BPSDB
Global Warming? or Climate Change?
Peter Sinclair’s latest addition to the Climate Denial Crock of the Week debunks the idiotic “they changed it to “climate change after 1998” meme … “they” being the IPCC … which apparently the paranoid delusionals (aka climate change Deniers) thought stood for ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Coerced Collectivization’
As both the video and Joseph Romm note, the irony is the fact that it was the Republicans & Deniers who made calling it ‘”climate change” a priority because “global warming” was too scary. (foreshadowing – when our collective inaction on climate leads to the inevitable social collapse the Deniers will blame scientists and progressives for the inaction).
In Romm’s opinion “I prefer “Hell and High Water,” since is more descriptive of what is to come.” Still not descriptive or accurate (ie “scary” as the Republicans put it) enough in my opinion.
I have always liked Johnny Rooks insistence that we call things by their true names and that we should refer to it as Climaticide.
Actually for descriptive and accurate an even better choice would be Patrice Ayme’s “Biosphere Collapse.” Climate change alone is sufficient to cause it, but it is hardly our only assault on the biosphere, and the impacts of CO2 are not limited to simple warming.
Then again, maybe we should just call it “Higher Taxes” the “International Panel to Lower Taxes” respectively. Then the Deniers would fight to stop ‘Higher Taxes’ and support the “IPLT” regardless of what it was doing or why.
See also:
Update:Using Books Ngram Viewer commentor Benjamin Franz found that for book titles “Climate Change” has almost always been preferred over “Global Warming”, substantially so from about 1990 onwards.
So much (again) for the “since 1998” stupidity.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
IMAGE CREDIT:
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Great little video.
Aren’t we just like the denizens of Easter Island so immersed in our matrix that we are blind to the evidence of impending ecological collapse surrounding us?
An interesting fact I discovered using Google new Books Ngram Viewer is that Climate Change has always been more used than Global Warming. A lot more.
—-
Dan, what other people will instead take you to be saying is ‘I wonder how large the measured separation between reality and my nonsense will need to be before everyone, rather than just most people, realize that I do not have a clue what I am talking about.’
It is significant that you are absolutely certain that your individual knowledge is beyond the vast volume of peer-reviewed literature, superior to the technical understanding of working scientists, and better informed than other citizens. Yours is a distorted self-perception and it appears to be motivating all of your internet activity in retirement. Sorry to be blunt but it says more about what we do to men in retirement in this society, than anything else.
Realistically, if you are the one to correct scientists, it is a surprise that your comments make it clear that you do not recognize that you do not understand the basics of climate trend calculations.
take care
Dan, correct, they couldn’t think of anything else.
What do you suggest they consider?
What do you admit they’ve successfully ruled out?
By the way, what is 88% accuracy? That 88/100 times you’re correct in predictions? Or is 88% a significance level of certainty?
Dan, have you heard of Dunning Kruger Syndrome? I think you should read up on it and report your findings, it would be very enlightening for you.
I am curious to know your thoughts on James Lovelock. Is The Revenge of Gaia just a crackpot’s rantings? What about the Inuit whose houses are collapsing because of the permafrost melting from under their foundations? Are they unable to predict weather patterns like they used to because, according to you, it is actually getting colder? What about the reports of polar bears starving because there isn’t enough sea ice to get them out to their seal hunting grounds? I think there is more to this whole thing. Even Dr. Tim Ball quoted Lovelock in his article that it was impossible to predict climactic change impacts. Could not the cooling of Britain have everything to do with the Gulf Stream being forced further south by cooler water from the northern glacial melting in Greenland and arctic Canada?
I understand that meteorologists think that shifts in the jet stream are responsible for recent cold winters and cool wet summers in the UK. I haven’t followed that up to see what they think has caused the shifts in the jet stream.
—-
Pangburn said:
They have and found it to be worthless and wrong. there are lots of places where you can find the correct science, denier web sites are not the place to look for honest discussion of climate science.
Daniel Pangburn believes that the great majority of climate experts are unaware of the complexity of the climate system and mapping variables… but he is, and by golly, he is applying an engineering analysis to prove it.
What he finds is that the truth has been staring us in the face and what we need to do, if we are capable and willing (alas, so many are not) is listen to Daniel Pangburn, who has figured it out using only his desktop computer, engineering knowledge, and, well… a little something special.
That’s an interesting story. And it gets better.
Daniel Pangburn’s work work has been repressed and ignored. The problem is political conspiracy among scientists, along with their transparent stupidity and overriding excessively selfish interest in continuing to receive their paychecks.
😦
No one can stop Mr. Pangburn from grossly overestimating his own research abilities and chatting all over the internet claiming conspiracy theories. No one can stop him from being someone who believes he has ‘studied’ the science and has put out ‘work’ in science. And no one can stop him from making up all sorts of nonsense pseudo-scientific sounding arguments that may sound literate and right to a layperson.
What’s more, it is unlikely, given the pattern, that he will at any point understand or accept that it is nonsense to any knowledgeable person.
He is free, at least on the internet, to continue his activity and seek interaction to justify his sense of himself.
Daniel Pangburn’s internet activity ultimately evidences an educated, restrained paranoia — not a reasonable knowledge of the science and questions still to be addressed. He frequently argues that curbing emissions ‘puts freedom and prosperity’ at risk, making it very, very clear that he is incapable of separating the science from any policy implications. This is likely the source of his distortions.
I am satisfied that climate science will continue without the input of Daniel Pangburn, and that public policy will continue to be decided by the general public, not Mr. Pangburn.
cheers
Call me blind sheep, but I’m not willing to believe that climatologists don’t know how to take into account first law of thermodynamics. If that were the case, wouldn’t you think skeptical scientists such as Spencer, Michaels, Christy use that as their first argument?
He frequently argues that curbing emissions ‘puts freedom and prosperity’ at risk, making it very, very clear that he is incapable of separating the science from any policy implications. This is likely the source of his distortions.
I have yet to see ONE denier or skeptic, who is not a scientist, that isn’t ultimately motivated by that.
Dan are you yet another retired engineer that has nothing better to do, other than taking on some scientists?
Had you thought that, maybe, just maybe, you are just following a long line of engineers that think they know better than a physicist or other scientist, ever since they were at college?
It is a classic error of many intellectuals like yourself, that you seek a slanging match, for the sake of it, convinced that you are correct. After all it keeps the brain cells ticking over doesn’t it.
This must be the great problem with the internet. In the past, retired professionals around the world would have stuck to doing a bit of gardening, looking after grand children and doing talks in the local town hall.
By your own methods you aught to shut up until we’re at 2020 and then if temperatures have followed the trend you hope they will, you can crow all you like.
But I expect them not to, and the 30 year trend to be positive all this century.
[…] further commentary on this from Joe Romm and Greenfyre. By the way, the answer to the question in the title is that (as you can see from the video) both […]
Ian, while you’re at it, I wonder if Dan will also demand that you read and comment on Peter Pan.
Pangburn said:
Try here for starters:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/07/global_warming_turns_35.php
Any further info on your “submitted paper”? Can we see the reviewers’ comments when they chucked it into the round filing cabinet?
Your whole theory breaks down when it has been shown that cosmic ray flux has not followed temperatures. Why did you not check that? That would have been obvious to anyone with a real science background. Also your term ESST is useless. Most of the heat content of the oceans is accumulating far deeper than the surface. Again you show seriously flawed understanding of even basic climate science.
In other words, you are a serious Dunning Kruger afflicted know-nothing.
Pangburn, stop repeating the verbal diarrhea that seems to be the only thing that comes out of your mouth (via your key board). Such nonsense is so easy to expose that serious scientists will not waste their time doing a peer reviewed rebuttal.
Get lost or start talking science. Your spamming of your ridiculous paper all over the internet is disrespectful to our host.
WOW, I have failed to realize what an innovative scientist you are (not).
Here are three of Pangburn’s patents:
Ring-center pivot loose-leaf binder page lifter
Wood fence post repair device
Single-door locking mailbox
WOW, the more you post the more obvious it is that you are nothing but a blow-hard crank. Just what about those patents makes you an expert on climate science?
Who would like to guess where Pangburn’s “paper” on his “VERIFIABLE DISCOVERY” will appear? My guess is “Energy and Environment”, his paper will feel so at home in that cesspit of denier rubbish. Hey, it might even make it onto Poop Tart’s list.
Poop Tart? 🙂
Re. Daniel W. Pangburn, retired mechanical engineer and inventor. He has already made it clear, in so many previous comments of the highest importance and spam quality, that all peer-reviewed science journals are part of the global warming conspiracy. C02 is not driving the current warming and the trend is down, not up, people.
DWP understands that any peer review science is bogus and major science journals and institutions simply promote knowledge that fits with the pre-conceived notions of a bunch of paycheck-driven, anti-freedom scientists.
Phooey.
Therefore… the only ‘review’ that is credible and relevant to his VERIFIABLE DISCOVERY is his own. Or Heartland’s. Or… gee, now I see where you’re going with that, Ian. Yes… E&E. 🙂
My bet is that he has won a creative writing contest.
cheers
I’m rather late to this but thought I should point out how the “sceptics” once again ignore the actual topic and repeat their usual many-times-refuted claims.
The Joe Romm post attributes the name change (by the Republicans) to Frank Luntz and I think this is generally accepted. Luntz is a clever man and not to be underestimated. This is what he said in a memo in 2002.
(I think it’s worth repeating this here.)