Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

Global Warming: Hahahahaha!, page-41

First 41 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Sabbath

10,706 Posts.

408

01/01/18

13:01

Post #: 29966045
Share

Originally posted by Just_Westy ↑

This is rubbish and is continually debunked it does however suck in the mouth breathers as I have to counter this one quite regularly.

I was a skeptic until the overwhelming mountain of evidence to support AGW became to large to ignore. Ironically I was looking for more information to counter believers when the ''Hallelujah Come to Jesus" moment happened. The denial movement was nothing but a bunch of cranks funded by big oil and other vested interests.
I'll back the CSIRO and NASA against the hucksters so until they officially change their tune i'm not.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
Both Terms Have Long Been Used

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.

https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."
Definitions

Expand

Terms and semantics are really meaningless when it come to such a debate where the sides are so distinctly polarised.

The one issue that should be of concern for the human population is what amount of CO2 is contributed by our everyday endeavors or existence, whether it be a driving holiday or jet setting around the globe for those with money.

The question really remains if the amount of CO2 produced by us is relatively insignificant to the overall levels of CO2 then is it worth squandering the billions (possibly trillions) to underpin organisations, research, think-tanks and advertising to create an enormous guilt complex so-as to feather their own nests?

Who is to say this money is being used for worthwhile purposes?
4 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

JDO

Timing will be everything for 'smashing' Hot Stock tip Judo Capital Holdings

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

Palladium's the newest geopolitical hot commodity. But ASX exposure is limited

HVN

Harvey Norman may appeal ASIC Federal Court case – the third lawsuit on its plate

RBA holds rates as ALP election campaigning kicks off – expect more political focus

There are more pages in this discussion • 72 more messages in this thread...

First 41 Last