• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US federal department is censoring use of term 'climate change', emails reveal

B

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
37,003
Reaction score
17,942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
bubbabgone said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails

Global Warming ----> Climate Change ----> Weather Extremes

The Cycle Of Life
Click to expand...

I actually like that a lot.

And while I'm thinking about it, what did we do to cause the ice age? I'm a denier. Mother Nature hasn't even begun to use her awesome powers to filter out the so-called damage we're doing in our universe that some claim will destroy the earth. As long as we don't go nuclear, we'll be just fine. In my humble opinion, of course.
 
Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead.

bubbabgone said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails

Global Warming ----> Climate Change ----> Weather Extremes

The Cycle Of Life
Click to expand...

Guess that is what government does. Remember when the Obama administration changed illegal alien to Undocumented immigrant/illegal immigrant.

Weather extremes seem more appropriate.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead.



Guess that is what government does. Remember when the Obama administration changed illegal alien to Undocumented immigrant/illegal immigrant.

Weather extremes seem more appropriate.
Click to expand...

Exactly so. I was thinking of the same example.
Congressman Castro (D) had a Bill back in 2015 (Correcting Hurtful and Alienating Names in Government Expression) that would have codified that name change requirement. I'm assuming that it never passed.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead.



Guess that is what government does. Remember when the Obama administration changed illegal alien to Undocumented immigrant/illegal immigrant.

Weather extremes seem more appropriate.
Click to expand...

I would argue that "Weather extremes" is not an appropriate term. It implies impermanence such as a random flood, storm, or other short-term event. It is not suitable when describing a sustained condition with long-term impacts. It's like the black knight out of Month Python saying that all of his limbs being chopped off 'tis but a flesh wound.
 
Napoleon said:
I would argue that "Weather extremes" is not an appropriate term. It implies impermanence such as a random flood, storm, or other short-term event. It is not suitable when describing a sustained condition with long-term impacts. It's like the black knight out of Month Python saying that all of his limbs being chopped off 'tis but a flesh wound.
Click to expand...

I guess will agree to disagree. :)
 
Phrases are chosen for a reason. Climate change simply sounds more scary than warming, even though there is no indication we have actually been altering the climate.
 
chuckiechan said:
So what. They have more important things to do like "their jobs". California erased all references to "illegal alien".Now they are undocumented citizens, etc.
Click to expand...

Citizen, they are not.
 
Napoleon said:
I would argue that "Weather extremes" is not an appropriate term. It implies impermanence such as a random flood, storm, or other short-term event. It is not suitable when describing a sustained condition with long-term impacts. It's like the black knight out of Month Python saying that all of his limbs being chopped off 'tis but a flesh wound.
Click to expand...

What long term impact is there, not reflective of nature?
 
In other news the trump administration has changed the definition of "investigative journalism" to "fake news" and "sexual assault" to "they let me do it".
 
vegas giants said:
In other news the trump administration has changed the definition of "investigative journalism" to "fake news" and "sexual assault" to "they let me do it".
Click to expand...

LOL...

There is very little actual investigative journalism any more. Almost all of it has punditry involved, so yes. Most of it is fake news.

Does the term "innocent till proven guilty" mean anything to you?

If you were accused of something not proven, should it be "news" and portrayed as fact?
 
Napoleon said:
What do mean "not reflective of nature?"
Click to expand...

Nature has normal climatic cycles. Except for the micro-climates around large land use changes, there is no way to distinguish man's influence on "climate."

Do I believe we have an influence... Absolutely. The problem is, we have natural changes too.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Nature has normal climatic cycles. Except for the micro-climates around large land use changes, there is no way to distinguish man's influence on "climate."

Do I believe we have an influence... Absolutely. The problem is, we have natural changes too.
Click to expand...

We can, however, using science and the scientific method, understand how much of the global warming is due to man, verses natural cycles. We know how the earth procession effects climate, and we know how green house gases effect the global temperature. We also know how much carbon dioxide we are adding to the atmosphere via human activity .. verses how it would be if we weren't around.
 
RAMOSS said:
We can, however, using science and the scientific method, understand how much of the global warming is due to man, verses natural cycles. We know how the earth procession effects climate, and we know how green house gases effect the global temperature. We also know how much carbon dioxide we are adding to the atmosphere via human activity .. verses how it would be if we weren't around.
Click to expand...
We do not have a complete understanding of all the natural cycles, and we really do not have an accurate idea of the climates responses to added greenhouse gasses.
The IPCC's range has been 1.5 to 4.5 C for over 20 years, That is a range of uncertainty that exceeds the low end of its own range.
 
longview said:
We do not have a complete understanding of all the natural cycles, and we really do not have an accurate idea of the climates responses to added greenhouse gasses.
The IPCC's range has been 1.5 to 4.5 C for over 20 years, That is a range of uncertainty that exceeds the low end of its own range.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't a complete understanding .... however, we certainly know enough to figure out 'how much of the warming is due to green house gasses that are produced by human activity. We have a very strong understanding of that. Trying to say 'If we don't know everythign, then we know nothing' is sort of .. well, denial.
 
RAMOSS said:
We can, however, using science and the scientific method, understand how much of the global warming is due to man, verses natural cycles. We know how the earth procession effects climate, and we know how green house gases effect the global temperature. We also know how much carbon dioxide we are adding to the atmosphere via human activity .. verses how it would be if we weren't around.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the effects are still not properly quantified. The climate bible still has too many natural variations with a low level of understanding. The science is still very immature.
 
RAMOSS said:
No, there isn't a complete understanding .... however, we certainly know enough to figure out 'how much of the warming is due to green house gasses that are produced by human activity. We have a very strong understanding of that. Trying to say 'If we don't know everythign, then we know nothing' is sort of .. well, denial.
Click to expand...

Models rarely indicate reality when we only have one earth to compare results with. Now like medicine or other fields, if we had thousands of real earths each slightly different in the variables, we could pin things down properly.

There are too many variables that interact, and it is obvious that CO2 does not cause the level of warming claimed. Higher CO2 cause higher absolute humidity in the lower troposphere, but then it's more moisture. More clouds are formed because the upper troposphere sees relatively little warming, and this is a negative feedback to solar warming. Everything I have seen only accounts for the "direct" solar changes. However, if the radiant energy from the sun is reduced, then so is the driving energy of the greenhouse effect, so it is reduced as well.

This is one aspect completely ignored in all papers I have read.
 
RAMOSS said:
No, there isn't a complete understanding .... however, we certainly know enough to figure out 'how much of the warming is due to green house gasses that are produced by human activity. We have a very strong understanding of that. Trying to say 'If we don't know everythign, then we know nothing' is sort of .. well, denial.
Click to expand...
If you think we know enough to figure out how much of the warming is due to greenhouse gasses that are produced by human activity,
then you should easily be able to cite a peer reviewed publication stating that level, of certainty.
I have read many of the studies, and the estimated ECS is an enormous range.(1.5 to 4.5C)
The most fundamental portion of the AGW concept, the CO2 forcing, turns out to be higher than the measured forcing.
(Estimated forcing 3.71 Wm-2, measured 2.38 Wm-2)
If the forcing estimate is 55% too high, what does that say for the more subjective amplified feedbacks?
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
An analogy would be if you knew a town was 90 miles down the interstate, and the speed limit was 60 mph,
it should take you about 1.5 hours to reach the town, yet when you ask someone how long it actually will take,
they tell you between 2 and 6 hours. This is the range of uncertainty described by our current level of understanding!
 
longview said:
If you think we know enough to figure out how much of the warming is due to greenhouse gasses that are produced by human activity,
then you should easily be able to cite a peer reviewed publication stating that level, of certainty.
I have read many of the studies, and the estimated ECS is an enormous range.(1.5 to 4.5C)
The most fundamental portion of the AGW concept, the CO2 forcing, turns out to be higher than the measured forcing.
(Estimated forcing 3.71 Wm-2, measured 2.38 Wm-2)
If the forcing estimate is 55% too high, what does that say for the more subjective amplified feedbacks?
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
An analogy would be if you knew a town was 90 miles down the interstate, and the speed limit was 60 mph,
it should take you about 1.5 hours to reach the town, yet when you ask someone how long it actually will take,
they tell you between 2 and 6 hours. This is the range of uncertainty described by our current level of understanding!
Click to expand...

Do you know that that actually said?? You seem to think that counters my point, but it doesn't at all.
 
RAMOSS said:
Do you know that that actually said?? You seem to think that counters my point, but it doesn't at all.
Click to expand...

Your statement "we certainly know enough to figure out 'how much of the warming is due to green house gasses that are produced by human activity."
implies we know with certainty, how much of the observed warming is due to greenhouse gasses from Human activity.
While we know some of the warming is likely caused from Human activity, large amounts of uncertainty
exists in the actual amount of that warming that is from greenhouse gasses.
As to the cited Paper, it shows that the energy imbalance for a change in 22 ppm of CO2 was measured as .2 Wm-2.
If the stated doubling number for CO2 were accurate, the measured amount of imbalance should have been around
.31 Wm-2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom