Forget Global Warming, now it's "Global Cooling"

G-MAN2004 · 12 Sep 2013 at 13:25

Am I the only one who doesn't care?

MikeTheNative · 12 Sep 2013 at 13:34

Just looking at the author's google + tells you that he isn't exactly qualified to write about climate change. https://plus.google.com/u/0/108002809946749848449/posts

d_brennen · 12 Sep 2013 at 13:40

Who's going to be the first to slip Jews into the mix?

pingwing · 12 Sep 2013 at 14:30

Efour said:
Zionist conspiracy and eastern european immigrants ruined the UK's weather.

d_brennen said:
Who's going to be the first to slip Jews into the mix?

predicting the past in the thread :eek:

Orch · 12 Sep 2013 at 14:51

G-MAN2004 said:
Am I the only one who doesn't care?

Nah, there's plenty of idiots don't worry.

Atlas23 · 12 Sep 2013 at 14:57

G-MAN2004 said:
Am I the only one who doesn't care?

Nope. What's the point in caring? Why stop using your car to reduce emissions when someone else will just fill your place with a big ol' hummer. Even if we could see instant effects to climate change that were caused by say, our cars (e.g. I drive my car, suddenly I drown in flood waters from an impromptu tsunami), people wouldn't stop.

Anyway, whose to say that climate change isn't just part of a bigger cycle that has been happening since ~~god made stuff~~ the dawn of time?

Craig1981 · 12 Sep 2013 at 14:58

G-MAN2004 said:
Am I the only one who doesn't care?

You'll care when polar bears are raping our women folk! And penguins are taking all our jobs! PENGUINS!!! :mad:

Orch · 12 Sep 2013 at 15:03

Blazin23 said:
Nope. What's the point in caring? Why stop using your car to reduce emissions when someone else will just fill your place with a big ol' hummer. Even if we could see instant effects to climate change that were caused by say, our cars (e.g. I drive my car, suddenly I drown in flood waters from an impromptu tsunami), people wouldn't stop.

Anyway, whose to say that climate change isn't just part of a bigger cycle that has been happening since ~~god made stuff~~ the dawn of time?

Well, I do agree with the latter. The earth has been warming and cooling for as long as we've been able to tell. Perhaps we're speeding this cycle up but we're not the only influence that's for sure.

However, what's the point in caring? You don't have children then? That's the attitude that will likely lead to the demise of us long before the planet gives up.

Atlas23 · 12 Sep 2013 at 15:13

Orch said:
Well, I do agree with the latter. The earth has been warming and cooling for as long as we've been able to tell. Perhaps we're speeding this cycle up but we're not the only influence that's for sure.

However, what's the point in caring? You don't have children then? That's the attitude that will likely lead to the demise of us long before the planet gives up.

No I don't have children, I'm only 22. However, will 1 person changing their life around what a scientist tells them is good for the planet, really save our planet from natural disasters, over population, diminishing natural resources..?

The world is driven by oil hungry capitalists. Until that changes, what's the point?

glenimp617 · 12 Sep 2013 at 15:14

erm hang on

are you telling me that all those cornflakes boxes I've been recycling, and using the brown wheelie bin hasn't fixed climate change? seriously? My local council said it would! Grrr

Orch · 12 Sep 2013 at 15:19

Blazin23 said:
No I don't have children, I'm only 22. However, will 1 person changing their life around what a scientist tells them is good for the planet, really save our planet from natural disasters, over population, diminishing natural resources..?

The world is driven by oil hungry capitalists. Until that changes, what's the point?

Surely you can see the point here? If everyone thought like you . . . :rolleyes:

It's ok everyone, we're fu**** anyway so lets not bother.

(I'm not some yoghurt weaving vegan hippy btw, I drive a Land Rover FFS

but I do try and do my bits where I can)

I have found the older you get the more apparent the weird habbits of our species are, and the more concerning it all is.

D.P. · 12 Sep 2013 at 15:32

Blazin23 said:
Nope. What's the point in caring? Why stop using your car to reduce emissions when someone else will just fill your place with a big ol' hummer. Even if we could see instant effects to climate change that were caused by say, our cars (e.g. I drive my car, suddenly I drown in flood waters from an impromptu tsunami), people wouldn't stop.

Anyway, whose to say that climate change isn't just part of a bigger cycle that has been happening since ~~god made stuff~~ the dawn of time?[/QUOTE]

Around 99% of the scientists on the planet across every academic research institute would say mankind is definitely without an iota of doubt changing the current climate from the natural basis.

There is no debate here. No one with any understanding of the science disagrees with the basis, the process or the observed changes in earth's climate.

The only aspects left to discuss are finer details like interactions with natural cycles, exact ice sensitivity of certain feedback mechanisms, localized climate changes vs global, weather impacts of a warmer world.

The fact that the earth has warmed due to mankind is an absolute fact that is not under debate by any credible scientist. There is no peer reviewed evidence in accepted scientific journals that report otherwise. What climate scientist are trying to understand is what the weather and climate will be like in 100 years time in different parts of the globe, reducing errors bars in future predictions. By understanding different sub-processes in more detail.

Theophany · 12 Sep 2013 at 16:02

The Dread Pirate said:
They always have big furry eyebrow ridges, long fingers and hairy hands.

"I believe God created me in one day."

"Yeah Looks like he rushed it..."

Yes!!

"I think what God meant to say..."

Atlas23 · 12 Sep 2013 at 16:08

Orch said:
Surely you can see the point here? If everyone thought like you . . .

It's ok everyone, we're fu**** anyway so lets not bother.

(I'm not some yoghurt weaving vegan hippy btw, I drive a Land Rover FFS but I do try and do my bits where I can)

I have found the older you get the more apparent the weird habbits of our species are, and the more concerning it all is.

Oh yes I know what you are saying, and I don't purposely go out of my way to act against the planet (driving my car unnecessarily etc), and I do recycle, but mainly because of the issue of ever growing landfill sites. But I'm not going to pay to have solar panels on my roof, or not watch my TV because the electricity I save may stop climate change (believe me, I know some people who go this far).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that when people rage about doing nothing to stop climate change, I don't care, because when countries the size of America are consuming and generating so much waste, making drastic changes to my life will be like cutting off my nose to spite my face. I will be the only person it affects.

And I'm sure as I get older with more responsibilities I will become more concerned about the 'big picture'. But right now, I'm living for myself, because far too many people don't.

Blazin

Orch · 12 Sep 2013 at 16:12

Blazin23 said:
But right now, I'm living for myself, because far too many people don't.

I was respecting your opinion until that bit. I think that is the complete opposite of the truth.

elmarko · 12 Sep 2013 at 16:19

D.P. said:
Around 99% of the scientists on the planet across every academic research institute would say mankind is definitely without an iota of doubt changing the current climate from the natural basis.

There is no debate here. No one with any understanding of the science disagrees with the basis, the process or the observed changes in earth's climate.

The only aspects left to discuss are finer details like interactions with natural cycles, exact ice sensitivity of certain feedback mechanisms, localized climate changes vs global, weather impacts of a warmer world.

The fact that the earth has warmed due to mankind is an absolute fact that is not under debate by any credible scientist. There is no peer reviewed evidence in accepted scientific journals that report otherwise. What climate scientist are trying to understand is what the weather and climate will be like in 100 years time in different parts of the globe, reducing errors bars in future predictions. By understanding different sub-processes in more detail.

Exactly.

The debate is a myth, perpetuated by the media & those with an agenda to make out it's something still to be debated.

Atlas23 · 12 Sep 2013 at 16:19

Orch said:
I was respecting your opinion until that bit. I think that is the complete opposite of the truth.

Okay I see how that could be misread. I didn't mean that in a selfish (I'm the only person that matters) sense; personally, I have spent far too many years of my life trying to please people (nice guy syndrome), or being in a one-sided relationship. I.e. not putting my own happiness first. Hence why I am now focusing on my career/personal development/inner game. What I should have said was, I'm not too focused on the big picture right now.

I recognise climate change as an issue, but not one that I feel I can do anything about right now, and that has to be addressed by far more powerful leaders before any real change can take place.

*prepares for flaming*

Orch · 12 Sep 2013 at 16:23

Ah ok, I thought you were saying that generally people don't live for themselves. It would be nice if a lot of people could think about anything other than themselves for a bit!

Sankari · 12 Sep 2013 at 16:31

Glaucus said:
And as pointed out global warming was droped a long time ago, for climate change.

No it wasn't. This idiotic lie keeps being dredged up from time to time, but it's still as false as the day it was spawned.

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.

(Source).

To understand the difference between the meaning of these two terms, see the article here.

You may be interested to know that the one individual who did advocate using 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' was a Republican propagandist called Frank Luntz. In a confidential memo, he wrote:

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.

(Source).

Glaucus · 12 Sep 2013 at 16:35

What has any off that go to do with it?
Media pushed global warming, that is what it was known as for the public, that did change. It doesn't mean anything underlying changed at all. You think just because some one said that, you think they use it as an argument against climate change?
Less presumption needed.