Talk:Climate change

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The opening paragraph should be edited to reflect the actual history of climate change/global warming. References would also be nice.--NormaN 23:44, 13 February 2014 (EST)

If "climate change" is defined as the same thing as global warming, then this article should be a redirect. "Climate change" and "global warming" are both generic terms when interpreted literally. In these articles, both terms are being used as shorthand to refer to the anthropogenic global warming theory. This is of course a common media usage as well, perhaps because it lends itself to misleading terminology like "climate change denier" and "global warming denier." The climate has always been changing, and the greens didn't discover this. PeterKa 07:36, 14 February 2014 (EST)
Please reread the last sentence of my edit, Climate change was still used to refer to the other changes thought to be caused by increased CO2. In the academic and research world’s, climate change and global warming are not synonymous. Global warming is one of the consequences of anthropogenic climate change. I’d like to think an encyclopedia would be able to differentiate between the two without promoting common misconceptions.--NormaN 11:03, 14 February 2014 (EST)
So much for my request to have this article reflect reality. If this isn’t bad enough, evolution is now being discussed in the opening paragraph of a climate change article. Is it too much to ask for references? This is required by the commandments after all. I even tried to find anything that could even provide a hint of evidence backing up the first paragraph, but alas, I was unsuccessful.--NormaN 12:00, 14 February 2014 (EST)
  • "AGW" is a reasonably common way to refer to this phenomenia, and it is not nearly as misleading as either "climate change" or "global warming." Both of the later terms imply that the Earth has never warmed any reason other than industrial emissions. I suggest that the main article on this subject be located at anthropogenic global warming, Climate change and global warming can be redirects or brief terminology articles. The latest IPCC report projects dramatically less warming than earlier reports did. The climate change apocalypse has apparently been averted, and the world saved. Yet the drive-by media can't be bothered to report it. PeterKa 03:04, 15 February 2014 (EST)
    • Here is an ngram on climate change vs. global warming. In the early 1990s, usage for the two terms was about equal. Later "climate change" became dominant. It's obvious someone made a political decision to change the name at some point. PeterKa 03:59, 15 February 2014 (EST)
Please explain to me using peer reviewed references how the terms climate change and global warming imply that the Earth has never warmed any reason other than industrial emissions. Please read the IPCC report from the main source instead of filtering it through a fringe source like Anthony Watts. You’ll find he is misrepresenting the UN panel. I hope you didn’t spend too much time on your Google research. Please reread my last edit to the article and then realize my sources were from the fifties and seventies. Someone made a political decision? References? Good ones this time? It’s rather sad the opening paragraphs are allowed to remain, this article makes conservative Americans look very silly. And I for one don’t like it. --NormaN 10:37, 15 February 2014 (EST)
And what is it that you don't like? And why is Anthony Watts a "fringe source"? Be specific. Karajou 10:52, 15 February 2014 (EST)
Let’s see. The opening paragraph starts with an unreferenced, completely false assertion and mentions evolution even though this is a climate change article. And the article continues along the same lines for several more sentences. I noticed Schlafly is making some of the most flagrant violations of the Conservapedia commandments yet nothing is being done to correct this abuse. Anthony Watts is a meteorologist without any formal education in climate science yet he is used as an authoritative source on climate change by Conservapedia. I call him a fringe source because his conclusions concerning climate change put him within the fringe of academics or pseudo-academics who agree with the 1% of legitimate climate researchers who deny anthropogenic climate change. --NormaN 23:41, 15 February 2014 (EST)
Well, let's see this one. First, climate change or global warming - the "anthropogenic" kind - is a proven fraud, and I could not care less that 99% of "legitimate" climate researchers think the world is coming to an end because someone in New Jersey is running all over town in an SUV; consensus cannot alter facts. And the fact that it is a fraud is a combination of emails among these "scientists" stating their intentions to deliberately alter the data so they can push a political agenda upon the world in general and the United States in particular; Anthony Watts' posting of images which show that the "scientists" primary source of temperature-taking were machines deliberately placed near sources of man-made heat which skewed the data; and clowns like Al Gore who stated that the North Pole would be ice free right now, when it's not.
Second, you need to get something straight here, Norman. We're not going to post a liberal agenda on this website. We're not going to change our position on global warming or anything else that the church of liberalism loves; to do so we would have to be complicit in a lie, and we're not going to tolerate it. Karajou 00:48, 16 February 2014 (EST)
Okay. Facts don’t matter to you, got it. What emails are you talking about? SUVs? New Jersey? The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project demonstrated Watts didn’t know what he was talking about when he complained about the placement of climate stations. He promised to accept the conclusions of BEST but when his opinions were completely demolished he reneged. This is Conservapedia, I understand the liberal agenda won’t be posted here, give me some credit, I’m not stupid. That being said, I’d like to think conservatives, like yourself, could accept scientific reality. By the way, are you planning on doing anything about the atrocious opening sentences of this article? Don’t you think everyone should follow the Conservapedia commandments?--NormaN 01:23, 16 February 2014 (EST)
Facts do matter to me. And I'm not going to do anything about the article's opening sentences, and neither am I going to tolerate a liberal troll that insists on pushing a lie on this website while at the same time refusing to listen. Have a nice day. Karajou 01:35, 16 February 2014 (EST)
The article I linked to is actually by Christopher Monckton rather than by Watts, although I don't expect that to make any difference to Norman. Watts is only a meteorologist? Mann is a physicist, Schneider is a mechanical engineer, Pachauri is a railway economist, Gore is a lawyer, etc. etc. You don't need qualifications to get into the climate change racket. PeterKa 01:48, 16 February 2014 (EST)

Global warming is not a hoax

Why does the first sentence reference to global warming as a hoax? Global warming is not a hoax, it is a reality, as is evident from the fact that in my country (the United Kingdom) in late February this year (2019), weather forecasters reported on the warmest winter days on record. Carltonio (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2019 (EST)

They are two separate issues: (1) the science of global warming, and (2) the politicization of global warming. If Global warming is hijacked by communists to advocate single payer, racial reparations, guaranteed income, veganism, economic justice and transgenderism, it's a hoax. And it will remain a hoax. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 13:26, 6 March 2019 (EST)
(edit conflict) It is a hoax when leftists claim that global warming is caused by humans and that it is the most serious issue faced by humans. The climate does change, as seen from the Roman Warm Period to the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age to the present, but Al Gore's predictions remain false and socialist economic and social policies are not needed to "solve" anything. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2019 (EST)
Well put.
Many records for cold temperatures were broken this winter. Global warming as a crisis, and a man-made one, is a hoax, an attempt by liberals to control energy production and thereby the economy.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2019 (EST)

Further evidence for global warming is that rain has been melting ice sheets in Greenland.Carltonio (talk)

But that's irrelevant to what we're calling a hoax -- rain may easily have fallen in Greenland during the Roman or Medieval warm periods -- the climate may be changing (none of us ever said otherwise), but it's a completely different thing to say that it's caused by humans, that it's catastrophic, a crisis, emergency, etc., or that we need socialist economic and social policies (Paris, carbon tax, gas tax, family size limits, Green New Deal, etc.) as a result. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2019 (EST)
There are known weather cycles...warm, to cold, to warm. This is due mostly to solar activity (sunspots). The climate does change some...but is it not due to man's activity. Think about it, and look back in history...global cooling was the first craze, then warming, and as I recall, another cooling craze, then another warming craze. The Vikings used to grow grapes in Greenland (which was given its name for a reason), but they were eventually forced to stop due to dropping regional temperatures. Convince me that it was the Vikings with their SUV's and aerosols which caused that "global cooling." --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:08, 7 March 2019 (EST)
It's also worth noting, that the earth's core is cooling down. When it solidifies (if the earth exists that long as it currently is), the electromagnetic field protecting the earth will disappear, and the next solar wild will promptly remove our atmosphere, killing pretty much everyone on the planet. I believe that will never actually happen, because I believe in intelligent design. However, shouldn't we be worried about this, rather than trying to cool the earth down more? --DavidB4 (TALK) 18:12, 7 March 2019 (EST)
Here's a good source (despite being behind a paywall) of how human-cause climate change is a hoax: [1] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2019 (EST)
Here's another good source on this topic: [2] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2019 (EST)
Another good article, showing some recent predictions of worldwide catastrophe: [3] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2019 (EDT)
Great stuff, please feel free to insert into the entry!--Andy Schlafly (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2019 (EDT)

Global warming is too a hoax

Francis Bacon wrote this about the sharpshooter fallacy (or in this case more precisely the fallacy of positive instances) in Shakespeare's day:
For the mind of man is far from the nature of a clear and equal glass, wherein the beams of things should reflect according to their true incidence; nay, it is rather like an enchanted glass, full of superstition and imposture, if it be not delivered and reduced.
For this purpose, let us consider the false appearances that are imposed upon us by the general nature of the mind, beholding them in an example or two; as first, in that instance which is the root of all superstition, namely, that to the nature of the mind of all men it is consonant for the affirmative or active to affect more than the negative or privative.
So that a few times hitting or presence countervails ofttimes failing or absence, as was well answered by Diagoras to him that showed him in Neptune’s temple the great number of pictures of such as had escaped shipwreck, and had paid their vows to Neptune, saying, “Advise now, you that think it folly to invocate Neptune in tempest.” “Yea, but,” saith Diagoras, “where are they painted that are drowned?” (Advancement of Learning, 1605)
If there are places in the world where yearly temperature records are broken during the year when there are less than 200 years of recorded data to select from with thousands of localities to choose from and dozens of ways to "break records", is that really surprising? Actually, the surprising thing would be if there were no records broken. And yet the "climate change" community of interests have even picked up on this too. While researching the footnotes for the Global warming article, I found an article about "climate stagnation" which claims we need to worry if fewer records are broken.
More evidence: championing a policy of "carbon pollution" reduction, while the greenhouse gas (in addition to water vapor [commonly known as "steam" or "humidity" so hard to convince people to reduce]) is carbon dioxide not carbon. "It's short for carbon dioxide". But carbon and carbon dioxide are very different: One is black soot and the other is breathed out of your mouth and feeds plants that then release oxygen.
Carbon by itself isn't even a greenhouse gas but it sounds more polluting than "carbon dioxide". "Naming carbon for carbon dioxide isn't a big deal; it's part of the whole anti-pollution package." But carbon emissions have been reduced to one fourth of their former production per year over the last century despite the jump of billions more in world population. Part of that was due to the Clean Air Act, advanced by George Bush in the early 1990s.
It almost seems as if the more pollution problems that get solved, the greater the pollution crisis becomes, and the more the already solved problems get forgotten. So permit me to respond in a language Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can understand: What's up with that?
There's no time to get into how "climate skeptics" are called "deniers" (analogous to "holocaust deniers)—whenever I try to campaign to advance a major controversial theory or policy where potentially dire economic consequences are involved, I don't know about you, but I insult those who challenge the unproven assumptions put forward by my community of interests and make sweeping motions to disperse all engagement in discussion.
It's an attempt to troll conservatives into galled reaction, by pretending to more and more not know how to gather the necessary facts to justify their political measures just as those measures grow and grow and previous anti-pollution measures become more and more forgotten and ignored—as in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's resolution to "mobilize" (in other words prepare as for total war) the United States economy around "climate change" claims. VargasMilan (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2019 (EST)
To address climate, let's begin by being honest: it's not a scientific problem, it's a cultural and political problem. It may become a scientific problem, but let's put first-things-first in perspective.
As capitalism becomes more successful, and lifts more people out of poverty, the rest of the world wants to emulate the American empire. They all want to eat McDonald's Quarter Pounders and drive four passenger vehicles. This is considered prosperity.
That's the problem in a nutshell.
The so-called "scientific consensus" does not propose a "scientific" solution - it proposes an a time tested, time failed socialist solution - equal distribution of poverty.
As China, India, and Africa become more prosperous, they need to simply redefine their own cultural understanding of the word "prosperity," and not emulate the United States. They need to learn from our mistakes and not rotely duplicate them. Simple enough. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 23:35, 7 March 2019 (EST)
Thanks, RobS; you go around Conservapedia and encourage everybody by what you do. VargasMilan (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2019 (EST)

Children climate "strike"

Here's a good article we could use if we ever decide to make an article for the children climate "strike": [4] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2019 (EDT)

Interesting. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2019 (EDT)