Jump to content
Science Forums

Does The "renaming" Of Global Warming/climate Change Prove It's A Hoax?


HydrogenBond

Recommended Posts

This post of this thread was moved from the Earth and Climate Science thread Climate Change And The Skeptics, because the topic of that thread was how to communicate climate science ideas to people who are skeptical of the legitimacy of climate science, while this post is an example of such skepticism and statement of a political position.

 

 

One question I have is, why did the global warming brand, become rebranded into the climate change brand? The term global warming was used to sell certain products and services. Why did the advertisers changed the brand, to climate change; why the need for a new marketing approach? 

 

My guess is although the earth has warmed slightly over the past 100 years or so, the computer models have not done a good job a predicting the future. Climate change adds a wild card of unpredictability, so poor global warming model predictions have an excuse. For example, hurricanes had been predicted to get worse, but then we had a number of soft years for hurricanes. This can now be blamed on climate change, which gives the model an excuse if it is right or wrong. 

 

The problem is, if the models are not good at predicting the future, then the doom and gloom scenarios will have doubt, even if the temperature rises slightly. The fear of doom and gloom is the glue that binds the liberals. If there was doubt in the model, the glue might soften. The climate change brand is sort of smoke screen to prolong the long term fear. 

 

Climate change means the earth is adapting and reorganizing the potential in ways different from the manmade models that were playing god. Their god is weaker and is being push around by a natural god; climate change. The earth has warmed and cooled in many cycles in the past. Climate change also occurred then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One question I have is, why did the global warming brand, become rebranded into the climate change brand? The term global warming was used to sell certain products and services. Why did the advertisers changed the brand, to climate change; why the need for a new marketing approach? 

 

You only ask the question because you've been told it's a controversy and it's not. You can read all the details in this very comprehensive article on the history of the global warming/climate change terminology. Here are some important excerpts:

 

Before we talk about the ‘name-change’ myth, it is worth considering what the terms actually mean.  
  • 'Global warming' is the temperature increase produced by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere...
  • 'Climate change' is a consequence of global warming. As the temperature goes up, the extra energy changes all the patterns we are familiar with....
The term ‘global warming’ was first used in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University. He wrote a paper called "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming”. (Note the use of the term ‘climatic change’)....
 
The term ‘climate change’ has its origins further back in time. In 1956, the physicist Gilbert Plass published a seminal study called "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change". In 1977 the journal Climatic Change made its first appearance...

 

But most importantly for those of you who are seeking evil liberal intent in this non-change of terminology:

 
UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher gave a speech to the UN in which she used the term 'climate change' a year later in 1989. It’s worth quoting, since the paragraph in which it appears is as relevant today as it was then:
“In some areas, the action required is primarily for individual nations or groups of nations to take. But the problem of global climate change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is taken at the international level. It is no good squabbling over who is responsible or who should pay. We have to look forward not backward, and we shall only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international, co-operative effort”.
 
That's the "British Ronald Reagan" for those of you who don't know who she is.
 
And if you're looking for a Smoking Gun of nefarious intent, there actually is one, but look who's holding it:

 

Ironically, the change may also have been accelerated by politically-motivated spin doctors. This is advice from a Republican political consultant who advised President Bush, talking about changing the name for political purposes:

"It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation…“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”…While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge".

SourceRepublican Political Consultant Frank Luntz, 2003

 

 

 

That's right: it was famed Republican "idea man" Frank Luntz who to this day is the most influential generator of Conservative Talking Points and is responsible for a lot of what you hear on Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and most other conservative outlets. 

 

 

My guess is although the earth has warmed slightly over the past 100 years or so... 

 

You really need to stop "guessing" HB: most of what you "guess" is wrong, or misleading at best. What do you mean by "slightly?" "it's only gone up a degree or so, so what?!?"

 

Here's a graph of your 100 year period showing the difference above or below the 20th century average temperature (that is the average for the 100 year period):

Source: NOAA, May 2014

 

 

That is the temperature has risen 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) in that time period. It's easy to find photographs showing the effects of this with massive receding of glaciers and ice caps, with just this week that melting from the Arctic and Greenland ice caps are significantly slowing down the Gulf Stream

 

Now this will bring colder winters to Northern Europe to match the Polar Vortex we've been experiencing in the Northern and Eastern US, an effect that has had Conservative media screaming "See?!?! Record snow in Boston! There's no Global Warming!" 

 

In fact AVERAGE temperature around the world for 2014 was higher than any previous year. Now this is difficult for those folks who don't like math or statistics to understand, but the fact is that one of the reasons Climate Change is used (as mentioned in the quote above), is that the changes can cause localized cooling, but because it's getting even hotter elsewhere, we do indeed have continued warming.

 

 

...the computer models have not done a good job a predicting the future. 

 

 
For once you're right HB. Oh, but you meant in the other direction:
 

Climate change adds a wild card of unpredictability, so poor global warming model predictions have an excuse. For example, hurricanes had been predicted to get worse, but then we had a number of soft years for hurricanes. This can now be blamed on climate change, which gives the model an excuse if it is right or wrong. 

 

Well it's true that the number of hurricanes formed has been at or below average in the last couple of years, but the *size* of them and their range has increased significantly. 
 
Seriously, look at hurricane Sandy: The National Weather Service refused to even call it a hurricane because by their definitions there are no hurricanes that are "extra tropical"--that is basically north of North Carolina--and they trotted out some technical definitions to justify their decision after the fact, despite the fact that this was by far the largest and most powerful "former-hurricane" ever to hit the Northeast US. Katrina was one of the largest hurricanes on record and put New Orleans--which has withstood hurricanes for centuries--underwater unmatched in it's history.
 
So actually, this prediction is proving true. And we haven't even been discussing the much larger and more frequent cyclone (what they call hurricanes everywhere but the Western Hemisphere) activity elsewhere in the world.

 

The problem is, if the models are not good at predicting the future, then the doom and gloom scenarios will have doubt, even if the temperature rises slightly. The fear of doom and gloom is the glue that binds the liberals. If there was doubt in the model, the glue might soften. The climate change brand is sort of smoke screen to prolong the long term fear. 

 

On the contrary, they've been quite good, and they've at worst been too conservative as I pointed out above.

 

Fear is only unwarranted if no change is happening, and it is. 

 

And dear, liberals have no franchise on fear, but I'll leave all the targets for counter argument on this irrelevant statement for another thread.

 

 

Climate change means the earth is adapting and reorganizing the potential in ways different from the manmade models that were playing god. Their god is weaker and is being push around by a natural god; climate change. The earth has warmed and cooled in many cycles in the past. Climate change also occurred then.

 

Oh yes, Mother Nature does not give a damn about humans. She's happy to go along with all the changes they've made and force all species to adapt.

 

But the issue really comes down to, if we have the power to slow this change down, shouldn't we try to avoid it?

 

I mean if you're in a car and it drifts into the oncoming traffic, do you say "oh well, that's just God's will" or do you turn the steering wheel before it's too late?

 

I can see doing the former if there really was nothing we could do, but we can, and willfully refusing to do so is just stupid. 

 

Our grandchildren are going to suffer for your willful ignorance, and I'm just sad you won't be around to hear their wrath.

 

Refusal to accept or do anything about man-made causes of climate change is the ultimate in selfishness. But at least Ayn Rand would be proud of you.

 

 

They keep saying that sea levels are rising an' all this. It's nowt to do with the icebergs melting, it's because there's too many fish in it. Get rid of some of the fish and the water will drop. Simple. Basic science, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change means the earth is adapting and reorganizing the potential in ways different from the manmade models that were playing god. Their god is weaker and is being push around by a natural god; climate change. The earth has warmed and cooled in many cycles in the past. Climate change also occurred then.

Climates have been changing forever, and will continue to. There are really only three questions we have though:

 

1 - Is the increased rate of change due to human activity?

2 - Is the increased rate of change a threat to humans in some way?

3 - Can we slow the rate of change to its historic levels, or slower?

 

(and a zero-th question, of "are climates changing faster than historic norms?", but that's been reasonably settled science for a while)

 

Number 1 is generally accepted to be "yes", but here's the thing - that *doesn't matter*. Only the answers to the next two questions make any difference. If the increased rate of change is *not* a threat, then we don't need to do anything. But every model suggests that it is, especially for those living in low-lying areas (which is a significant amount of the world, since cities tend to be built near large ports). Many (most?) of the models also suggest that the rate of change accelerates with the degree of change - that is, the warmer we get, the faster we get warmer and the faster change happens. Of course, that answer doesn't matter unless we can slow the rate of change in the climate. Currently it appears that we can - we've got the ability and the economic prowess to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses being produced and much more importantly remove some of the greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere and store them in places where they won't rejoin the cycle. But we also know that the longer the temperatures are rising, the harder it will be to slow down.

 

So I suppose the question for you is - which of these three questions do you answer differently?

Do you think that climate isn't changing? Do you think that it's not a threat to people? Or do you think we're powerless to stop it, and should instead be trying to mitigate the damage rather than reverse it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change is a normal part of the earth. There is no one year that has all the records for every climate event possible because change is natural. Climate change appears to be accelerating, at this time in history, mostly because of the vast number of news sources competing for market share; more is reported. 

 

Before cable TV, when there were just three main national stations; ABC, NBC and CBS, climate change news would be limited to local news and major international climate events. Now with more and more stations and programming, due to cable and internet,  everything is being reported in minute detail to maintain audience.

 

Since more data is reported today, than 50 years ago, the layman audience gets the impression more is happening. The way to test this theory, would be to normalize the modern data with the past data. Say we limited media exposure of climate change events, to the level of reporting 50 years ago, to normalize the past and present. It would appear climate change was past its prime.

 

The other way to prove this is to add even more stations to see if climate change event data increases. These stations earn money from advertisers who expect audiences to be watching. It needs to be fresh and not boring, with reporting new angles in weather; change, good for audience viewing. 

 

This is one of the wires, in the magic trick,  that levitate our lovely assistant. 

Edited by HydrogenBond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shorter HB: "The only reason climate change appears to be accelerating is that there's more media on cable teevee."

 

Seriously HB, you ignore data right and left. You want to join us back here on Earth dear?

 

 

It was a joke to the extent in the context of the views that speech, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change is a normal part of the earth. There is no one year that has all the records for every climate event possible because change is natural. Climate change appears to be accelerating, at this time in history, mostly because of the vast number of news sources competing for market share; more is reported. 

 

Before cable TV, when there were just three main national stations; ABC, NBC and CBS, climate change news would be limited to local news and major international climate events. Now with more and more stations and programming, due to cable and internet,  everything is being reported in minute detail to maintain audience.

 

Since more data is reported today, than 50 years ago, the layman audience gets the impression more is happening. The way to test this theory, would be to normalize the modern data with the past data. Say we limited media exposure of climate change events, to the level of reporting 50 years ago, to normalize the past and present. It would appear climate change was past its prime.

 

The other way to prove this is to add even more stations to see if climate change event data increases. These stations earn money from advertisers who expect audiences to be watching. It needs to be fresh and not boring, with reporting new angles in weather; change, good for audience viewing. 

 

This is one of the wires, in the magic trick,  that levitate our lovely assistant.

So, of four questions, which do you answer differently? Are you claiming that climate change is not accelerating (a view held not by the layman audience but by experts)?

 

(a reminder of what the questions are:

0 - Is the climate changing at a faster rate than historic levels?

1 - Is the increased rate of change due to human activity?

2 - Is the increased rate of change a threat to humans in some way?

3 - Can we slow the rate of change to its historic levels, or slower?)

Edited by pgrmdave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see the percentages for climate scientists and 'global warming' as opposed to 'climate change'. Was that change a scientific decision made due to a reduced consensus or otherwise? 

 

Read all about that here: http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/28298-political-post-split-from-a-science-thread/?do=findComment&comment=335613

 

It wasn't a "change," that's just the propaganda, and the source is amusing... 

 

 

It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't a "change," that's just the propaganda, and the source is amusing..

Hi Buffy,

 

In the book 'Weapons of Mass Deception' the authors analysed the dates and number of times key words were used in the media to determine when politicians were manipulating public opinions. It would be interesting to see if one was changed for the other over time in the media (as I recall) or if both were represented equally over the time.    

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995239/Why-Royal-Society-wrong-climate-change-devastating-critique-world-s-leading-scientific-organisation-one-Fellows.html

 

Five years ago, I was one of 43 Fellows of the Royal Society – the first and arguably still the most prestigious scientific organisation in the world – who wrote to our then-president about its approach to climate change. We warned that the Society was in danger of violating its founding principle, summed up in its famous motto ‘Nullius in verba’ – or ‘Don’t take another’s word for it; check it out for yourself’.

 

The reason for our warning was a Society document which stated breezily: ‘If you don’t believe in climate change you are using one of the following [eight] misleading arguments.’
The implication was clear: the Society seemed to be saying there was no longer room for meaningful debate about the claim that the world is warming dangerously because of human activity, because the science behind this was ‘settled’.
...
During my time as a government departmental Chief Scientific Adviser, I was always aware that politicians made the final decision on any issue on the balance of all the evidence. For this reason, civil servants are trained to draw their attention to all the upsides and downsides of taking a particular course of action.
Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity.
 
Just think Buffy, if most of the world hadn't swallowed the old WMD propaganda hook line and sinker we would not have to wonder what impact the record amount of the munitions exploded in the past 15 years in the middle east/afghanistan (how may vietnams or ww2's worth) had on global climate change. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think Buffy, if most of the world hadn't swallowed the old WMD propaganda hook line and sinker we would not have to wonder what impact the record amount of the munitions exploded in the past 15 years in the middle east/afghanistan (how may vietnams or ww2's worth) had on global climate change.

Are you comparing the evidence for WMDs to the evidence for climate change? Climate change is no more a political position than heliocentrism - another case where scientists agree that there is no room for meaningful debate about the claim because the science behind it is settled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Laurie,

 

The guy you linked to:

 

In the book 'Weapons of Mass Deception' the authors analysed the dates and number of times key words were used in the media to determine when politicians were manipulating public opinions. It would be interesting to see if one was changed for the other over time in the media (as I recall) or if both were represented equally over the time.    

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995239/Why-Royal-Society-wrong-climate-change-devastating-critique-world-s-leading-scientific-organisation-one-Fellows.html

 

...Michael Kelley is exactly one of those crackpots with a PhD I mentioned above. He is *not* a climatologist though (he's a professor of Mathematics and Physics), and you can find a rebuttal to this very opinion piece (and it is an opinion piece, not an article), here.

 

I'm happy to debunk the various arguments of those arguing that Climate Change is a hoax, because I do not believe they should be left unchallenged.

 

And anyway, that's the nature of Science!

 

 

If the guy out in the woods with the Michigan Militia is a real estate negotiator, instead of some crackpot, and has a normal life, that's unnerving. You don't want to think it's as normal as the guy next door, hedging his lawn. It's easier to demonize or separate them off from 'us,' :phones:
Buffy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you comparing the evidence for WMDs to the evidence for climate change? Climate change is no more a political position than heliocentrism - another case where scientists agree that there is no room for meaningful debate about the claim because the science behind it is settled.

 

No pgrmdave, I am asking why exploding huge amounts of explosives is not considered as one of the man made causes of global warming? Because the science is settled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only hoax is that the science is settled and that was the point that Michael Kelley made. 

 

The problem with such arguments is that they can be used to justify practically anything. Are you skeptical about gravity? Are you making preparations in case it suddenly stops working and you fly off the Earth? Why not? It could happen....

 

To answer the question you posed to Dave: You actually can do math on the amount of energy produced by all explosives ignited in the last two centuries, and it's a tiny fraction of a single volcano going off. If you're unwilling to do the math and insist that your unwillingness to do it is justification for insisting that your claim that such explosives could cause all global warming *must* be considered a legitimate alternative theory is simply ludicrous. No one can insist on that and be taken seriously. Not even if they have a PhD.

 

 

If I let go of a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has in fact fallen, :phones:

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer the question you posed to Dave: You actually can do math on the amount of energy produced by all explosives ignited in the last two centuries, and it's a tiny fraction of a single volcano going off. If you're unwilling to do the math and insist that your unwillingness to do it is justification for insisting that your claim that such explosives could cause all global warming *must* be considered a legitimate alternative theory is simply ludicrous. No one can insist on that and be taken seriously. Not even if they have a PhD.

 

When has good science ever been based on a straw man argument Buffy? I never said any such thing! 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When has good science ever been based on a straw man argument Buffy? I never said any such thing! 

 

That's an analogy that you're supposed to learn from, not a conclusive argument. You've implied some things, and I won't say you've said much of anything, because I don't think you have. About the only thing in this thread that you have proposed is that "there's always room for doubt"--which is basically a tautology and says nothing useful about anything relevant to the discussion at hand--and proposed a possible alternative as being a completely legitimate explanation for climate change, when as I said, it would not take more than a back of the envelope computation to show that it's a silly theory. I've seen the computation, I admit I'm too lazy to repeat it here, but you may find going through the process edifying.

 

What you did imply in mentioning it though was that the current models are so flimsy that even such a flimsy scenario was a fully legitimate contender for the best explanation for Climate Change, simply based on the theory that there's always doubt, as Michael Kelley tries to argue.

 

Now the charitable view of his argument is that Climate Change is happening, might be human caused, but that doing anything about it is a complete waste of time. That is why the questions that Dave is asking (and everyone reading this really ought to go through the process of trying to answer them and justify those answers) are so important. 

 

Question is, why is it that those folks who are "just pointing out that any theory has doubt around it" will not answer those questions?

 

My guess--and again, it may not apply to you--is that both the first two questions--is there even any climate change, and was it caused by man--are things that these folks do not believe in spite of the overwhelming amount of data that even Michael Kelley won't address head on. That makes the latter two questions--is it a threat to mankind, and should we try to do anything about it--very uncomfotable because they require admitting the answer to the first two are "yes" or at least "if the first is true the second doesn't matter."

 

Now the fact of the matter is that when it comes to science, while it is true that there's always more to learn and new theories may prove to have radical changes in our way of thinking about things, that science really does not whipsaw into fundamentally *opposite* conclusions about the way the world works, except in situations where "established" theories did not bother to prove themselves before they were established. Everyone is fond of pointing to Galileo as an example of "established science" being overturned, but what he overturned was NOT science, it was dogma that completely violated experimental evidence. That happened precisely because Galileo helped *invent* science, and his theories of planetary motion weren't actually a breakthrough as he had basically gotten it from Copernicus, and it the earliest proposal of Heliocentrism goes back to 300BC.

 

 

In a similar fashion there are folks that like to say that Einstein "disproved" Newton, when in fact Newton's equations were really just modified by Einstein and Einstein would repeat Newton's quote that he "stood on the shoulders of giants."

 

When one does not like a scientific theory, it's very common to try to say that just like Einstein, it could be completely "disprove" the existing theory, when in virtually every case, what you get is really a monotonically improving model. The model itself may be radically different internally, but the *predictions* of the model are usually only a slight improvements of accuracy on the old model.

 

Occasionally we come upon something new where the radical theories are really only because there were NO preceding theories, like we have with subatomic particles and quantum mechanical theory to explain them.

 

The bottom line on this is that to say that climate--for which we have literally hundreds of years of both data and evolving models--will be completely turned upside down and some new theory will produce radically different future results--like say for example, global temperature averages going into a steep decline even as CO2 increases steeply--is yes, just about as unlikely as gravity reversing and you going flying off into space.

 

That is NOT saying that all questions about climate are settled--as I've said elsewhere there are lots of weaknesses in our climate models and they are in fact *underestimating* the rate of increase in average temperatures--but to say that it'll go topsy turvy suddenly with no other changes to the system is really not within the realm of reality.

 

Simply saying "nothing is ever 'settled'" is completely meaningless, and is not a refutation of the level of confidence that can be associated with the current climate models, which definitely show that we've got a problem.

 

 

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding, :phones:
Buffy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the employment and resources numbers connected to weather related activities, there is more viewing and recording of information. This creates more data not more weather. If you had 10% of the people and resources, there is less weather the team can report.

 

Another marketing change that was added, with the change to the new and improved climate change brand, is now winter storms are named like they are hurricanes. The naming of minor storms adds a subjectivity or prestige effect, of now being more important. Little storm Clarence, which was never seen as a big of a deal in the past, now becomes a prop for climate change. 

 

The naming of minor weather patterns might also be connected to symbolism of the fable of Rumplestiltskin.  If you can guess his name, you gain power over him, causing the him to weave straw into gold. The naming could be a way to pretend you have all this under control; make gold out of something worthless. This is good marketing and salesmanship. 

 

 

 

The hard data says that the earth has warmed and cooled in the past. The data also shows climate change is natural. This is not new and has happened many times. One conceptual problem with manmade global warming, is this has never happened before, therefore there is no proof of concept. The concept by being unique, is only a claim. Natural change of climate and change of temperature has precedent; several data series, but man made is analogous to a prototype that is still on the drawing board in terms of 20/20 hindsight. 

 

The analogy is me saying I have an engine that can get 100 miles per gallon. Conceptually this might be possible, based on how I present my design, but no investor would fund me, based only on the concept. They would like to see proof with hard data not indirect data of a paper model.

 

Since manmade climate changed has never happened before, to the scale of the sales pitch; 200 miles per gallon, not everyone is willing to invest in just a concept. Because so many predictions did not materialize, when this was already a done deal for those in weather business, makes the discriminating investor want to wait and see. 

 

Now the concept car has been repackaged in a way that everything can be connected to the concept car. It not only gets 100 mpg but it can be used to cut your lawn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...