US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

Red1966 said:

So you're now saying 97% of scientists who study the climate say that ACC just did not reach a conclusion?

Click to expand...

Red1966 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

<30% reached a conclusion; ACC. 67% did not reach a conclusion, >1% said; Not ACC. So if ACC is such bullshit, why didn't that 67% say ACC is bullshit?

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

1% said; Not ACC. So if ACC is such bullshit, why didn't that 67% say ACC is bullshit?

Click to expand...

Red1966 said:

Why did you claim 97% before?

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

1% said; Not ACC. So if ACC is such bullshit, why didn't that 67% say ACC is bullshit?

Click to expand...

Red1966 said:

30% said co2 [and other human activities] affects warming [which red denies is happening]

Click to expand...

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...

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...

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...

Doer said:

So, that they can continue to just MAKE IT UP.

Two different meanings
air is full of man make carbon
centimeter sea rise
Sea Ice is lessening
oceans are warming
ACC was the term before AGW

NOT HAPPENING, and none is true.

ALL SHAMEFUL LIES of the SAGAN. And they cannot show a single source for any of these lies,

I would believe it if they could show me those. I believed for a long time. I hate the lies that bastardize science. That is all.

They keep asking for what we think is proof. Stop lying, how about?

Since they can't even show ole Doer in the Middle, what they are talking about, it is all LIES.

Click to expand...

[h=3]Global Warming vs. Climate Change[/h] 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&#8217;s time for us to start talking about &#8220;climate change&#8221; instead of global warming and &#8220;conservation&#8221; instead of preservation. &#8220;Climate change&#8221; is less frightening than &#8220;global warming&#8221;. As one focus group participant noted, climate change &#8220;sounds like you&#8217;re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.&#8221; 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".

Click to expand...

Doer said:

Instead of the ad hominem...strike that. Because of the ad hominem attacks and thread pollution point to your previous failures.. it obvious you have nothing,

Click to expand...

if you don't like your face rocked.

Two different meanings
air is full of man make carbon
centimeter sea rise
Sea Ice is lessening
oceans are warming
ACC was the term before AGW

Click to expand...

Sea level rise

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4

Click to expand...

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Click to expand...

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year

Click to expand...

With few exceptions, glaciers around the world have retreated at unprecedented rates over the last century. Some ice caps, glaciers, and ice shelves have disappeared altogether. Many more are retreating so rapidly that they may vanish within decades. Some scientists attribute this retreat to the Industrial Revolution; burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and affects our environment in ways we did not understand before.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

65% made no claim whatsoever.

you don't need to make a claim about anthropogenic global warming, which is happening (I AM HITLER!!!!!!!! !!!!) to study changing migratory patterns or rising sea levels.

wanna take a look at any of those other studies that are so useless because they don't agree with your bircher nonsense?

it comes out the same way every time. AGW deniers (DIE SCUM JEWS, DIE!) make up a miniscule slice of the pie.

OMGZ THEY WANT TO EXTERMINATE THE JEWS!^^^^^^

Click to expand...

canndo said:

Ok, a planetary war over the truth of global warming. The scientists win - what have we got? nothing, becausse should they finally have convinced every man woman and child on earth that their tiny carbon foot prints are killing their children, we still have to come up with a policy. Is anyone paranoid enough to figure that the moment we actually pass things over to the policy makers that we will be instantly shorn of our rights? If so, then that same PR that has been perpetrated upon us has again triumphed. The scientists lose - Oh well, they were wrong, we can continue along the same path, all warming, if there is any, is just the way things are on earth. Beyond that, why bother with any pollution at all? Does Government lose it's control over citizens? Not likely. If there is a war, then it is the status quo against a possible horrible future. Who stands to get the most out of change? and who stands to get the most out of the status quo and which is worth more?

Click to expand...

Doer said:

Pad said that. You said, ACC was before AGW as a term. Big Lie.

Both are lies. And that monkey on your back, is that lie about the Rock. I never said that. And you just made that up.

You have no honor.

Click to expand...

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"[SUP]1[/SUP]

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

Beefbisquit said:

You are a clown. [SUP] [/SUP] Shut the fuck up.

Click to expand...