Reply With Quote
You must have.
when did that change happen? i must have missed it.
You must have.
Typical bi-polar Texas weatherlol for real though
wow i didn't even realize it was that cold last night. i was def freezing my ass off though and my back was killing me all night from the weather. i'm the type who'd rather it be 110 degrees than 70 degrees.
was the change in the 1950's?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...1956.tb01206.x
indeed.
was the change in the 1800's?
The calculation by ARRHENIUS (1896) of the influence of carbon dioxide on the temperature was the most extensive made during the nineteenth century. In a series of articles CHAMBERLIN (1897, 1898, 1899) presented in detail the geological implications of the carbon dioxide theory. As a result of these early articles, during that period the carbon dioxide theory was probably the most widely held explanation of climatic change
Last edited by spurraider21; 04-08-2018 at 05:25 PM.
Chris just trying to figure out when those liberal scientists changed the name to climate change. so far im seeing climate change being discussed in the 1800's.
how long have they been planning this
oh i get it, in Inconvenient Truth, that fat pig Al Gore said "global warming" 23 times but never said "climate change."
therefore, up until that point, we can conclude that nobody ever called it climate change. disregard all evidence of it being used in earlier decades or centuries. can't be true. because al gore.
"changed the name from global warming to climate change" talking point going down like...
The ol' quadruple post ending with a declaration of victory + meme
Guess I better retire.
you can go ahead and shut me down... when do you think they "stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change"The ol' quadruple post ending with a declaration of victory + meme
Guess I better retire.... the 1950's? 1890's?
S thought so too:
http://therealnews.com/t2/story:2151...ge-Decades-Ago
merchants of doubt
Study Says Low-Lying Islands Uninhabitable By Mid-Century
https://scienceblog.com/500543/study...nceBlog.com%29
Trash will be dead by then, but Sea-to-Lake will be underwater
I’ll just put this here
https://psmag.com/environment/mission-compostable
cool.
al gore flies on private jets.
not sure what that means about the validity of the science though
Trump ain't no dummy - he saw through this con with his business a en.
he woulda seen through the "cigarettes are addictive and pose serious health risks" con too. if only he were president then too
self explanatory tbh, but i'll go ahead and clarify anyway
using "business a en" to "see through" a major scientific issue is pretty re ed
somebody with great business a en might have thought the whole "cigarettes are addictive and can cause serious health issues" was a con as an attempt to tax/regulate... and therefore the science behind it must be a hoax
tbh there were a lot of people, including people in government, who were saying all the cigarette health studies were bull and just a hoax to regulate business. the CEO's of all the major tobacco companies testified before congress as recently as the 90's, claiming that nicotine wasn't addictive, when they damn well knew it was.
because business a en
btw i edited my post while you may or may not be responding, so i dont wanna be accused of editing after your response
I was referring more to the Paris Climate Accord, but yeah climate change is a rather vague term that can be interpreted in different ways to coerce a variety of policies and regulations. Do I agree the climate is changing? Yes, the climate has been changing for a long time and will continue to do so for even longer. This is called logic, and it doesn't take a degree in Science or whatever other field you want to utilize to defend your stance. Do I think people like you are in a hurry to pay a Carbon Tax and force it on everyone else to feel good about themselves? Yeah.
Last edited by Chris; 05-06-2018 at 07:08 PM.
People who believe it’s a crisis don’t behave like it’s a crisis. That was one takeaway from the study.
i think when people typically talk about "climate change" they are talking about anthropogenic climate change. so no, i don't really think its vague unless you are being purposely obtuse
just because the climate has changed without human influence in the past doesn't mean humans can never influence it. people die of natural causes all the time. doesn't mean nobody ever gets murdered.Do I agree the climate is changing? Yes, the climate has been changing for a long time and will continue to do so for even longer. This is called logic, and it doesn't take a degree in Science or whatever other field you want to utilize to defend your stance.
every climate scientist, every alarmist... heck even nutjobs like al gore all know "the climate has always changed" so it really boggles my mind when people bring that up in an argument
the climate has always changed due to various phenomena... fluctuation of cosmic rays, the solar/sunspot cycle, the earth's tilt on its axis, the gradual warming of the sun over time (separate from its sunspot cycles), and the content of the atmosphere. i'm probably missing a bunch
when humans are heavily influencing one of those sources... it follows that the climate can be affected. the idea that pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere would lead to warming has been around since the 1800's (i pointed these out to you last time... when you made that silly claim about the supposed "shift from global warming to climate change"
i dont know that a carbon tax is really the best way to address the issue. i think it makes sense to subsidize renewable energy and put a lot of funding towards researching nuclear and solar would make sense. increase the efficiency of those sources to the point where fossil fuels are no longer economically viableDo I think people like you are in a hurry to pay a Carbon Tax and force it on everyone else to feel good about themselves? Yeah.
flawed behavior in the populace doesn't have any bearing on the validity and merits of the science behind their opinions
but you already knew that, which is why you "just put this here" instead of weighing in on it at all
"climate change" is a misleading, dishonest phrasing by BigCargon's d phrasemakers, sounding innocuous, and self-evident, "of course"
it's "global warming", specifically AGW, "anthropogenic global warming" in the "anthropocene epoch".
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
