The Climate Change Debate Thread

Quote:

---

The climate is changing all the time, and always has done, ever since the mega-monsoon climate of Pangaea ended with the splitting of the continents in the mid-Jurassic period.

---

Well then, we have nothing to worry about.

Quote:

---

The ideologoical (if you like) change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" seems to indicate that the agenda of the ecologocial-political groupings are trying to extend their orbit of influence while being unable to rely on their original premises. Are we not experiencing global warming now? Why the change in the name of the potential catastrophe we're facing?

---

Global warming implies only a temperature change, but changes to other aspects of the climate, including wind patterns and precipitation can be expected.

That's way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lyingeyes98

When did we stop calling it Global Warming and start calling it Climate Change.

---

North Americans tend to refer to climate change so that when people get snowed in they can blame that on CO2 in the atmosphere. There was a guy on RTE last year who said the Rideau canal in Ottawa hadn't frozen because of Global Warming. A few weeks later I asked a mate of mine in Toronto if he'd heard about it. It was frozen along with most of eastern Canada, winter had arrived 3 weeks later than expected.

Climate Change Debate Thread?

What's to debate?

Just because the Wingers and Flat Earthers prefer to ignore the science doesn't mean we have to waste time "debating" with them.

How can you "debate" with people who make stuff up, tell barefaced lies, and refuse to be informed by science?

Just ignore them and hopefully they'll go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lyingeyes98

When did we stop calling it Global Warming and start calling it Climate Change. anything Frank Luntz is associated with has got to be dodgy.

---

It wasn't Frank Luntz who came up with the term, he just encouraged the White House to use it. We know that it at least goes back to 1988, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCSkinner

Climate change is what eco-nuts call weather in order to use it as an excuse for increased taxation and the retarding of Third World developing economies.
The climate is changing all the time, and always has done, ever since the mega-monsoon climate of Pangaea ended with the splitting of the continents in the mid-Jurassic period.
But there is no debate permitted. It's a faith-based religion with true believers in the political classes who well see how to harness the Hobbiton dreams of delusionals to their aim of maintaining the gap of privelige in their own favour.

---

I've a few questions JC, and in the interest of this thread being definitive, would you mind answering them?
1) Do you still claim that changes in the Sun's output are responsible for changes in our global climate?
2) If climate change is "an excuse" by the political classes for increased taxation, does that imply an explicit conspiracy? Who is in on this conspiracy?
3) If this is a conspiracy by the political classes, it would have to range back to the late 1970s. Don't you think that the politcal classes have changed since then, and why have so few countries instituted a carbon tax yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockyracoon

The ideologoical (if you like) change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" seems to indicate that the agenda of the ecologocial-political groupings are trying to extend their orbit of influence while being unable to rely on their original premises. Are we not experiencing global warming now? Why the change in the name of the potential catastrophe we're facing?

---

Not quite. The two terms always existed side by side. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up way back in 1988. Global warming was used alongside climate change, but it's less accurate, since the overall theory suggests a medium-term, overall warming trend. People simply took the name "global warming" and said "But it's bloody freezing in Meath" etc, so I tend to use the more accurate and less ambiguous term.

Quote:

---

Not quite. The two terms always existed side by side. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up way back in 1988. Global warming was used alongside climate change, but it's less accurate, since the overall theory suggests a medium-term, overall warming trend. People simply took the name "global warming" and said "But it's bloody freezing in Meath" etc, so I tend to use the more accurate and less ambiguous term.

---

No. "People" didn't just adopt the term "global warming" out of nowhere; leftist naturists/environmentalists propagated the term into popular use. Exactly the same way with the latest buzzterm, "climate change".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Electro

Quote:

---

Not quite. The two terms always existed side by side. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up way back in 1988. Global warming was used alongside climate change, but it's less accurate, since the overall theory suggests a medium-term, overall warming trend. People simply took the name "global warming" and said "But it's bloody freezing in Meath" etc, so I tend to use the more accurate and less ambiguous term.

---

No. "People" didn't just adopt the term "global warming" out of nowhere; leftist naturists/environmentalists propagated the term into popular use. Exactly the same way with the latest buzzterm, "climate change".

---

We could always use The Nonlinear Deterministic Transition State Dynamics as Applied to Oceanographic and Atmospheric Systems with Impacts on Biodynamic Feedback Loops Thread

Anybody remember the last ice age? The one before that? The one before that?

I believe that there is a real problem with environmental tax: it disproportinately hits the poor.

Rich folks should pay a higher rate of environmental tax than poor. There are ways to do this.

Also you could give everyone a quota of three flights per year and allow people to trade.