It's Global Warming!

[GarMan]

Global Warming ravages China. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22993177

No wait...  It's Global Cooling today.  We'll just call it Global Climate Change and use it for everything... droughts, floods, wind, rain, earthquakes, volcanoes, comets and even meteors.  I feel so enlightened now. 

[bottomfeeder]

Global Warming ravages China. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22993177

No wait...  It's Global Cooling today.  We'll just call it Global Climate Change and use it for everything... droughts, floods, wind, rain, earthquakes, volcanoes, comets and even meteors.  I feel so enlightened now.

It far worse than global warming.

http://youtu.be/b7mLUIDGqmw#t=10s

[Lurking Tiger]

I blame Bush.

[MariaDaniel]

I blame God, if that's not too much. Yeah, when there are not any explanations left then it is better to say that it's global warming. 

[AUChizad]

This topic.

One of the reasons I can't refer to myself as a Republican.

The "derp, we're breaking record highs and record lows, so obviously climate change isn't a thing!!!" argument is to completely misunderstand the warnings about climate change from day one.

Global warming refers to the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases. This was idea introduced in the 1970s. Climate Change refers to a long-term change in the Earth’s climate. This idea predates Global Warming.

Maybe the idiots at NASA can explain it in a digestible way.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change

The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?

To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1

Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?

For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.

The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3

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."

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

During the late 1980s one more term entered the lexicon, “global change.” This term encompassed many other kinds of change in addition to climate change. When it was approved in 1989, the U.S. climate research program was embedded as a theme area within the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming."4 Hansen's testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded. Global change never gained traction in either the scientific literature or the popular media.

But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.

But yeah, yeah, what does science know?

If there was ever an intentional switch from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", it's to try to help simpletons understand that the phenomenon is not exclusively contained to unseasonably warm weather.

I can level with Republicans on the, "Ok, now that we accept it's happening, what can be done about it? Very little." front. If you could just get over that hurdle that is essentially on par with denying the holocaust, then we can talk about what can be done.

[Kaos]

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Doesn't exist.  Earth goes through periods of change and has for centuries, eons and whatever longer term there is out there. 

We didn't do anything.

[AUChizad]

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Doesn't exist.  Earth goes through periods of change and has for centuries, eons and whatever longer term there is out there. 

We didn't do anything.

Says the scientist...

You might as well have just said:

"PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Hydrogen doesn't exist. I've never seen it."

[GH2001]

The climate has been changing in temps since they've been studying it way before auto and mill emissions. I think it's cyclical. In fact, it has to be. The earth goes through natural cycles on its own. And we're going through one now.

Go read some of Joe Bastardis articles on how tornados are actually caused. It isn't global warming. He also cites how we've had this same warming and cooling phenomenon before, during the middle ages and wait for it - the ice age.

Also look up a research paper that was published 2 years ago titled "a chronological listing of weather events. Looking at trends between 1AD and 1900AD, extreme weather events are actually down since the industrial age.

You'll also find there is a lot of money behind the man made climate change myth. Seriously, go look this stuff up.

[Kaos]

The climate has been changing in temps since they've been studying it way before auto and mill emissions. I think it's cyclical. In fact, it has to be. The earth goes through natural cycles on its own. And we're going through one now.

Go read some of Joe Bastardis articles on how tornados are actually caused. It isn't global warming. He also cites how we've had this same warming and cooling phenomenon before, during the middle ages and wait for it - the ice age.

Also look up a research paper that was published 2 years ago titled "a chronological listing of weather events. Looking at trends between 1AD and 1900AD, extreme weather events are actually down since the industrial age.

You'll also find there is a lot of money behind the man made climate change myth. Seriously, go look this stuff up.

He basically said PFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTT! 

Just more eloquently.  All of what he says is my position. 

Basically PFFFFFFTTTTTTT!! on the whole concept. When I was in high school everybody was freaking out because we'd unleashed global cooling on the earth with our emissions and there was soon to be an ice shield that would cover most of North America.  Penguins and polar bears would live in Ohio. 

[AUChizad]

The climate has been changing in temps since they've been studying it way before auto and mill emissions. I think it's cyclical. In fact, it has to be. The earth goes through natural cycles on its own. And we're going through one now.

Go read some of Joe Bastardis articles on how tornados are actually caused. It isn't global warming. He also cites how we've had this same warming and cooling phenomenon before, during the middle ages and wait for it - the ice age.

Also look up a research paper that was published 2 years ago titled "a chronological listing of weather events. Looking at trends between 1AD and 1900AD, extreme weather events are actually down since the industrial age.

You'll also find there is a lot of money behind the man made climate change myth. Seriously, go look this stuff up.

So if we are experiencing a phenomenon similar to the Ice Age, should it not be addressed? Should we not try to prevent it from decimating human existence? No, it won't come to that in our lifetime, but at the rate in which the climate is changing, it could affect your grandchildren.

What happened to the old conservative approach of "Back in my day, we had a clear Summer from June through August. Fall weather from September through November. Winter from December through February, and Spring from March through May. That's the way it was, and that's the way it should be." If you perceive a War on Christmas, and a War on Moral Values on television, then why not look at this like the War on Traditional Weather Patterns?

Look, I'm not even arguing that it is man made.

Just that it is happening. And if we can do something about it, then we should. In my opinion, things like lowering the cost of efficient energy sources, and letting the free market bare it out is the way to go about it. If recycling helps, incentive people to recycle monetarily. Not bureaucratically shove regulations down people's throats. I even agree that the Al Goreian hysteria is far overblown. But we can't even have that discussion until we can all agree that it's a real phenomenon that is really happening, and it is problematic.

[Townhallsavoy]

If we're not directly causing climate change to happen, then it's highly improbable that we have the capability of stopping it when it's already in process. 

[GH2001]

If we're not directly causing climate change to happen, then it's highly improbable that we have the capability of stopping it when it's already in process.

Thanks for writing it for me.

Humankind thinks a lot of itself sometimes. Mother nature finds it hilarious.

[Kaos]

So if we are experiencing a phenomenon similar to the Ice Age, should it not be addressed? Should we not try to prevent it from decimating human existence? No, it won't come to that in our lifetime, but at the rate in which the climate is changing, it could affect your grandchildren.

I'll be dead.  So I won't care. 

If they want to manage the weather they can pretend to be God.  I got other things to do.  Like pollute. 

[CCTAU]

Says the scientist...

You might as well have just said:

"PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Hydrogen doesn't exist. I've never seen it."

Show me some data from a million years ago. 500,000. 100,000. 10,000. 5,000. Hell 200 years ago.


The problem is that we want to create blame in order to create false fear. Is the earth changing? Of course.  It's been changing for a long time. Is it man's fault? HELL NO!

Is it prudent to be good to the environment? Sure. Is it prudent to approach this like a religion? Once again, HELL NO!

[Townhallsavoy]

I think the other issue here is believing that the government and other interests groups really have the planet's best interests in mind when preaching global warming apocalypse. 

[Tarheel]

I think the other issue here is believing that the government and other interests groups really have the planet's best interests in mind when preaching global warming apocalypse.

Well said.  There is no doubt in my mind that a geo-political agenda is a very large part of anthropogenic climate change supporters claims (and hysteria).  Until a dialog can start with "People are THE most valuable resource..." then I won't take anything they say seriously.  I appreciate the science, of course, as any rational person should.  As a Republican, I think it's in the country's interest to discuss this issue but take the politics out of it.  Let's talk about conservation and using advanced science and technologies to protect the natural resources AND create progress along with efficiency in manufacturing, energy production, and economic development.  Implying that all Republicans are knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Luddites when it comes to science and the environment is not justified.  Just my 2 cents anyway.

[Saniflush]

Well said.  There is no doubt in my mind that a geo-political agenda is a very large part of anthropogenic climate change supporters claims (and hysteria).  Until a dialog can start with "People are THE most valuable resource..." then I won't take anything they say seriously.  I appreciate the science, of course, as any rational person should.  As a Republican, I think it's in the country's interest to discuss this issue but take the politics out of it.  Let's talk about conservation and using advanced science and technologies to protect the natural resources AND create progress along with efficiency in manufacturing, energy production, and economic development.  Implying that all Republicans are knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Luddites when it comes to science and the environment is not justified.  Just my 2 cents anyway.

NO. FUCK YOU.

Here, buy some carbon credits.

[Tarheel]

NO. FUCK YOU.

Here, buy some carbon credits.

If it'll make you "feel" better about the environment I will...and can I get a box of "Do-Si-Dos" and "Samoas" to go with my carbon credits?

[Saniflush]

If it'll make you "feel" better about the environment I will...and can I get a box of "Do-Si-Dos" and "Samoas" to go with my carbon credits?

Nothing like creating an industry for third world country dictators.

[AUChizad]

Well said.  There is no doubt in my mind that a geo-political agenda is a very large part of anthropogenic climate change supporters claims (and hysteria).  Until a dialog can start with "People are THE most valuable resource..." then I won't take anything they say seriously.  I appreciate the science, of course, as any rational person should.  As a Republican, I think it's in the country's interest to discuss this issue but take the politics out of it.  Let's talk about conservation and using advanced science and technologies to protect the natural resources AND create progress along with efficiency in manufacturing, energy production, and economic development.  Implying that all Republicans are knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Luddites when it comes to science and the environment is not justified.  Just my 2 cents anyway.

I think if I parse through all of the obfuscating language in here, we agree.

All I was saying in my first post, is that Republicans have got to stop beginning this discussion with "PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT" if they want to be taken seriously. And I don't mean that exclusively literally. 100% with you on your proposed solutions. Just come right out and say "Climate change is real," and don't dance around that scientific fact before starting the conversation. All I'm saying.

And, by the way, I saw another article today that is somewhat on-topic, and might as well be introduced to this discussion.

Yes, the blog in which I'm linking to is liberally biased. Get that out of the way up front. But are they wrong on this?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/04/1191469/-Anti-modernity-GOP-wants-to-catch-up-to-Dems-on-technology

Anti-modernity GOP wants to catch up to Democrats on technology

Good luck with this, neanderthals ...

    After last year’s blowout election, the Republican digital strategist Patrick Ruffini went on a not-so-secret mission to find out how to fix what was wrong with his party. “In less than 12 hours, the #infiltration begins,” he tweeted, the day before the start of RootsCamp, an annual conference for Democratic digital, data and grassroots strategists that is held by a liberal non-profit group called the New Organizing Institute.

    What he found at the event came as a sort of revelation: A vast liberal brain trust bursting with young talent who had advanced far beyond Republicans in the art and science of using data, analytics and voter outreach. He live-tweeted his observations, and then began meeting with other young strategists in his party [...]

    They decided that the conservative movement simply did not have what liberals did: An infrastructure to train and nurture the next generation of campaign operatives and develop cutting-edge techniques. So they decided to take a shot at filling the void [...]

    The first part of that ecosystem, for which incorporation papers were filed last week, will be called the Empower Action Group. It is envisioned as a conservative answer to the New Organizing Institute, a place for training and connecting young conservative talent. It will aim to increase the ranks of people with digital, data and organizing know-how working for the GOP. “We are just hoping to create more people who can go out and implement,” Ruffini said.

There's a reason that conservatives have fallen so far behind liberals on the technology front, and it truly is cultural. Go read Wired or Ars Technica or The Verge or any gadget blog and note how overwhelmingly liberal the publications are—pro-science, pro-progress and pro-net neutrality. They don't believe that AT&T would provide better service without government regulations or interference. They loathe our current intellectual property regime (both copyright and trademark). They want something done about global climate change (that science stuff) and stem cell research (more of that science stuff).

They are not happy that the sequester will gut science and research and cause incalculable damage to our nation's R&D efforts. They are not suspicious of government agencies, and in fact would rather see the FCC and FTC take a more proactive role against our too-big-to-fail communications corporations.

They would love to have the government provide national free wi-fi, or failing that, let cities do the same despite the protestations of the incumbent internet providers. They think gay people are fabulous. Multiculturalism is an unremarkable fact of life, and racism really chafes. The anti-education, anti-university chatter from the ignoramuses doesn't exactly sell with engineers and other tech professionals. And to top it all off, this crowd is very secular, and heavily atheist, for that matter.

Employees at Silicon Valley's top technology companies gave to President Barack Obama over Romney by over 2-1. Ninety-one percent of Apple employees who gave to a campaign gave to the president. Obama won Santa Clara County (San Jose, the capital of Silicon Valley) 70-28, San Mateo County 71-27, and San Francisco 83-13. The rest of the Bay Area was equally lopsided in favor of Obama, as was other tech hotbets such as Boston, NYC, the North Carolina Research Triangle and Austin.

As one techie put it after the election:

    "We all work on evidence-based reasoning, and that's much more of a Democratic mindset than a Republican mindset," said Johnvey Hwang, 34, a San Francisco software engineer who volunteered with the Obama campaign. "It's hard to side with a party that's still trying to reach out to their base of creationists."

There's a reason there's no such thing as a tech industry in Mississippi or Alabama. Conservatism is simply at odds with the forward-thinking preferred by those involved in the technology ecosystem. So yes, conservatives should be freaked out that we're kicking their ass on the technology front, but they won't be catching up until they evolve as a party. And as we've seen, they're not very good at the "evolution" thing.