Google: We’re parting with the climate change skeptics at ALEC

[ReConverted]

Google: We’re parting with the climate change skeptics at ALEC

washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/22/google-were-parting-with-the-climate-change-skeptics-at-alec/

“The company has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts — what a shock,” said Schmidt. “And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

 

[JimG]

Why is everyone now using the term “climate change?”
How is the climate changing? Is it still global warming? If so, why not just say that?

 

[Steveabrous]

Why is everyone now using the term “climate change?”
How is the climate changing? Is it still global warming? If so, why not just say that?

They called it
global warming in the 90’s when we were having mild winters. But now that the winters are cold again they changed it to climate change because no one is going to buy “Global warming” anymore.

 

[Coatimundi]

Why is everyone now using the term “climate change?”
How is the climate changing? Is it still global warming? If so, why not just say that?

I think those are good question. Of course, I don’t have any idea what the answer is.

I found a 2008 article on the NASA website which explains the history of the terms. Apparently, climate change and global warming refers to two different things. The article says that both terms date back to the 1979 Charney report. Global warming refers to the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature. Climate change refers to a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

Global warming is an average figure for the entire Earth. However, the changes which cause global warming will affect different regions of the Earth in different ways. One region might become drier and hotter. Another might become wetter and cooler.

The public became aware of the term “global warming” after congressional testimony in 1988. The news media, given its penchant for hysteria and misreporting on scientific matters, seized upon the term while ignoring the term “climate change.”

The effects of climate change (e.g. more rainfall, less rainfall) are more important than the effects of global warming. This is why scientists tend to emphasize climate change.
nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

 

[Sparkythedog]

Why is everyone now using the term “climate change?”
How is the climate changing? Is it still global warming? If so, why not just say that?

The average temperature of the earth is increasing, hence the term global warming.

Climate refers to weather conditions in a general area. Global warming will affect different climates in different ways. This is what the term climate change refers to. It is the change to a specific region of the earth.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Google: We’re parting with the climate change skeptics at ALEC

Time to look into a different search, I guess.

“The company has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts — what a shock,” said Schmidt. “And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people — they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/

liveweatherblogs.com/index.php/community/groups/viewdiscussion/944-australian-australian-meteorologists-caught-red-handed-making-it-a-fake-global-warming-with-weather-data-australian-bureau-of-meteorology?groupid=84

Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.

So-called gay “marriage”, abortion, feminism and contraception are doing a better job of harming our children than the climate

The effects of climate change (e.g. more rainfall, less rainfall) are more important than the effects of global warming. This is why scientists tend to emphasize climate change.
nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea…ther_name.html

It isn’t scientists so much as politicians and those who have nothing but uniformed opinions to advance their own nefarious political and financial interests.

Climate change as a policy driver is quite destructive to the environment and many of the policies resulting from climate change are not sustainable.

As Catholics, we are called to find the Truth, not to go along with something just because it is excitable or gives us an excuse to be Catholic and put on our cool kid hats.

 

[Exiled_Child]

I think those are good question. Of course, I don’t have any idea what the answer is.

I found a 2008 article on the NASA website which explains the history of the terms. Apparently, climate change and global warming refers to two different things. The article says that both terms date back to the 1979 Charney report. Global warming refers to the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature. Climate change refers to a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

Global warming is an average figure for the entire Earth. However, the changes which cause global warming will affect different regions of the Earth in different ways. One region might become drier and hotter. Another might become wetter and cooler.

The public became aware of the term “global warming” after congressional testimony in 1988. The news media, given its penchant for hysteria and misreporting on scientific matters, seized upon the term while ignoring the term “climate change.”

The effects of climate change (e.g. more rainfall, less rainfall) are more important than the effects of global warming. This is why scientists tend to emphasize climate change.
nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

I don’t have any idea what the answer is either.

When you research the so-called “deniers” point of view, you eventually find that it boils down to one thing: The Club of Rome.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome
This might sound strange at first, but after paying attention to this subject for a number of years it’s what I’ve reduced it to. I’m curious about your thoughts on this, because I’ve never been able to decide one way or the other.

On the other side, by far the most alarmist and also, oddly, the most convincing argument has to do with arctic methane. I would also be keen to hear your take on this, with the understanding that the timetable might be wildly inaccurate:
arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/global-extinction-within-one-human.html

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t have any idea what the answer is either.

When you research the so-called “deniers” point of view, you eventually find that it boils down to one thing: The Club of Rome.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome
This might sound strange at first, but after paying attention to this subject for a number of years it’s what I’ve reduced it to. I’m curious about your thoughts on this, because I’ve never been able to decide one way or the other.

On the other side, by far the most alarmist and also, oddly, the most convincing argument has to do with arctic methane. I would also be keen to hear your take on this, with the understanding that the timetable might be wildly inaccurate:
arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/global-extinction-within-one-human.html

I can’t address users on this section of the forums directly per forum rules, but I’ll point a few things everyone needs to consider from the perspective of an environmental scientist without a political or financial agenda.

First of all, one is not going to get good information from the mainstream American media, blogspot or wikipedia on this issue. Unfortunately, the peer-reviewed process can’t be that trustworthy either simply because it’s been corrupted. A lot of climate alamarist rely on the peer-reviewed crutch, but as someone in academia I’ve noticed a couple of things.

1. I was at a presentation once where a college professor who was also a reviewer looked down at the floor and said “Well, I didn’t have the time to look at it that much”. So it’s not surprising then that:
2. In the field of physics, there was recently a massive scandal where a couple of Ivy League students were caught plagiarizing. Before they got caught, they cranked out over 60 publications on more or less the same subject, and it wasn’t even a publisher that caught them—it was a group of experts asking them questions who doubted their expertise.

That is the high and mighty “peer-reviewed” research state in some cases.

It’s actually kind of scary if one thinks about it. :yup:

Second, there is no such thing as “settled science”. Uncertainty is a part of science. And remember, science is about replicating results and observations.

Third, know that the climate change movement is filled with people who want to destroy the Church and implement a political agenda. In fact, some of the original members of Greenpeace have left because people have turned into an organization for political gain.

Fourth, attempts to curb so-called climate change have not been sustainable. The amount of environmental destruction from the hurried construction of dams, wind turbines and solar panels has very adversely biodiversity and interfered with conservation projects. You won’t find that little tidbit on pictures of wind farms and solar panels within the backdrop of clear blue skies.

Fifth, a lot of the climate change data that is quoted, I think, comes from flawed analyses. The tree rings study done a couple of decades ago has been debunked, and the “warming” tends to be from urban heat islands and where the thermometers happen to be versus what is actually happening.

Sixth, I think it’s arrogant for anyone to think they can model what’s going on with the entire planet. I don’t think we understand fluid dynamics and heat flow as much as some “scientists” like to think we do.

 

[sps49]

I can’t address users on this section of the forums directly per forum rules, but I’ll point a few things everyone needs to consider from the perspective of an environmental scientist without a political or financial agenda.

First of all, one is not going to get good information from the mainstream American media, blogspot or wikipedia on this issue. Unfortunately, the peer-reviewed process can’t be that trustworthy either simply because it’s been corrupted. A lot of climate alamarist rely on the peer-reviewed crutch, but as someone in academia I’ve noticed a couple of things.

1. I was at a presentation once where a college professor who was also a reviewer looked down at the floor and said “Well, I didn’t have the time to look at it that much”. So it’s not surprising then that:
2. In the field of physics, there was recently a massive scandal where a couple of Ivy League students were caught plagiarizing. Before they got caught, they cranked out over 60 publications on more or less the same subject, and it wasn’t even a publisher that caught them—it was a group of experts asking them questions who doubted their expertise.

That is the high and mighty “peer-reviewed” research state in some cases.

It’s actually kind of scary if one thinks about it. :yup:

Second, there is no such thing as “settled science”. Uncertainty is a part of science. And remember, science is about replicating results and observations.

Third, know that the climate change movement is filled with people who want to destroy the Church and implement a political agenda. In fact, some of the original members of Greenpeace have left because people have turned into an organization for political gain.

Fourth, attempts to curb so-called climate change have not been sustainable. The amount of environmental destruction from the hurried construction of dams, wind turbines and solar panels has very adversely biodiversity and interfered with conservation projects. You won’t find that little tidbit on pictures of wind farms and solar panels within the backdrop of clear blue skies.

Fifth, a lot of the climate change data that is quoted, I think, comes from flawed analyses. The tree rings study done a couple of decades ago has been debunked, and the “warming” tends to be from urban heat islands and where the thermometers happen to be versus what is actually happening.

Sixth, I think it’s arrogant for anyone to think they can model what’s going on with the entire planet. I don’t think we understand fluid dynamics and heat flow as much as some “scientists” like to think we do.

The energy flows are not well understood, and the peg they hang their hat on, equilibrium climate sensitivity has large uncertainties as well. To believe that it is a “done deal” and to have a certainty of 1.0 about it is insanity. The fervor at which this is promoted is completely out of proportion to the state of knowledge at this time.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The average temperature of the earth is increasing, hence the term global warming.

Climate refers to weather conditions in a general area. Global warming will affect different climates in different ways. This is what the term climate change refers to. It is the change to a specific region of the earth.

So basically it means there is weather in the world?

 

[wittgenstein]

Global warming is a fact beyond dispute. EVERY scientific organization in the world of national and/or international reputation confirms that AGW is a fact. Are NASA, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Academy, Scientific American, National Geographic,… and every legitimate scientific organization in the world part of a conspiracy? Who is in charge of this conspiracy? The Masons? E.T.? Bigfoot?
Even if one thinks that 97% of climate scientists are part of an evil conspiracy, one should at least read the evidence they present. But then again, if one does not beliece in science and logic, all the evidence in the world will not make a difference.

 

[MarcoPolo]

97% of climate scientists

The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus

 

[sps49]

Global warming is a fact beyond dispute. EVERY scientific organization in the world of national and/or international reputation confirms that AGW is a fact. Are NASA, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Academy, Scientific American, National Geographic,… and every legitimate scientific organization in the world part of a conspiracy? Who is in charge of this conspiracy? The Masons? E.T.? Bigfoot?

AGW is a hypothesis or theory, and like any other scientific hypothesis/theory it is by its very nature open to dispute. In other words, science encourages debate.

In this hypothesis/theory, there are elements that are known to a relatively high confidence, such as the radiative transfer properties of CO2. How these behave and interact with each other to produce what we call “climate” is where the uncertainty is found. What is left out of the discussion are the necessary assumptions that are made to facilitate the operation of the global climate and general circulation models. What is in many cases left unsaid is “all things being equal, an increase of CO2 equals an increase of temperature.” The point to remember is that all things are never equal.

See, no conspiracy necessary.

 

[wittgenstein]

The WSJ sure has changed since Rupert Murdoch bought it!
Anyway, I will give the actual sources when I get to a computer. I am using a tablet and cannot post links.
It is a fact that AGW is the overwhelmingly scientific concensus. Perhaps, every scientific organization in the world tell only lies? I will supply their official statements.
And yes, there are some that disagree wiyh AGW, 3%.

 

[wittgenstein]

AGW is a hypothesis or theory, and like any other scientific hypothesis/theory it is by its very nature open to dispute. In other words, science encourages debate.

In this hypothesis/theory, there are elements that are known to a relatively high confidence, such as the radiative transfer properties of CO2. How these behave and interact with each other to produce what we call “climate” is where the uncertainty is found. What is left out of the discussion are the necessary assumptions that are made to facilitate the operation of the global climate and general circulation models. What is in many cases left unsaid is “all things being equal, an increase of CO2 equals an increase of temperature.” The point to remember is that all things are never equal.

See, no conspiracy necessary.

Sure just like any scientific theory it is open to dispute. The scientific claim that the earth is not flat and the scientific claim that the earth goes around the sun can be debated. But why waste time debating something that has overwhelming evidence.

 

[wittgenstein]

There is no disent in the scientific community that all things being equal CO2 increases the world’s temperature. I should emphasize "scientific community ". Some guys blog does not count. I am talking about NASA, the American Meteorological Society,Royal Academy etc.

 

[wittgenstein]

If you dispute the claim of EVERY scientific organization in the world’s conclusion, at least look at their evidence (which I will provide links for when I get to a computer and off my tablet). But then again, if you think they are all lying and/or stupid you will dismiss their evidence.

 

[sps49]

Sure just like any scientific theory it is open to dispute. The scientific claim that the earth is not flat and the scientific claim that the earth goes around the sun can be debated. But why waste time debating something that has overwhelming evidence.

Comparing the relatively easy experiment of determining the shape of the Earth, which Eratosthenes accomplished around 250 BC, with the AGW hypothesis/theory is absurd. We have known the diameter of the Earth for some 2264 years, and have only recently had the tools to investigate climate. It was not until 1963 that Edward Norton Lorenz provided the tools necessary to begin this investigation by numerically modeling it. That alone should inform your intellect that it was and still is a tough nut to crack. Your comparison of a flat Earth and claim of overwhelming evidence is found to be wanting, due to the reason given on this and a previous post.

Not knowing is nothing to be ashamed of. There are many things we don’t know, and a frightening number of things that we don’t know that we don’t know. Adding the intellectual arrogance of “look no further” to the mix is a recipe for disaster.

The “97%” claim has been addressed elsewhere to good effect.

 

[sps49]

There is no disent in the scientific community that all things being equal CO2 increases the world’s temperature. I should emphasize "scientific community ". Some guys blog does not count. I am talking about NASA, the American Meteorological Society,Royal Academy etc.

Umm, that is the point, all things are never equal. This simple concept casts long shadows on claims of “the science is settled.”

 

[sps49]

If you dispute the claim of EVERY scientific organization in the world’s conclusion, at least look at their evidence (which I will provide links for when I get to a computer and off my tablet). But then again, if you think they are all lying and/or stupid you will dismiss their evidence.

I have addressed the claims of access to the relevant material before on a different thread:

sps49:

I have read some of the published research (the total amount is staggering), and I have access to, as lynnvinc likes to put it, “real climate scientists” as well as science professionals in chemistry and high energy physics. My reluctance is limited to and inspired by lynnvincs and others climate histrionics, and the claim that the “science is settled.” Now we have established that I have “read about it.” My background, as is stated in my profile, is “Engineer, R&D, Aerospace.” This enables me not only to read the published research and speak to primary researchers, but also understand the ‘Big Words.” Therefore my conclusion is that we do not know enough to understand the total combined effect natural variations at this moment, much less our impact, or how we could “direct” the climate to do what we want it to do.

Thank you for your concern, though.