Climate Change is not mentioned in my 1999 version of Oxford Dictionary of science

[Moonglow]

My Oxford Dictionary of Science is very thick and loaded with all issues Science. So I opened it this afternoon to read what it says about Climate change. Surely this was in the 1999 issue of this important Science dictionary. But nope.

Climate is mentioned. It even says that the Climate version we all know was conceived by Vladimir Koppen in 1918. But change is not mentioned.

How could something claimed to be settled not defined by Koppen?

It has extentive words about Climate. How you define Climate is there. The impact of geology and oceans is there.

So who the hell dreamed up climate change as an important issue? Was it Al Gore?

I doubt you own a book.

 

[Robert W]

What scientists are telling you that the world is getting colder?

 

[Robert W]

I doubt you own a book.

I doubt you understand the english language.

 

[Robert W]

What scientists are telling you that the world is getting colder?

Well, to name names, how about William Happier, Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry.

 

[Crick]

Well, to name names, how about William Happier, Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry.

That's Happer.

I just watched the first ten seconds or so. Global warming, by reducing the temperature difference between the poles and the equator, increases the odds of Rossby Waves forming in the Jet Stream. They are the cause of polar vortices. This is a sinusoidal variation in the Jet Stream that brings Arctic air further south than normal over half (3/6th - 4/8ths) the planet and Equatorial air further north than usual over the other half. They do NOT alter the globe's average temperature.

Like I said, I only watched a tiny bit of that video. If I've gotten wrong what it's talking about let me know and I will make time to watch the whole thing.

I am familiar with the work of Happer, Lindzen and Curry. I don't think any of them believe the world is getting cooler. They just don't think its all from human CO2 and don't think its threatening.

 

[Crick]

My Oxford Dictionary of Science is very thick and loaded with all issues Science. So I opened it this afternoon to read what it says about Climate change. Surely this was in the 1999 issue of this important Science dictionary. But nope.

Climate is mentioned. It even says that the Climate version we all know was conceived by Vladimir Koppen in 1918. But change is not mentioned.

How could something claimed to be settled not defined by Koppen?

It has extentive words about Climate. How you define Climate is there. The impact of geology and oceans is there.

So who the hell dreamed up climate change as an important issue? Was it Al Gore?

The language of climate change and environmental sustainability

www.oed.com

 

[Robert W]

View attachment 850713

The language of climate change and environmental sustainability

www.oed.com

When Government wants to take things away from you, they create alarms. For instance on taxes. Most sane people believe that your local Government is the most important. But the boys in DC persuade you it is they who are the most important. And when they shake a finger at you, you are supposed to comply.

 

[Robert W]

That's Happer.

I just watched the first ten seconds or so. Global warming, by reducing the temperature difference between the poles and the equator, increases the odds of Rossby Waves forming in the Jet Stream. They are the cause of polar vortices. This is a sinusoidal variation in the Jet Stream that brings Arctic air further south than normal over half (3/6th - 4/8ths) the planet and Equatorial air further north than usual over the other half. They do NOT alter the globe's average temperature.

Like I said, I only watched a tiny bit of that video. If I've gotten wrong what it's talking about let me know and I will make time to watch the whole thing.

I am familiar with the work of Happer, Lindzen and Curry. I don't think any of them believe the world is getting cooler. They just don't think its all from human CO2 and don't think its threatening.

If you look harder, yes there are materials on vast parts of the USA getting colder.

Earth is warming up. So why is California having a record-breaking winter?

The state has faced unusually cold temperatures, epic snow and historic rains over the...

www.sfchronicle.com

This scene is in the hills around Berkeley, CA. And it NEVER snows there.

In the Bay Area, the past three months have included historic rains, record-breaking low temperatures, and even snow in places like the Berkeley hills and North Bay highlands. In the Sierra Nevada, storms and frigid temperatures have produced so much snow that this year’s snowpack could become the largest ever recorded for the state, following upcoming storms.

• Related: Photos show snow inundating Tahoe homes

A Pineapple Express — an atmospheric river ferrying moisture from waters off the coast of Hawaii — brought even more wet weather to California on Thursday, prompting Gov. Gavin Newsom to proclaim a state of emergency for an area that includes San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Napa counties. Areas at high risk for excessive rains and flash floods are under yet another round of evacuation orders.
“My anxiety is on high alert every time I’ve had to leave my house over the last couple of months,” Ben Lomond resident Cheryl Noon told The Chronicle on Thursday. Noon and her two children have had to evacuate from the Santa Cruz Mountains three times since January.

 

[Foxfyre]

My Oxford Dictionary of Science is very thick and loaded with all issues Science. So I opened it this afternoon to read what it says about Climate change. Surely this was in the 1999 issue of this important Science dictionary. But nope.

Climate is mentioned. It even says that the Climate version we all know was conceived by Vladimir Koppen in 1918. But change is not mentioned.

How could something claimed to be settled not defined by Koppen?

It has extentive words about Climate. How you define Climate is there. The impact of geology and oceans is there.

So who the hell dreamed up climate change as an important issue? Was it Al Gore?

Is global warming in there? Climate change is the new PC/woke word for global warming.

I will get excited about climate change as a serious problem when those who profit from studying and issuing alarms about start living their lives as if it is a problem. Few if any are living in climate friendly homes not to mention those living in coastal areas without a concern in the world. None explain how climate unfriendly building electric cars is. Instead of the 'scientists' video conferencing they jet all over the world, many if not most in private jets, to discuss it.

And I would take it more seriously if those who don't profit from 'climate change' were concerned about it being a problem.

Since all the world's green energy and sometimes draconian efforts to lower carbon emissions has not lowered the world's temperature by a single degree or lowered the CO2 in the atmosphere for that matter, I think all that brain power and other resources should be directed at how best for humankind to adapt to inevitable climate change instead of pretending they can change the climate.

 

[Robert W]

Is global warming in there? Climate change is the new PC/woke word for global warming.

I will get excited about climate change as a serious problem when those who profit from studying and issuing alarms about start living their lives as if it is a problem. Few if any are living in climate friendly homes not to mention those living in coastal areas without a concern in the world. None explain how climate unfriendly building electric cars is. Instead of the 'scientists' video conferencing they jet all over the world, many if not most in private jets, to discuss it.

And I would take it more seriously if those who don't profit from 'climate change' were concerned about it being a problem.

Since all the world's green energy and sometimes draconian efforts to lower carbon emissions has not lowered the world's temperature by a single degree or lowered the CO2 in the atmosphere for that matter, I think all that brain power and other resources should be directed at how best for humankind to adapt to inevitable climate change instead of pretending they can change the climate.

One line in my book says Global warming and it refers to Greenhouse effect. Greenhouse effect has several lines of text on this issue.

I see no danger at all in a bit warmer Earth. And as you say, they live as drunks live who preach against drinking, but at home drink like fishes.
To get published as a scientist, the system is crooked to the point if they do not blame man for warming, they never get published. We are living with crazy people.

 

[Foxfyre]

One line in my book says Global warming and it refers to Greenhouse effect. Greenhouse effect has several lines of text on this issue.

I see no danger at all in a bit warmer Earth. And as you say, they live as drunks live who preach against drinking, but at home drink like fishes.
To get published as a scientist, the system is crooked to the point if they do not blame man for warming, they never get published. We are living with crazy people.

Not only do they not get published but they are not allowed into the 'clubs'. Scientific organizations have been making unwelcome any who do not embrace the climate change religion for some decades now. Their 'consensus' claims are empty when they disallow or ignore or discard any dissenting opinions.

Heidi Cullen, at the time chief meteorologist of the Weather Channel, once said the American Meteorology Association should decertify any scientist who did not support global warming as a looming catastrophe and such people should not be allowed to write or work or be on television. In so doing she and others who share that 'religion' and that sentiment stood science on its head.

Science by its very definition allows and embraces questions and all related points of view. There is no such thing as 'settled science' that cannot be challenged or questioned or amended when new information and/or facts come into evidence. Those who disallow differences of opinion are not doing science. They are enacting dogma/doctrine/'religion'.

 

[Robert W]

Not only do they not get published but they are not allowed into the 'clubs'. Scientific organizations have been making unwelcome any who do not embrace the climate change religion for some decades now. Their 'consensus' claims are empty when they disallow or ignore or discard any dissenting opinions.

Heidi Cullen, at the time chief meteorologist of the Weather Channel, once said the American Meteorology Association should decertify any scientist who did not support global warming as a looming catastrophe and such people should not be allowed to write or work or be on television. In so doing she and others who share that 'religion' and that sentiment stood science on its head.

Science by its very definition allows and embraces questions and all related points of view. There is no such thing as 'settled science' that cannot be challenged or questioned or amended when new information and/or facts come into evidence. Those who disallow differences of opinion are not doing science. They are enacting dogma/doctrine/'religion'.

Needless for me to say, but you are correct in all respects.

There is enormous money in being a believer. I believe Al Gore went from a modest wealth to an enormous wealth telling his audiences of his global warming danger, myth.

 

[Foxfyre]

Needless for me to say, but you are correct in all respects.

There is enormous money in being a believer. I believe Al Gore went from a modest wealth to an enormous wealth telling his audiences of his global warming danger, myth.

Yep. And though he has pretty much zilch science education--Wikipedia says he did poorly in science classes and avoided taking math--(he majored or minored in neither)--he is acclaimed by the 'religionists' as an esteemed 'climate scientist' and member of their club. His 'best seller' Inconvenient Truth and the movie of the same name plus a Nobel Prize and selling a little watched TV channel to Al -Jazeera not only made him an extremely wealthy man (net worth $300+ million by some estimates) but gives him complete liberty to private jet all over the world to spread his global warming doctrines.

And it is interesting to me that those certified climate scientists/meteorologist and/or others who study this stuff but do not profit from the lucrative speaking fees, grants, expense accounts, government funding etc. to promote climate change as a looming catastrophe. . .

. . .such scientists seem to be mostly skeptical of the whole climate change disaster schtick.

 

[Crick]

Needless for me to say, but you are correct in all respects.

There is enormous money in being a believer. I believe Al Gore went from a modest wealth to an enormous wealth telling his audiences of his global warming danger, myth.

​

Environmental activism of Al Gore - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Environmental criticism​

Four main environmental criticisms have been leveled at Gore: (1) he has an alleged conflict of interest from his role as both an investor in green-technology companies and as an advocate of taxpayer-funded green-technology subsidies, (2) he allegedly makes erroneous scientific claims, (3) he consumes excessive amounts of energy, and (4) he allegedly refuses to debate others on the subject of global warming.

In reference to Gore's alleged conflict of interest, some critics have labeled Gore a "carbon billionaire." In response to these criticisms Gore stated that it is "certainly not true" that he is a "carbon billionaire" and that he is "proud to put my money where my mouth is for the past 30 years. And though that is not the majority of my business activities, I absolutely believe in investing in accordance with my beliefs and my values." Gore was challenged on this topic by Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn who asked him: "The legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?" Gore responded by stating: "I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it." Gore also added that all earnings from his investments have gone to the Alliance for Climate Protection and that "If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me." Finally, Gore told Blackburn: "Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country ... I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

 

[Robert W]

Yep. And though he has pretty much zilch science education--Wikipedia says he did poorly in science classes and avoided taking math--(he majored or minored in neither)--he is acclaimed by the 'religionists' as an esteemed 'climate scientist' and member of their club. His 'best seller' Inconvenient Truth and the movie of the same name plus a Nobel Prize and selling a little watched TV channel to Al -Jazeera not only made him an extremely wealthy man (net worth $300+ million by some estimates) but gives him complete liberty to private jet all over the world to spread his global warming doctrines.

And it is interesting to me that those certified climate scientists/meteorologist and/or others who study this stuff but do not profit from the lucrative speaking fees, grants, expense accounts, government funding etc. to promote climate change as a looming catastrophe. . .

. . .such scientists seem to be mostly skeptical of the whole climate change disaster schtick.

Democrats of America are so damned persuaded this planet is doomed. That is paranoia.

 

[Crick]

Yep. And though he has pretty much zilch science education--Wikipedia says he did poorly in science classes and avoided taking math--(he majored or minored in neither)--he is acclaimed by the 'religionists' as an esteemed 'climate scientist' and member of their club. His 'best seller' Inconvenient Truth and the movie of the same name plus a Nobel Prize and selling a little watched TV channel to Al -Jazeera not only made him an extremely wealthy man (net worth $300+ million by some estimates) but gives him complete liberty to private jet all over the world to spread his global warming doctrines.

And it is interesting to me that those certified climate scientists/meteorologist and/or others who study this stuff but do not profit from the lucrative speaking fees, grants, expense accounts, government funding etc. to promote climate change as a looming catastrophe. . .

. . .such scientists seem to be mostly skeptical of the whole climate change disaster schtick.

Gore did poorly in math and science his first year in college. By his senior year, he was making As.

 

[Foxfyre]

Gore did poorly in math and science his first year in college. By his senior year, he was making As.

He took as litte math as he could. And his major was government. You don't get a hell of a lot of science with that curriculum.

 

[Crick]

He took as litte math as he could. And his major was government. You don't get a hell of a lot of science with that curriculum.

I missed the part where he claimed to be a scientist. I don't believe in AGW theory because of Gore but because of the thousands of studies conducted and published by thousands of actual climate scientists.

Gore's a great guy. I voted for him every time I could. But he's not a climate scientist and worrying about his science qualifications is simply a waste of time.

 

[Foxfyre]

I missed the part where he claimed to be a scientist. I don't believe in AGW theory because of Gore but because of the thousands of studies conducted and published by thousands of actual climate scientists.

Gore's a great guy. I voted for him every time I could. But he's not a climate scientist and worrying about his science qualifications is simply a waste of time.

I don't worry about anybody's science qualifications frankly, much less Al Gore's lack thereof. But it is a bit scary when somebody like him who pretends to be an expert and makes major big bucks for 'scientific' speaking engagements is held up as an 'esteemed scientist.' And he and his book are still being used as textbooks of sorts to convince school kids that we're all doomed if we don't do all this stuff to stop climate change. Celebrity status can be misused.

 

[Crick]

I don't worry about anybody's science qualifications frankly, much less Al Gore's lack thereof. But it is a bit scary when somebody like him who pretends to be an expert and makes major big bucks for 'scientific' speaking engagements is held up as an 'esteemed scientist.'

When you say "esteemed scientist", who are you quoting? I have never heard anyone call him a scientist and he has never made such a claim.

And he and his book are still being used as textbooks of sorts to convince school kids that we're all doomed if we don't do all this stuff to stop climate change. Celebrity status can be misused.

No schools are using Gore's books as textbooks. But you are right that if we don't act immediately and in a fully committed fashion, we are all fucked as fucked can get.