Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Climate Change and Environmental Issues Thank God for GW

In order to ratchet this discussion down into pieces, MaRep can you help me understand your point of view better:

1. Are you aware that the term is not now nor has it ever been (among scientists, not the public) "global climate change", not "global warming"?

2. Are you aware that the vast majority of scientists working on the subject (not the ones commenting upon it) have concluded that there are significant changes to our climate now taking place?

3. Leaving aside all the politicians and commentators, do you agree that the evidence to date indicates global climate changes on a level not ever seen during our lifetime?

4. Do you agree that there are significant increases in chemicals in the global atmosphere within the past 6 decades which can only be traced to human activity?

5. Is it your argument that the conclusions some draw based upon these facts are wrong or that these facts are untrue? I am specifically excluding the statements of politicians or any scientist not actively working in the field of global climate data.

My hope is that we can isolate the rhetoric from the facts and then go from there.

The new name for Global Climate Change is Climate Disruption. It has been determined that Global Climate Change sounds too benign and not enough folks are panicking, thus the new moniker.



This Whitehouse appears somewhat less adept at inciting fear in the public than was the previous. Many still believe there are WMDs in Iraq but that we simply haven't found where Saddam is hiding them yet.
But Global Climate Disruption is a Democratic thing so must be denied until hell freezes over...so to speak.

Perhaps if this were referred to as Weather of Mass Destruction it would be taken more seriously by those non-liberals among us.

Or perhaps if it were a terrist plot by the weather undeground

Any scientific thesis starts with an assumption and proceeds to the experimentation stage. During experimentation the thesis is tested at its limits to see if further testing is necessary. That testing phase, also called experimentation, is what decides whether the thesis is correct or flawed. If the thesis is flawed then it must be refined or discarded. In this case the thesis was at least flawed, but the data was manipulated to prove the thesis.

That is a simple explanation of the scientific process. It is a standard that is taught in every vocational high school, technical institute and engineering college in America. Everything is an experiment, without experimentation validity cannot exist.

Collection of Data is another important phase of the process.
The data collected seems to be pointing in the general direction of increased greenhouse gasses, melting Polar ice, rising sea levels and an overall increase in temperatures worldwide.

But it has been suggested that some computer models may have been flawed so this data must all be discounted until the computer programs are perfected or the end of life as we know it on this planet occurs.

But on this point Tim and I agree: It seems mighty gaddamned cold outside to be worried about Global Climate Disruption as it relates to excessive warming.

Let's just say it is from observation, Schlack. Hopefully that is not considered blasphemy among the Initiates of All Things 'Science'.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Now Ma, that is plain cheating. You know and it has been proven many times here and elsewhere, that no data manipulation occurred and the reports that it did have been proven false.

So do you just refuse to admit this because it is inconvenient? I note that you chose not to respond to my questions which raises in my mind a question of your good faith.

Indeed, the cry of "global warming" was heard and read far and wide. But, a few years ago, when the scary stuff they were predicting wasn't happening, some cover was needed. They found it by expanding from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", which gave them much more latitude (no pun intended). But, alas, that too left them uncomfortably restricted as well, so a couple of months ago a bozo from the Obama administration once again expanded it, this time to "Climate Disruption". One would think that would cover any climatic event taking place anywhere on the planet. And, like the faithful of some cults who think the world will end on December 29, 2010 at 4:32pm as opposed to an earlier date once predicted by them, so to do the faithful of Climate Disruption cults see every climatic twitch as proof the world is about to be subjected to horrendous events, while those whose true faith is in manufacturing fear happily go about spreading as much of it as they can in the hope of furthering their political agendas. It seems the more often we are lied to by the Chicken Little crowd, the more we are expected to have blind faith in what they say -- I mean, unless we want to be associated with Holocaust deniers.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

It is rather silly to hear suggestions that any amount of science proves global warming, global climate change, whatever panicky phrase one wishes to use, is a reality. I mean really. If it was really happening, not just being made to appear to be happening, then certainly by now someone would have discovered a way to get from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean by going north of the Canadian/European land masses instead of south through the Panama Canal or around the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn! I mean, really, if the polar ice caps were in fact melting, then one could realize the search for the Northwest Passage and accomplish the feat that eludes so many back in the 16th and 17th centuries. And if over the course of 500 years it still isn't possible then this must all be tommyrot fradulent science!! Let's get real here!

Oh. Wait a minute. This just in:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6995999.stm