That being said, there’s absolutely nothing we can do about it at this point. Unless we find a way to stop crisscrossing the oceans in quarter-mile-long, bunker-sludge-burning cargo ships and flying jets all over the place.
The point that taking facts, turning them into opinions and claiming yours is as correct as everybody else's is not welcome on this forum?
Imagine that.
PS: You know what doesn't affect me, my family, my country, or really most people on this planet? The existence of Jesus Christ. Debate away. Get the hell off climate change, leave that topic to those who want to have their kids grow up.
Yeah, what if we make a better, cleaner and more sustainable society by accident? How terrible would that be.
I keep seeing this phrase lately. What does it mean? [To clarify, I'm asking about why people keep saying "remember when it was called…" as though it proves some point about it. Global warming is still an accurate description of the predicted and confirmed phenomenon.]
> They used to call it global warming, then they rebranded it to (the more accurate) climate change because their narrative was coming apart/everything is fine/elitist climate scientists trying to get money. If they can't even get their story straight why should we believe them??
> This message was brought to you by the 'Sensible Patriotic Americans Against Climate Change Nonsense' (funded by Exxon).
The other irony is that this phrase was used a lot of few years back when many were claiming there was no warming going on by cherry picking the 1998 El Nino spike as a starting point for temperature graphs. Then the argument was - there is no warming, so the alarmists have stopped using the term "global warming". Of course with recent warming this particular cherry picked argument has fallen apart, but for some reason the meme persists.
I don't think the people who use the phrase even think about what they are saying. It is just part of the Gish Gallop that gets thrown out where number of words makes up for lack of solid argument (initial post that used this phrase up above being a perfect example of this)
Academic publications were using the phrase "climate change" to discuss the warming effects well before Frank Luntz. He may have been important to putting that phrase in front of the general public, but "climate change" isn't a euphemism invented by PR hacks. The foremost summary assessments are assembled by the IPCC -- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose first report came out in 1990.
Here are publications from 1980 and 1970 also using the phrase to discuss warming phenomena.
"On the Distribution of Climate Change Resulting From an Increase in CO2 Content of the Atmosphere", Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, January 1980
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%28198...
"Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 1970
Which is somewhat ironic, considering that in both cases there is near unanimous agreement among the experts (climate scientists and biblical scholars respectively) that both exist.
The problem is that the right in the US is mostly denying the problem even exists, so of course all the economic proposals come from the left in this country. This is entirely self inflicted, and is not the case in other countries, where right of center parties mostly accept the reality of AGW and to some extent put in place market-based policies to address it.
I think the only way this works out is for the right to propose their own 'market based' solutions to the problem and contrast them with the 'socialist' solutions that the other tribe pitches (yes it is a strawman argument but that's the only way things seem to get done. The main thing is not to be Right but to be seen to be different from the other side). The problem is they have gone so far down the denial rabbit hole that it is going to take a long time to recover, and will probably take a generation to shift attitudes.
I've seen people arguing that climate change is a Western conspiracy (full with Jewish Bankers and the usual cast) to stunt the economy of the East, by robbing them of cheap fossil fuel they need and deserve. Maybe you guys should talk to each other.
God it's hard being a socialist liberal working for the World Bank...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vaiZ5BHaUMY
I believe if you want a solution you're going to have to work on things people want like Elon Musk’s batteries and solar roofs. Find a way to make the market work for you or youre unlikely to get support
Our skepticism isn’t about the climate changing, (remember when it was called global warming?) it’s a skepticism about the causes and the degree to which human influence plays a significant role. Any time there is any skepticism at all, we get labeled “deniers” or otherwise ostracized. That’s pretty unique in science, usually skepticism is considered a healthy part of the scientific process — unless it’s concerning a topic that has substantial political implications.
Given that a large segment of the climate change advocacy also “coincidentally” support far left economic policies as a “remedy,” how can it be a surprise that people like me have a deep skepticism of the whole human-caused global warming debate. Another time we had “settled science” with so much politicization was when Eugenics was being advocated.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/why-politicized-science-is-da...
I’ll predict the inevitable downvotes, which really only proves the point: debating human causes of climate change is akin to debating the existence of Jesus Christ.