A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Changing nomenclature is a tactic of public control. Any business will tell you that.
Click to expand...
It turns out that it is a myth that the term was changed.
What the science says…
Click to expand...
There have long been claims that some unspecificed “they” has “changed the name from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’”. In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming ‘skeptic’.
Click to expand...
Global Warming vs. Climate Change
Click to expand...
Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, ‘global warming’ refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature…
Click to expand...
‘Climate change’, again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc.
Click to expand...
No Reason to Change the Term
Click to expand...
Those who perpetuate the “they changed the name” myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change. Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term ‘global warming’ is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term ‘climate change’ is more frightening.
Click to expand...
The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat. Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.
Click to expand...
The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’, Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:
Click to expand...
Code: 
It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.
Click to expand...
Code: 
“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.
Click to expand...
From: Global warming vs climate change
 
frobert said:
The purpose of the report was nothing more than to rally the troops with 2 1000 page volumes. Sounds impressive doesn’t it? The report did get it 15 minutes of fame on the winged blogs and on forums like here. It received little notice in the scientific community. The number of climate scientist linking to it are probably in the single digits. Here is a google search in “scholarly articles.” In other words it has been largely ignored by climate scientist, if the report had much redeeming merit it would not have been ignored.

If you read the 2 volumes let us know how it goes.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect, the purpose of the reports are to “present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming.”

The reports have been extensively featured in the media and referenced in their editorials.

The NIPCC reports have also received extensive recognition in the scientific community:

The NIPCC reports have been cited in the scholarly literature over 120 times.

While a proper Google Scholar search shows that it has been cited and referenced in the scholarly literature hundreds of times.
 
frobert said:
Notwithstanding Joseph Bast’s ad hominemt the report was nothing more than an opinion paper by a biased group and not a scientific study. Why should a scientist waste his/her time?
Click to expand...
The NIPCC reports are no more an opinion paper than the IPCC reports.

Any intellectually honest scientist would be interested in a comprehensive scientific review of the scholarly literature that points to greater uncertainty and a smaller role for man-made greenhouse gases than the IPCC claims.

You cannot just hand wave away comprehensive scientific reports that run over 2000 pages and have more than 4000 scholarly references.

NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (PDF) (993 pgs)
NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts (PDF) (1062 pgs)
 
frobert said:
It turns out that it is a myth that the term was changed.

From: Global warming vs climate change
Click to expand...
Skeptical Science is a worthless source of information.

The Truth about Skeptical Science

Neither term is accurate or properly represents the debate:
  1. All skeptics believe there has has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age (global warming).
  2. And all skeptics believe that the climate changes (climate change).
What is being debated is the extent of human influence on the climate and any future impacts.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The two organizations are not comparable, despite the attempt of NIPCC to cash in on the name recognition and cachét of the IPCC.
Click to expand...
Obviously the NIPCC did not received the tens of millions of dollars the IPCC receives to write their reports.

However, the reports are very comparable.

Reviewing the climate change reviewers: Exploring controversy through report references and citations
  • Reference data showed that the most cited journals are the same in both reports.
  • Journals of paleo-issues are more important for the contrarian report than the IPCC.
  • We found only 262 identical references (4.4% of all references) in the reports.
  • The reports use different literature processing techniques and rhetoric.
“Analysing the difference between the reference lists, we concluded that scientific arguments were constructed from the similar material; references came mainly from the same journals and the same journals were among those most cited by both sides. …] More broadly, we should consider that both reports purport to be based on the ideal of pure, value-free science,”
 
Poptech said:
Obviously the NIPCC did not received the tens of millions of dollars the IPCC receives to write their reports.

However, the reports are very comparable.
Click to expand...
The two organizations are not comparable, and that makes the reports from those organizations not comparable. If they were, then there would be no need for the NIPCC to adopt such a similar acronym.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The two organizations are not comparable, and that makes the reports from those organizations not comparable. If they were, then there would be no need for the NIPCC to adopt such a similar acronym.
Click to expand...
I just provided a peer-reviewed study explicitly stating that the reports are comparable.
 
Poptech said:
I just provided a peer-reviewed study explicitly stating that the reports are comparable.
Click to expand...
How can there be a peer-reviewed study about the trustworthiness of an organization? The IPCC has trust. The NIPCC does not.

To establish a chain of trust you have to start with someone or some thing that has more trust than either organization being considered.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
How can there be a peer-reviewed study about the trustworthiness of an organization? The IPCC has trust. The NIPCC does not.

To establish a chain of trust you have to start with someone or some thing that has more trust than either organization being considered.
Click to expand...
First, shouldn’t you read the analysis presented, at least the abstract before commenting?

Second, you are missing that many do not trust the IPCC since it is primary a political body. Trust is not a given.
 
Theo520 said:
First, shouldn’t you read the analysis presented, at least the abstract before commenting?
Click to expand...
No, because I am not a climate scientist. Opinions on trust hinges on trust and reputation. If someone tells me a “fact” that I am unable to verify independently of them, I have only one way to decide whether to accept it - whether I trust them.
Second, you are missing that many do not trust the IPCC since it is primary a political body. Trust is not a given.
Click to expand...
“Many” is a relative term. Replace it with “most” and your statement would be false. And before today I never heard of the NIPCC. So it has zero trust in my book.
 
lynnvinc said:
“A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change: Study shows risks have climbed steadily since 1980, and the number of people in danger will grow to 48% by 2100 even if emissions are drastically reduced” at theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/19/a-third-of-the-world-now-faces-deadly-heatwaves-as-result-of-climate-change
Click to expand...
The climate often changes - we call this: the seasons.

This year, there has been hardly any winter. It was a bit cold here and there but there was no snow. It has been very hot at times.

If, for the next twenty years or so, this country has no winter, then it could be deduced that the climate is changing in a long-term state of getting hotter.

But this can only be determined over time.

So, yes, the climate changes, and yes, we should always be concerned for our environment, generally, but to say that climate change will continue to progress forever in one direction or the other, is to say that scientists know for certain what will happen, to this planet, for all time. It is incorrect.

There have been periods of freezing winters. Two-hundred or so, years ago, the Thames froze over. Yet, about thirty years ago, we had regular droughts because it was so hot. And hose-pipe bans occurred.

Climate Change used to be called Global Warming. The doom-sayers are the ones who make this information seem as if the world is going to end.

They have made enough money between them to solve a percentage of the world’s poverty. Have they? Well, people are more aware of their surroundings, than they used to be. That is not a bad thing. And certainly, there seems to be greater awareness of the difficulties people experience in third-world countries, in terms of the weather. But this does not make the whole Climate Change agenda a good thing.

I think a better thread would be: 'Is the ‘Climate Change’ agenda, a scam?
 
friardchips said:
The climate often changes - we call this: the seasons.

This year, there has been hardly any winter. It was a bit cold here and there but there was no snow. It has been very hot at times.

If, for the next twenty years or so, this country has no winter, then it could be deduced that the climate is changing in a long-term state of getting hotter.

But this can only be determined over time.
Click to expand...
You are right. It took scientists over 30 years to determine in 1995 that global warming was happening. They had had the theory for nearly 200 years, which explained the natural greenhouse effect, helping to explain past warmings and ice ages. They knew increasing greenhouse gases cause the climate to warm, they knew we were increasing the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere thru our industrial emissions, but it still took them until 1995 to achieve 95% confidence the climate was warming, and since then the evidence has become much stronger. So, yes it takes time. But no, we should not rely on a layperson’s impression of his home area and whether or not is has warmed or cooled there, since we are referring to increased in global average temps.
Climate Change used to be called Global Warming.
Click to expand...
And before that, when JPII wrote in 1990 that it is a serious problem and we should mitigate it, it was generally referred to as the “greenhouse effect.” Each term helps describe it, so pick whichever one you prefer.
The doom-sayers are the ones who make this information seem as if the world is going to end.
Click to expand...
They have made enough money between them to solve a percentage of the world’s poverty. Have they?
Click to expand...
Scientists only get their salaries. They do not even get paid for contributing to scholarly works like the IPCC, but do it as their duty. And what do the get in return, hatred, harassment, death threat, hostility, and slander from the GW skeptics.
I think a better thread would be: 'Is the ‘Climate Change’ agenda, a scam?
Click to expand...
Do you think JPII, BXVI and Pope Francis are scamming us. I guess we all have a right to our opinion, but not the facts, and the fact is global warming is happening, it is mostly caused by people, and it has serious risks and threats of harms to people and others of God’s creation for years, centuries, and millennia to come.

You don’t have to turn off lights not in use & the many other things we can do to mitigate this problem – there are no laws to make you do so – but if you want to err on the side of prudence and caution and are concerned about future generations and the poor, then it might be wise to do what you can to become more energy/resource efficient/conservative and go on alt energy when feasible. The ball’s in your court and in the courts of all others in the world. It is up to you and others.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Does your peer reviewed study say the two organizations are comparable?
Click to expand...
LeafByNiggle said:
How can there be a peer-reviewed study about the trustworthiness of an organization? The IPCC has trust. The NIPCC does not.

To establish a chain of trust you have to start with someone or some thing that has more trust than either organization being considered.
Click to expand...
Strawman argument, I explicitly said the peer-reviewed study stated that the “reports” are scientifically comparable.

“Analysing the difference between the reference lists, we concluded that scientific arguments were constructed from the similar material; references came mainly from the same journals and the same journals were among those most cited by both sides. …] More broadly, we should consider that both reports purport to be based on the ideal of pure, value-free science,”

“Trust” however is purely subjective and has nothing to do with either organization’s scientific arguments.

Whether you want to accept it or not, the NIPCC reports exist and are extensively cited and sourced. They offer a much more measured take on the climate debate that point to greater uncertainty and a smaller role for man-made greenhouse gases than the IPCC claims. The fact that you have just now heard of them means you never once questioned any of the IPCC’s conclusions for which I am not surprised.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top