US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
I have two questions. If global warming is real, why did they change it to "climate change" when their models didn't resemble reality? If global warming is real, why was it necessary to misquote so many scientists and falsify so much data?:
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
I have two questions. If global warming is real, why did they change it to "climate change" when their models didn't resemble reality? If global warming is real, why was it necessary to misquote so many scientists and falsify so much data?:
Click to expand...
"Global warming" and "climate change" are describing two different things

Nobody has been misquoted, no data has been falsified, you don't understand how science works
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
it should be unimpeded by politics,.says the guy clinging to the heartland institute.

also, thermometers are liars.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
I have two questions. If global warming is real, why did they change it to "climate change" when their models didn't resemble reality? If global warming is real, why was it necessary to misquote so many scientists and falsify so much data?:
Click to expand...
the one single "climategate" debacle you retards yapped so much about ended in exoneration.

do you need me to post the models again?

 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"Global warming" and "climate change" are describing two different things Nobody has been misquoted, no data has been falsified, you don't understand how science works
Click to expand...
Nope, same people pushing the same theory, just rewording it when their predictions failed to occur. Yet many scientist say they were misquoted, researchers have admitted they "corrected" data that didn't fit their model. Your claim that "you don't understand how science works" is pretending YOU do. Yet you can't tell the difference between a theory and a fact. But go ahead and believe whatever religion you want. Just don't think other people must abide by your religion.
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
Nope, same people pushing the same theory, just rewording it when their predictions failed to occur. Yet many scientist say they were misquoted, researchers have admitted they "corrected" data that didn't fit their model. Your claim that "you don't understand how science works" is pretending YOU do. Yet you can't tell the difference between a theory and a fact. But go ahead and believe whatever religion you want. Just don't think other people must abide by your religion.
Click to expand...
Here, let me google that for youl

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see here:
'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc. These projections of future global precipitation changes from the 2007 IPCC report are an example of climate change:
Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate change. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications. [h=3]Both Terms Have Long Been Used[/h] 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. In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:
And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature:
[h=3]No Reason to Change the Term[/h] 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.​
[h=3]Summary[/h] So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
So, thanks for demonstrating your lack of scientific understanding again.

Both terms have been used for a long time, and the term 'climate change' actually predates 'global warming'.

So much for your theory.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
So, thanks for demonstrating your lack of scientific understanding again.

Both terms have been used for a long time, and the term 'climate change' actually predates 'global warming'.

So much for your theory.
Click to expand...
Who would have guessed, people who demonstrably don't understand science consistently deny valid, universally accepted scientific theories?

Weird, huh?
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Who would have guessed, people who demonstrably don't understand science consistently deny valid, universally accepted scientific theories? Weird, huh?
Click to expand...
Who would have guessed "universally accepted scientific theories" are not universally accepted? Weird, huh?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
Who would have guessed "universally accepted scientific theories" are not universally accepted? Weird, huh?
Click to expand...
I guess if I didn't understand that pressure between plate's on the crust of the earth causes earthquakes I'd believe they're magic too..

Weird how the overwhelming majority of professionals who study these things accept the scientific consensus, huh? You'd think if the bullshit you espouse had any merit at all, you'd see somewhat of a controversy among the professionals.. But you don't.. now that is odd.. Even odder, the controversies only exist within the political and public arena, where opinion reins dominant, even odder still, you and your uninformed ilk encourage support for political and public opinion over scientific opinion. Why would someone looking to understand the truth about something rely on an appeal to authority and an appeal to numbers, both formal logical fallacies, to prove a point?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
even the skeptics and oil companies have admitted that human activities have contributed to the increase in global temperatures.

the deniers are deluded.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
even the skeptics and oil companies have admitted that human activities have contributed to the increase in global temperatures.

the deniers are deluded.
Click to expand...
So what do you think will be the eventual outcome of people like Red, Doer, Wavels, twostroke, etc.? Do you think they'll eventually go back to the shadows as their viewpoint will eventually be way too embarrassing to publicly hold, like it was for the tobacco industry denialists?

I bet that's what'll eventually happen, but these fervent fucks will take it to the grave (as it's pretty close for most of them anyway) and deny it til the end
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
So what do you think will be the eventual outcome of people like Red, Doer, Wavels, twostroke, etc.? Do you think they'll eventually go back to the shadows as their viewpoint will eventually be way too embarrassing to publicly hold, like it was for the tobacco industry denialists?

I bet that's what'll eventually happen, but these fervent fucks will take it to the grave (as it's pretty close for most of them anyway) and deny it til the end
Click to expand...
much like happened to beenthere with his "unskewed polling" theory, they will cling to their delusion even in the face of a smackdown from reality.

he vanished for a year after election day like NLXSK, only to come back and proclaim themselves to somehow have been right.

you can't be embarrassed if you're dumb enough or shameless enough.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Yes, global warming only affects deniers. The true believers will be magically transported to the mothership and be spared. Weird how the overwhelming majority of professionals who study these things end up being just the 37% of people who bothered to reply to the questionnaire where agreeing that co2 has a warming effect suddenly are agreeing that man made global warming is destroying the Earth. You'd think if the bullshit you espouse had any merit at all, you'd see somewhat of a controversy among the professionals.. But you do.. the controversies exist within the scientific community also. When have I ever encouraged support for political and public opinion over scientific opinion? Why would someone looking to understand the truth about something rely on a theory (by definition, unproven) to prove a point?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
Yes, global warming only affects deniers. The true believers will be magically transported to the mothership and be spared. Weird how the overwhelming majority of professionals who study these things end up being just the 37% of people who bothered to reply to the questionnaire where agreeing that co2 has a warming effect suddenly are agreeing that man made global warming is destroying the Earth. You'd think if the bullshit you espouse had any merit at all, you'd see somewhat of a controversy among the professionals.. But you do.. the controversies exist within the scientific community also. When have I ever encouraged support for political and public opinion over scientific opinion? Why would someone looking to understand the truth about something rely on a theory (by definition, unproven) to prove a point?
Click to expand...
So why didn't 97% of scientists who study the climate say that ACC was pure bullshit instead of just not reaching a conclusion, if ACC is such a bullshit theory?
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
So why didn't 97% of scientists who study the climate say that ACC was pure bullshit instead of just not reaching a conclusion, if ACC is such a bullshit theory?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but 97% of the 37% of people who are vaguely associated with science in any form and returned the questionaire doesn't equal 97% of climatologists. Especially when agreeing that co2 has a warming effect is misconstrued that the Earth is about to be destroyed. And people like you who attack and want to imprison anyone who disagrees with them becomes a pretty strong deterrent to anyone daring to disagree.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
So why didn't 97% of scientists who study the climate say that ACC was pure bullshit instead of just not reaching a conclusion, if ACC is such a bullshit theory?
Click to expand...
So you're now saying 97% of scientists who study the climate say that ACC just did not reach a conclusion? I guess you're agreeing with me after all.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
people like you who attack and want to imprison anyone who disagrees with them
Click to expand...
did you miss the distinction between having a stupid opinion and starting a campaign to knowingly disseminate false information that could hurt people, or are you too stupid to even realize that there is a distinction?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top