Gorebal Warming to Climate Change, to... the name changes again.

[T. A. Gardner]

I guess when nobody but the Left got particularly upset with Global Warming and the science was challenged, the Left changed the name to Climate Change. When people ignored that new moniker, and the science got challenged, they had to change the name again.

Now it's Climate Crisis. Same Shit, Different Day. But by making it a 'crisis' it sounds more urgent and scarier... I guess...

How long do you figure this 3.0 version of climate nonsense will take to run the course and a new, and scarier, title be adopted?

It’s time to start saying Climate Crisis instead of Climate Change | BPC

Learn why we should use the term Climate Crisis instead of Climate Change.

www.bpcgreenbuilders.com

Climate change: should we change the terminology? - BBC Science Focus Magazine

Could terms like 'climate crisis', ‘climate collapse’ and ‘global meltdown’ do a better job of altering our behaviour?

www.sciencefocus.com

Just say “climate change” – not “climate emergency”

USC study reveals that people are more familiar with tried-and-true names for climate change – including climate change.

priceschool.usc.edu

 

[AProudLefty]

No, the name "climate change" did not replace "global warming" as a cover-up. Both terms have been used by scientists since the 1970s to describe different aspects of the same phenomenon. Global warming refers to the increase in Earth's average temperature, while climate change is the broader term covering warming and its side effects, like changing sea levels and weather patterns.
University of Maryland +4
Key facts regarding the usage:

• Scientific Precision: Scientists often prefer "climate change" because it is more accurate, as rising temperatures cause more than just heating, including changing precipitation patterns and extreme weather.
• Political Influence: In the early 2000s, some political strategists recommended using "climate change" because it was perceived as less frightening or alarmist than "global warming," according to a 2002 memo mentioned in this Reddit post.
• Interchangeable Use: Both terms are valid and continue to be used in scientific literature.
• Newer Terms: Recently, terms like "climate crisis" or "global heating" have been adopted by some to better convey the urgency of the situation.

There is no evidence that ‘global warming’ was rebranded as ‘climate change’

I analysed 30 years of data to disprove a theory spread by Donald Trump, Naomi Seibt and others.

theconversation.com

 

[Nordberg]

Name is irrelevant. It is real and coming. Trump has made it worse.

 

[gfm7175]

I guess when nobody but the Left got particularly upset with Global Warming and the science was challenged, the Left changed the name to Climate Change. When people ignored that new moniker, and the science got challenged, they had to change the name again.

Now it's Climate Crisis. Same Shit, Different Day. But by making it a 'crisis' it sounds more urgent and scarier... I guess...

How long do you figure this 3.0 version of climate nonsense will take to run the course and a new, and scarier, title be adopted?

It’s time to start saying Climate Crisis instead of Climate Change | BPC

Learn why we should use the term Climate Crisis instead of Climate Change.

www.bpcgreenbuilders.com

Climate change: should we change the terminology? - BBC Science Focus Magazine

Could terms like 'climate crisis', ‘climate collapse’ and ‘global meltdown’ do a better job of altering our behaviour?

www.sciencefocus.com

Just say “climate change” – not “climate emergency”

USC study reveals that people are more familiar with tried-and-true names for climate change – including climate change.

priceschool.usc.edu

I think the 'climate crisis' title has already run it's course, but as far as I am aware, that's still the latest title. Maybe JPP's Lefties know of a new one?

 

[gfm7175]

No, the name "climate change" did not replace "global warming" as a cover-up. Both terms have been used by scientists since the 1970s to describe different aspects of the same phenomenon. Global warming refers to the increase in Earth's average temperature,

... which is a completely made up claim because it isn't feasible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy. Any "Earth's temperature is ___" claim is just a blind guess.

while climate change is the broader term covering warming and its side effects, like changing sea levels and weather patterns.

Climate change, like global warming (and now 'climate crisis'), is just a made up buzzword that is meaningless. In order to measure sea level, one must first have a valid reference point to measure from (which is challenging when even land has a tide). There is no such thing as a 'weather pattern', otherwise weather would be predictable.

 

[gfm7175]

Name is irrelevant. It is real and coming. Trump has made it worse.

1. Global Warming is real [it already exists]
2. Global Warming is coming [it doesn't exist yet]

Which is it, Nordy?

 

[AProudLefty]

... which is a completely made up claim because it isn't feasible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy. Any "Earth's temperature is ___" claim is just a blind guess.

Climate change, like global warming (and now 'climate crisis'), is just a made up buzzword that is meaningless. In order to measure sea level, one must first have a valid reference point to measure from (which is challenging when even land has a tide). There is no such thing as a 'weather pattern', otherwise weather would be predictable.

Welp meteorologists had better find new jobs then. And don't check weather reports because they're inaccurate.

 

[gfm7175]

Welp meteorologists had better find new jobs then.

Why would they? They are getting paid good money even though they are inaccurate more often than not.

And don't check weather reports because they're inaccurate.

Weather reports are largely inaccurate (especially anything more than a day or two out).

 

[AProudLefty]

Why would they? They are getting paid good money even though they are inaccurate more often than not.

Weather reports are largely inaccurate (especially anything more than a day or two out).

This wins the award.

 

[AProudLefty]

Why would they? They are getting paid good money even though they are inaccurate more often than not.

Weather reports are largely inaccurate (especially anything more than a day or two out).

Weather forecasts are highly accurate for short-term predictions, with 5-day forecasts accurate about 90% of the time and 7-day forecasts accurate around 80%. Accuracy decreases for longer-term predictions, with 10-day forecasts right roughly half the time.

 

[gfm7175]

Weather forecasts are highly accurate for short-term predictions, with 5-day forecasts accurate about 90% of the time and 7-day forecasts accurate around 80%. Accuracy decreases for longer-term predictions, with 10-day forecasts right roughly half the time.

^^^ Copy/pasted from the "AI Overview" section of a Google search.

 

[AProudLefty]

^^^ Copy/pasted from the "AI Overview" section of a Google search.

Nice counterargument.

 

[Into the Night]

I guess when nobody but the Left got particularly upset with Global Warming and the science was challenged, the Left changed the name to Climate Change. When people ignored that new moniker, and the science got challenged, they had to change the name again.

Now it's Climate Crisis. Same Shit, Different Day. But by making it a 'crisis' it sounds more urgent and scarier... I guess...

How long do you figure this 3.0 version of climate nonsense will take to run the course and a new, and scarier, title be adopted?

It’s time to start saying Climate Crisis instead of Climate Change | BPC

Learn why we should use the term Climate Crisis instead of Climate Change.

www.bpcgreenbuilders.com

Climate change: should we change the terminology? - BBC Science Focus Magazine

Could terms like 'climate crisis', ‘climate collapse’ and ‘global meltdown’ do a better job of altering our behaviour?

www.sciencefocus.com

Just say “climate change” – not “climate emergency”

USC study reveals that people are more familiar with tried-and-true names for climate change – including climate change.

priceschool.usc.edu

The Church of Global Warming has to shout louder with more extreme labels if they are to survive. People have become wise to this foolishness.

 

[Into the Night]

No, the name "climate change" did not replace "global warming" as a cover-up. Both terms have been used by scientists since the 1970s to describe different aspects of the same phenomenon. Global warming refers to the increase in Earth's average temperature, while climate change is the broader term covering warming and its side effects, like changing sea levels and weather patterns.

The Church of Global Warming routinely denies and discards theories of science, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It also routinely denies statistical and probability mathematics. It also routinely denies English words like 'climate' and what they mean.

They think the word 'science' is a magick word, and that using it is a proof of some kind.

This isn't science. It's yet another fundamentalist style religion.

Scientists do not use the term 'global warming'. Religious fanatics do. The term 'climate change' is meaningless. Climate cannot change. A desert climate is always a desert climate. A marine climate is always a marine climate. Climate is a subjective description. There are no values that can 'change'.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There are simply nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a sensible analysis of this type. Note that these idiots can't even specify the two points in time required to take such measurements (if it were even possible!).

It is not possible to measure global sea level. Same kind of problem. One indication, however, are those little atolls that are barely big enough to hold a runway that are just a few feet above the water. They were built during WW2, and are still there.

Weather isn't a 'pattern'. Weather is random, driven by differences in temperature, just as ocean currents are.

View attachment 79471University of Maryland +4
Key facts regarding the usage:

• Scientific Precision: Scientists often prefer "climate change" because it is more accurate, as rising temperatures cause more than just heating, including changing precipitation patterns and extreme weather.
• Political Influence: In the early 2000s, some political strategists recommended using "climate change" because it was perceived as less frightening or alarmist than "global warming," according to a 2002 memo mentioned in this Reddit post.
• Interchangeable Use: Both terms are valid and continue to be used in scientific literature.
• Newer Terms: Recently, terms like "climate crisis" or "global heating" have been adopted by some to better convey the urgency of the situation.

There is no evidence that ‘global warming’ was rebranded as ‘climate change’

I analysed 30 years of data to disprove a theory spread by Donald Trump, Naomi Seibt and others.

theconversation.com

Science isn't a 'precision'. Climate cannot change. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Heat has no temperature. Precipitation is not a pattern. Extreme weather is not a pattern.

Political? Yes. The Church of Global Warming seeks to become the State Religion. Several tyrannical laws are there because of this religion, including high gasoline taxes, interference with property rights, and the EV vehicle mania and fascism associated with it.

The Church of Global Warming is not science at all. It routinely discards several theories of science.

There is no urgency to something that does not exist. The only 'urgency' is Democrats that realize they are losing funding and power.

 

[Into the Night]

Name is irrelevant. It is real and coming. Trump has made it worse.

It is just as real as your religion, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

I think the 'climate crisis' title has already run it's course, but as far as I am aware, that's still the latest title. Maybe JPP's Lefties know of a new one?

They kept changing the name from global Cooling/Warming/ClimateChange/ClimateCrisis/WhatevertheFuckTheyCallitNow.

I just call it the Church of Global Warming.

 

[Into the Night]

... which is a completely made up claim because it isn't feasible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy. Any "Earth's temperature is ___" claim is just a blind guess.

Climate change, like global warming (and now 'climate crisis'), is just a made up buzzword that is meaningless. In order to measure sea level, one must first have a valid reference point to measure from (which is challenging when even land has a tide). There is no such thing as a 'weather pattern', otherwise weather would be predictable.

I also pointed this out, of course, but the Religion just ignores it.

 

[Into the Night]

Welp meteorologists had better find new jobs then. And don't check weather reports because they're inaccurate.

Meteorologists describe weather, LeftNut. Not climate. Weather is not climate.
Weather reports of past measurements are accurate. Weather forecasts are pretty good to about 24-48 hours out. Beyond that, it becomes more of an educated guess (out to about a week).

These are the standards used by mariners and in aviation. The weather service won't even issue a TAF for more than 24 hours out, and even then, they sometimes have to change them as conditions materialize. Storms sometimes move faster or slower than expected.

 

[Into the Night]

Weather forecasts are highly accurate for short-term predictions, with 5-day forecasts accurate about 90% of the time and 7-day forecasts accurate around 80%. Accuracy decreases for longer-term predictions, with 10-day forecasts right roughly half the time.

Math error: Failure to declare boundary.

 

[Into the Night]

The theories of science typically ignored by the Church of Global Warming include:

The 0th law of thermodynamics, which defines what 'temperature' means.
The 1st law of thermodynamics, which prohibits energy from being created out of nothing.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics, which prohibits entropy from ever decreasing.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law, which relates electromagnetic radiation to temperature as proportional (never inverse proportional).

They also ignore the number of instruments that exist, not understanding that it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the global sea level, the total ice and snow on Earth, the total precipitation on Earth, or any of a number of other things they 'know' by omniscience.

Climate, being a subjective description, simply cannot change. Different descriptions are simply different climates. There is no 'global climate'.

Like so many other things Democrats claim, 'science' is used as a magick word. 'Scientist' is also used a magick word. To them, they think it means 'proof'.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a proof of any kind. Science is not even people. A 'scientist' is simply one that accepts current theories of science, and possibly creates a new one, or proves one invalid (falsified).

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. That is it. That is all. It is nothing else. It does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.

The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green. The Church of Global Warming and Church of Green has spawned the Church of the EV, the Church of the Ozone Hole, and helps to drive the Church of Hate.