s Lancet article (Wakefield et al 1998) showing the MMR vaccine caused an autism/bowel disease syndrome? Other researchers couldn’t confirm his work, and it was finally shown that Wakefield had “cooked the books”. In this case, a single researcher couldn’t hide his fraud without being detected, but now you’re claiming that thousands of climate researchers are perpetrating the biggest fraud in the history of humanity without detection? Shouldn’t some enterprising conservative scientist be able to reveal the fraud with credible data?
The “hole” in the stratospheric ozone layer (that blocks much of the UV light from the Sun) is actually a “thinning” or “decreased concentration” of ozone in certain regions over the Earth. The destruction of ozone results from a complex set of chemical reactions triggered by release of chlorine (and bromine) atoms from halogenated organic compounds (the infamous CFCs; chlorofluorocarbons) by UV light. The chlorine acts catalytically on ozone, meaning that one chlorine atom can destroy thousands of ozone molecules, yielding O2 or molecular oxygen.
Do you have evidence to lend credence to your conspiracy theory (‘theory’ used colloquially) that DuPont was behind the whole anti-CFC movement?
And that is why you never trust a single observation/result to support or falsify a theory.
Theories are not falsified, Fanny, they are refuted.
The Wiz: Theories are not falsified, Fanny, they are refuted.
You’re still wrong, but we admire your dogged persistence in your wrongness. It’s takes a certain type of person to take a beating like you have and keep on punching. Are you trying to get a position in the tRump communications dept??
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/09/27/these-scientific-theories-were-accepted-once-but-were-later-proven-wrong/#169578d24da2
Eat shit, nignorant.