I don't worry about those things because the rays emitting from the local city council here will get us all first.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter Trey of Diamonds
- Start date
I don't worry about those things because the rays emitting from the local city council here will get us all first.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Not to mention pigs. I wonder which industry puts out more methane, beef or pork? I know a pig generates more than a cow but the number of cows could be far greater than pigs.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Cattle are worse... they produce methane from both ends, burps and poop.
wa:do
GISS ICP: Global Methane Inventory
wa:do
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Don't forget the mind control chemicals in the city water and in the contrails. :thud:
wa:do
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
" But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2."
That's a bit ridiculous. If one doesn't believe the computer models where so-called feedbacks amplify the effect of CO2, then the warming isn't "missing," there is no global warming. The theory is based on these feedbacks. Likewise, the central to the theory of global warming is that given our available temperature data we can't account for the rise in temperatures without a strong positive feedback parameter. Take that away, and you also take away human-caused warming.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
All this tells us is that another scientist has been bribed and bought off by the oil industry! No need to panic! Seriously, it's long past time to panic. The panic should have started over 20 years ago when there was still time to stop anthropogenic warming from triggering positive feedback effects that cannot be stopped now. The old fool is waving his Nobel prize around as his authority, won't be around long enough to have to worry about catastrophic climate change. Btw, according to his Wikipedia page, this is how he earned his prize...way back in 1960, I might add:
The work that led to Giaever's Nobel Prize was performed at General Electric in 1960. Following on Esaki's discovery of electron tunnelling in semiconductors in 1958, Giaever showed that tunnelling also took place in superconductors, demonstrating tunnelling through a very thin layer of oxide surrounded on both sides by metal in a superconducting or normal state.[5] Giaever's experiments demonstrated the existence of an energy gap in superconductors, one of the most important predictions of the BCS theory of superconductivity, which had been developed in 1957.[6] Giaever's experimental demonstration of tunnelling in superconductors stimulated the theoretical physicist Brian Josephson to work on the phenomenon, leading to his prediction of the Josephson effect in 1962. Esaki and Giaever shared half of the 1973 Nobel Prize, and Josephson received the other half.[1]
Now, could someone tell me what his field of research and his award has to do with the study of climate research? Or, could someone tell me why this Wall Street Journal article didn't inform their readers that his credentials have nothing to do with climate science? Oh yeah, that's right... the WSJ is now owned by News Corpse...nuff said.
Well, if anyone happens to open the link to WSJ's propaganda, I wouldn't put much stock in this old fool's claim that there is no evidence of global warming over the last 10 years, when the data coming in shows 2011 tied with 1997 as the 11th warmest year, and of greatest significance - 2011 was the warmest year on record in the Arctic (with 2010 as the previous record year). The Arctic has been warming at twice the rate of increase as the global average, and the rapid loss of sea ice and melting permafrost, is the likely the beginning of runaway positive feedback effects that will make life extremely difficult, if not impossible in the coming decades. On this subject, Jeff Masters has this conclusion in his review of 2011 weather:
2011: Earth's 11th warmest year; where is the climate headed?
Our recent unusual weather has made me think about this a lot. The natural weather rhythms I've grown to used to during my 30 years as a meteorologist have become significantly disrupted over the past few years. Many of Earth's major atmospheric circulation patterns have seen significant shifts and unprecedented behavior; new patterns that were unknown have emerged, and extreme weather events were incredibly intense and numerous during 2010 - 2011. It boggles my mind that in 2011, the U.S. saw 14 - 17 billion-dollar weather disasters, three of which matched or exceeded some of the most iconic and destructive weather events in U.S. history--the "Super" tornado outbreak of 1974, the Dust Bowl summer of 1936, and the great Mississippi River flood of 1927.
Our recent unusual weather has made me think about this a lot. The natural weather rhythms I've grown to used to during my 30 years as a meteorologist have become significantly disrupted over the past few years. Many of Earth's major atmospheric circulation patterns have seen significant shifts and unprecedented behavior; new patterns that were unknown have emerged, and extreme weather events were incredibly intense and numerous during 2010 - 2011. It boggles my mind that in 2011, the U.S. saw 14 - 17 billion-dollar weather disasters, three of which matched or exceeded some of the most iconic and destructive weather events in U.S. history--the "Super" tornado outbreak of 1974, the Dust Bowl summer of 1936, and the great Mississippi River flood of 1927.
Extreme weather years like 2010 and 2011 are very likely to increase in frequency, since there is a delay of several decades between when we put heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere and when the climate fully responds. This is because Earth's oceans take so long to heat up when extra heat is added to the atmosphere (think about how long it takes it takes for a lake to heat up during summer.) Due to this lag, we are just now experiencing the full effect of CO2 emitted in the late 1980s; since CO2 has been increasing by 1 - 3% per year since then, there is a lot more climate change "in the pipeline" we cannot avoid. We've set in motion a dangerous boulder of climate change that is rolling downhill, and it is too late to avoid major damage when it hits full-force several decades from now. However, we can reduce the ultimate severity of the damage with strong and rapid action. A boulder rolling downhill can be deflected in its path more readily early in its course, before it gains too much momentum in its downward rush. For example, the International Energy Agency estimates that every dollar we invest in alternative energy before 2020 will save $4.30 later. There are many talented and dedicated people working very hard to deflect the downhill-rolling boulder of climate change--but they need a lot more help very soon.
Yeah, no need to panic....if you're over 80 years old!
I love it when contrary opinion and minority views, even of experts are written off as the product of ulterior motives or something equally instulting. Science has a long history of wrong minority and majority views. That doesn't make it the product of stupidity, abnormal bias, etc. You can disagree with his view, as scientists in relevant fields do, without resorting to maligning his character.
If you have to ask, you can't know that much about climate research. He's a physicist. The reason he resigned from the American Physical Society is because of the official position released by those who run the group. The reason the society bothered to release such a position is because climate change involves several areas of expertise, including multiple areas of physics (along with statistics, computer science, paleobotony, dynamical systems, etc.). His field has to do with climate research because physics is central to understanding just about anything to do with the climate.
Who knows? Could be propaganda, could be that a large number of climate scientists are physicists...
You do realize that this is common knowledge among experts who DO firmly believe in AGW? If memory serves, back when the release of emails from East Anglia was a big deal, Phil Jones (who certainly believes in anthropogenic global warming) stated that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years. The temperature trend just isn't in the data. Does it mean that AGW doesn't exist? Absolutely not.
work in progress
Well-Known Member
I took the time to look up this so called "expert's" credentials, and found that he is over 80 years old, hasn't done any scientific research in years...on any subject...and his expertise has nothing to do with climate research! But that means nothing to the deniers who are only focused on burning more oil and trying to keep the party going regardless of evidence! And as for "minority and majority views," the "minority" of actual climate scientists who accept some or all of the denialist claims is less than 3%, while 97% of climate scientists accept that human activity is forcing global temperatures higher. That sounds like a clear consensus to me, and no reason for allowing oil company-funded propaganda to continue dicking around with "teach the controversy."
Right, and every physicist is an expert in every field of physics I suppose. That's all Murdoch Press needs to hold someone up as an expert, who happens to be preaching their line.
So, he's a crank! And one who's out of step with the vast majority of scientists who are doing the research in this field.
Phil Jones's quote was parsed by right wing media and taken out of context. I'll leave it to you to look up his full statement and then you can tell me if Phil Jones doesn't believe there has been any warming.
Yes it is in the data, despite the obfuscations of the deniers. As mentioned previously, the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the global average, but most significant is that most of heat is trapped in the oceans (as well as half of the CO2). If the rise in temperatures over the last 10 years doesn't look very significant, take a look at the ocean heating graph. Those increasing ocean temperatures will gradually make their effects known as time goes on:
Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content anomaly from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008. Land + Atmosphere includes the heat absorbed to melt ice. What has global warming done since 1998?
Only you are wrong. Physics has everything to do with climate research.
More rhetoric. All those who don't follow the "party line" are equated with holocaust deniers. As if it is ridiculous to believe that among the many scientists who represent the minority view, there are few if any who are anything other than those "bought by big oil" or "to old to have any opinion" or whatever other nonsense one can fling at various researchers without basis. Do you have any idea how old a great many scientists who are vocal supporters of AGW are? Do you have any reason for believing this particular 80 year old expert in physics should be brushed off for his age, other than that he disagrees with the majority view?
And which of the many studies on scientific opinion are you using? More importantly, did you read it? Are you familiar with the methods used in data collections (particularly survey data) and statistical analysis?
Once again, more maligning. It's times like these Kuhn's critique of the validity of the scientific method seems so much more plausible. Tell me: have you read any of the research published in peer-review journals which don't support AGW? For example, satellite readings are the most accurate method for collecting global temperature data as they are don't measure temperature locally. The two most important researchers who have worked for years putting together one of the only satellite data sets we have (UAH) and often considered the most accurate are Christy and Spencer. Both continue to be published in mainstream climate journals, and both don't believe the evidence for AGW is convincing. Now, again, none of this makes them right or "disproves" AGW. But that isn't the point. You are making claims concerning the reputation of scientists whose work I'm willing to bet you haven't even read. In fact, I'd be willing to bet you aren't aware of who, among the top climate scientists in the world, are not convinced.
Either way, the climate is an incredibly complex dynamical system. As someone who works with dynamical systems and whose research has focused a great deal on the methods and inadequacies of the methods for modeling such systems, it's not hard to imagine that legitimate, intelligent, and honest scientists could conclude the evidence isn't convincing. The fact that just about every prediction of the climate trend since Hansen made his famous 1988 anouncement, the fact that we KNOW we still don't understand cloud dynamics, the effects of radiative and gravitational solar flex, not to metions are models are consistently off, is enough reason for a skeptically oriented scientist to ask for more. Most scientists look at the evidence we do have and what we do know and find this quite convincing. That doesn't make it justifiable to malign the character of those who disagree.
Do you have any idea how diverse the field of climate science is? NOBODY is an expert of more than a few of dozens of relevant fields. However, if anybody is qualified to read through the research and evaluate the evidence, it is someone with a strong background in applied physics. They are not only capable of understanding or learning about the physical mechanisms involved in everything from GCRs to feedback systems, they are also capable of understanding complex differential equations used to model climate systems and subsystems.
I never said he doesn't believe that. I said the opposite. He absolutely believe in AGW. But he knows as well as anyone that the temperature trend over the past nearly two decades wasn't what climate scientists or the models predicted and nobody knows why. This does not mean that he, or other scientists, now have reason to doubt their beliefs. It just means that you can say the upward trend since the late 1990s just isn't in the data by pointing to particular hot years. The issue is trends, not this or that year.
Which data sets are you using which show a statistically significant warming TREND since 1998? UEA? UAH? MSU?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
NASA Launches 'Eyes on the Earth 3-D'
New interactive features on NASA's Global Climate Change Web site give the public the opportunity to "fly along" with NASA's fleet of Earth science missions and observe Earth from a global perspective in an immersive, 3-D environment.
Developed using a state-of-the-art, browser-based visualization technology, "Eyes on the Earth 3-D" displays the location of all of NASA's 15 currently operating Earth-observing missions in real time. These missions constantly monitor our planet's vital signs, such as sea level height, concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, global temperatures and extent of sea ice in the Arctic, to name a few.
NASA Launches 'Eyes on the Earth 3-D' - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Nasa's Climate change Vital signs of the planet
Global temperture up 1.5 degrees since 1880.
2011 was the 9 warmest year on record.
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
New interactive features on NASA's Global Climate Change Web site give the public the opportunity to "fly along" with NASA's fleet of Earth science missions and observe Earth from a global perspective in an immersive, 3-D environment.
Developed using a state-of-the-art, browser-based visualization technology, "Eyes on the Earth 3-D" displays the location of all of NASA's 15 currently operating Earth-observing missions in real time. These missions constantly monitor our planet's vital signs, such as sea level height, concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, global temperatures and extent of sea ice in the Arctic, to name a few.
NASA Launches 'Eyes on the Earth 3-D' - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Nasa's Climate change Vital signs of the planet
Global temperture up 1.5 degrees since 1880.
2011 was the 9 warmest year on record.
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
work in progress
Well-Known Member
The WSJ article with the misleading headline presents no contrary evidence and an argument from authority based on this man's credentials of having won a Nobel Prize. And they obviously did not bother to inform their readers that his prize was for work in solid state physics (not climate research) that was done half a century ago! When I used to waste my time dealing with creationists and intelligent design proponents, I kept seeing the same strategy trotted out over and over again. The "scientists" often were merely engineers, and except in very few examples, did not work in a relevant field to the subject they were writing books and giving lectures on.
Having an understanding of physics would only serve as a starting point to be a climate researcher. His ignorance of paleoclimate indicates that he just focusing on statistics taken of air temperature readings in recent decades. He is also oblivious to the other negative effects that an increase in carbon dioxide causes -- chiefly, the growing acidification of the world's oceans, because of the absorption of carbon dumped into the atmosphere. It's a subject that every other so called climate change denier scientist also has a tin ear for!
When the conspiracy theorists on your side say "follow the money" it's okay for them to target the lucrative potential of green capitalist schemes that seek to profit from a change to renewable energy sources and biofuels; so I would say "follow the money" is more appropriate when the wealthiest corporations in the world start funding a disinformation campaign to keep the most lucrative industry going in spite of the harms it is creating.
Some of these climate change deniers are motivated at least in part by money....certainly the mouthpieces who work in media and promote these views are in it mainly for the money. But many of these deniers, like the Pielke's or Roy Spencer and John Christy, have long been working for the Marshall Institute think tank, and could be on board for ideological reasons also -- they write editorials on unrelated subjects from a strongly libertarian perspective, and the libertarians were the first to come up with the notion that dealing with global warming will lead to a larger role for government and international treaties (the horror!).
The first round of deniers, like the late Fred Singer, started working as nuclear scientists and were easily enlisted in other right wing disinformation schemes: like the tobacco industry's campaign against laws banning 2nd hand smoke; the fight against a nuclear test ban treaty; the campaign on behalf of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars strategy; some right wing scientists and engineers figure prominently in the campaign against teaching evolution in public schools. I would suggest checking out "Merchants Of Doubt" by historian - Naomi Oreskes, for a full view of how, beginning with the tobacco industry, they started creating lobby groups and "think tanks" to fund the scientists and the science that they prefer, and how they created their own media to propagate their ideas.
It's not just his age; it's also that he is out of the loop as far as anything besides writing and lecturing goes. As for age, I would consider James Lovelock (who is over 90 years old now) to be one of the few scientists who is able to present the full scope of the climate change issue, because he has worked in a number of research areas, and is trying to alert his colleagues to the fact that a world settling in to a higher temperature equilibrium will be much more devastating than past examples of when the Earth lost its ice caps, because of the fact that the Sun progressively emits more energy, and the Earth has had to maintain atmospheric CO2 levels below 300 ppm. over the last 20 million years to be at an optimal level for life to flourish. The negative feedback cycles for removing carbon (carbon sequestration) are pushed too work harder, and take longer and longer to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. Amazon.com: The Revenge of Gaia (9780465041688): James Lovelock, J. E. Lovelock, Crispin Tickell: Books This point just appears to be sinking in now, as reports started coming out last year that natural carbon sequestration would take up to 100,000 years to reduce carbon levels to where they were prior to the Industrial Revolution.
I am familiar enough not to be bamboozled by a claim that the Earth's climate is cooling, when the data sets start in 1995...just prior to the record high year of 1998. Just as with evolution/creationism, there are a lot of technical tricks that bogus scientists and hacks like fake lord Monckton can pull to fool the average consumer. So, when I have to take the judgment of experts, I'll go with the majority, when there is a clear consensus of expert opinion (97% is about as clear as it gets when the other side has so much money and lucrative offers to buy their experts)
I, like the vast majority of people, don't have subscriptions to scientific journals to read these studies...so once again, technical subject, go with the consensus of expert opinion, since the other side has the money, and even there own phony climate research unit in Huntsville to present their case. When they come up with proof that the Earth isn't warming, and can explain away the deleterious effects of ocean acidification, I'll be happy to read them. But, I'm not going to waste my time reading Spencer, Christy, or Pielke's griping and complaining about what the majority are doing any more than I bother reading what Michael Behe and co. have to say about the evolutionists on his well-funded intelligent design site.
Wrong! Satellite data is only accurate for measuring upper atmospheric temperature conditions. They are less accurate for ground level readings, and that is a key point to stress, since it figures so prominently in the deniers' propaganda -- an increase in solar radiation causing global warming, would cause higher temperature readings in both upper and lower atmosphere; while increased heating from an increase in greenhouse gases would only raise lower atmospheric temperatures, and stratospheric temperatures would drop, as more heat is trapped at ground level.....and guess what's happening?
The most accurate measure of global temperatures would be ocean temps as noted previously, because the oceans do not respond as quickly to annual variations. There has been a long time lag in the rise of ocean temperatures because melting sea ice keeps the temperatures from rising. But as more energy has been absorbed in the oceans, they have started to show the greatest rate of increase, and that is what is truly alarming about the present trends.
Yeah, I already jumped the gun talking about Christy and Spencer and their well funded research unit in Huntsville. They are both strident libertarians, and I don't really care whether their bias is chiefly due to financial incentives or their political motivations, but their science keeps getting picked apart by their peers when it is presented for review: Sourcewatch: Roy Spencer
Last edited:
work in progress
Well-Known Member
What they should conclude is that the trend of climate models in IPCC reports that consistently underestimate changes in temperatures, methane and CO2 levels, is an indication that they are underestimating the positive feedback effects of melting sea ice and permafrost, and the destruction of tropical jungles. That should be a motivation to consider the growing risks more serious than previously believed....not to try to dismiss them.
So, inaccuracies in projections is a reason to stay with the status quo? Especially when they are underestimating the length of time that sea ice would disappear and the rate of greenhouse gas increases, that is the dumbest conclusion to go with....and we still have that ocean acidification problem that is creating larger dead zones by the corresponding decrease in ocean oxygen levels, and is playing a major role in the rapid decline of plankton and fish stocks all around the wor
Already covered, but the point is that Phil Jones was trying to emphasize that seasonal variability makes it necessary to try to focus on long term trends, rather than try to analyze a trend from a ten year or 15 year period. But that is exactly what was done by others who made the bogus claim that temperatures have been dropping since 1998.
That chart, taken from the advanced article of the claim that there is no evidence for global warming from Skeptical Science, includes the links to the published data sources in Nature and the Journal of Geophysical Research. I don't have a subscription to these publications, so I'll go with the people who created the data used for the chart, unless someone on the contrary side can prove otherwise.
How much of the IPCC reports have you read? And you do realize that these reports are summaries of the state of climate research? That is, they aren't intended to do anything other than provide an acccurate assessment of the research in the various subdisciplines of climate science. Which also means that nothing can be learned from them that one wouldn't get from actually reading the papers.
And what studies are you using to base these statements on? For that matter, which journals relating to climate science do you regularly read?
No, it is a reason to question it. I've read a great deal of research related to climate science, from paleoclimatology to astrophysics. I also have a backround dynamical systems, and I am aware of the "cutting edge" techniques used to model these systems. And after all of this, the only reason I believe in AGW is because I am more skeptical that so many experts across fields could be wrong than I am of the fact that the mainstream views appears to be extremely over-confident. I am willing to accept that despite my skepticism of the scientific/mathematical community to accurately model systems as complex as the climate, and the fact that so far our predictions have failed, could be due to the fact that I lack the expertise in so many other fields related to climate science and thus I would be better served by following those who are experts in particular fields related to climate science, and the majority of these believe the evidence for AGW is quite strong.
However, as no one is an expert in more than a few of the fields related to climate science, I can understand if scientists that some scientist can conclude based on their expertise that the evidence isn't strong enough, because that tends to be the case in any field that involves specialists from multiple backgrounds and enormous complexity. There are minorities in lots of fields, including those related to my own, with whom I disagree. I don't write them off and malign them because of this, however.
So far, all the predictions have been overestimations. And as I'm sure you know, for most of the world's history, their hasn't been any "sea ice" at all. And what is around today has been melting in certain areas of the world for several thousand years. All of the temperature records, when combined with our models, show that the warming trend from roughly 1970-1998 (the period the climate science community, with the exception of those who doubt AGW, show was caused by humans), appears to have accelerated this process. But this isn't a simple issue. For example, some research indicates that ice may be thickening in areas. Also, the effect of CO2 emissions on climate is logarithmic. Initial releases (so our models state) cause a much more drastic change than equal increases in greenhouse gases later. You just might want to consider, before you conclude how "dumb" the scientists are who don't believe the evidence for AGW is sufficient, that perhaps they can be wrong and still have scientific reasons for their position. It happens all the time.
You do realize that the entire period of warming attributed to human actions by Phil Jones and most of the climate community consists of about 30 years? If that is a "long term" trend, then wouldn't 15 years be fairly long?
I don't know who you are referring to about temperatures dropping. Those I know of who are actual climate scientists who don't agree with AGW theory make no such claims. They refer to a lack of a warming trend, which the AGW proponents (the majority) agree is shown in our temperature records.
I do have access to these publications. Would you like to read them and see what they actually say?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Greenland ice growing darker, not reflecting as much energy
"
In the past, the bright surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet reflected well over half of the sunlight that fell on it. This reflectiveness helped keep the ice sheet stable, as less absorbed sunlight meant less heating and melting. In the past decade, however, satellites have observed a decrease in Greenland's reflectiveness. This darker surface now absorbs more sunlight, which accelerates melting."
"The map above shows the difference between the amount of sunlight Greenland reflected in the summer of 2011 versus the average percent it reflected between 2000 to 2006. Virtually the entire ice sheet shows some change, with some areas reflecting close to 20 percent less light than a decade ago. The map is based on observations from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments on NASA's Terra and Aqua satellites. It was produced as part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Arctic Report Card.
Climate scientists have long expected that Earth's polar regions will become less reflective as global temperatures rise. Rising temperatures melt snow and ice, and the uncovered terrainwater, vegetation, bare groundis darker and absorbs more sunlight. The loss of reflectiveness then amplifies the initial warming."
http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/16514867/greenland-ice-growing-darker-not-reflecting-as-much-energy
If greenland and the poles melt the fresh water pouring into the salt water into the oceans can change or even stop the oceans currents and hence effect the food chain majorally.
Not to mention the acidity of the oceans has increased absorbing the Co2.
January 25, 2012
Study: Ocean Acidity Exceeds Natural Norms
Rapidly rising CO2 emissions change ocean chemistry
Study: Ocean Acidity Exceeds Natural Norms | Environment | English
I remember seeing the jesse ventura, conspiracy theory, yes I know I shouldn't have bothered,show on global warming, the first thing they said was "follow the money" not follow the science FIRSTand they didn't even interview a scientist.
Of course people want to make money on green technology, just like they did with oil in the past and want to now with "clean coal" and natural gas.
The corporate deniers are using the same tactic's the Tabacco companies did, to say smoking doesn't cause cancer, by trying to confuse the science. They even changed
Global warming is happening and yes its really complex.
2007
Frank Luntz
" Frank Luntz is a Republican Party pollster and political consultant. He's crafted many of the Republican Party's messages, using focus groups to test words and phrases that evoke a strong emotional response. A memo on the environment he wrote for the Party back in the late 1990s had a series of suggestions for how to play down the science of 'global warming' and he in fact advised politicians not to use that frightening term at all because it sounded permanent. Rather, they should use the more benign phrase 'climate change'."
"TONY JONES: Frank Luntz, I mean, do you see an irony here? Because I've read all the transcripts of various interviews that you've done on this subject. But the point is that you wrote a memo, I think you said back in the mid 1990s, but it was used by the Bush Administration to set a course, to set the language on, on climate change, on global warming. In fact, it is said that you suggested in that memo that the words 'climate change' should be used instead of 'global warming' because global warming is too frightening for the American public, climate change more benign. Is that true?
FRANK LUNTZ: Well, you interviewed me during the contract with America. I'm sure that your positions have changed, that your ideas have changed, that your career has changed over the last 10 or 12 years. You learn. You get educated. You hopefully grow as a person. And that the same ideas that you had back 10 years ago are not the same ideas that you have today because times have changed and climate has changed and now you deal with the situation at hand.
TONY JONES: OK. But you know, because in 2002 that memo was revealed in the New York Times, that it appears to have been the template for the Bush Administration and certainly for example President Bush stopped using the term 'global warming' and started using the words 'climate change', apparently because in your advice was it was more benign."
Lateline - 02/05/2007: Tony Jones speaks with US political consultant Frank Luntz
The Wizard
Active Member
Agreed, I doubt the cause is from just any one thing. That's quite extreme to think so in my opinion....
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Of course it's not caused by any one thing... but there in only one contributing factor that we have control over.
wa:do