Q & A
Come on! So it's the wicked Republicans in the US who changed the terminology? Get real mate! Everyone from the supercillious Rudd and the awful Wong have been saying Climate Change. It was even a TV campaign remember "Think climate, think change" what a lot of old cobblers this all is.
Forced to were they? Made to change from saying Global Warming?
Tell me were you one of the people who texted John Faine last week blaming John Howard for knife crime?

Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed that the denialists are getting shriller and more offensive lately?

Leigh's last boofheaded comment was a classic.

Leigh, don't be too hurt mate, I don't think you are shrill.

Even if you were, that's got to be better than comming across as a smug, condescending, self satisfied sharp point injury.

"CJ Morgan - Is it just me" - Yes it's just you.

How's the hunt for the elusive denialist going?

Have you found anyone yet who denies the climate is changing, or is it still the word you use for anyone who disagrees with your faith?

Seems to be a lot of very shrill alarmists writing articles these days, have you noticed?

No JBowyer.

Your “wicked Republicans in the US” did not change the terminology - Frank Luntz was good at his job. At the end of the day, he had a conscience.

You may have missed the gem but it was Leigh who said:

<< the instigators of this nonsense switched from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ at least 12 months ago ... >>

It seems Leigh is either making stuff up, or is distorting the facts (intentionally or otherwise) - you decide. The term itself has been around for yonks.

As to your last sentence, I don’t know what you are talking about – is it relevant?

______

Spindoc

Teasing? Therefore am I to assume you damn well know how stupid Atman’s assertion was?

Put it this way, no matter what he meant, I really don’t think I should have to explain the difference between Arctic/Antarctic summer and winter.

I've said this so many times and in so many different ways (‘sceptics’ always want to take this consensus stuff out of context). There IS unanimous agreement (consensus) in the scientific community about the greenhouse effect, the science IS settled. However, there IS debate (within the scientific community) about the technical details - about climate sensitivity and attribution, for example.

I don’t care how many times you say it (or want to believe it) ... you are wrong in asserting there is no direct evidence of global warming (anthropogenic?). I am equally sure that no matter how many times I give you this evidence, you (and all other 'sceptics' that gravitate to OLO) will close your eyes and clasp your hands over your ears.

You want something to address the anomalies? Read and understand Keenleyside – most 'sceptics' can’t get past the abstract without spin-doctoring.

______

CJ ... yep

______

Hasbeen

You don’t like the truth, that’s your problem ... not mine.

_______

rpg

You don’t know the difference between a ‘faith’ based religion and science.

Btw, Susan Prior (OLO's editor) picks the articles – go complain to her.

BtwBtw, thanks for acknowledging my last reply to you.

I came across this interesting piece in National Geographic -October 2008 (The Last of the Neanderthal.

“ Ice core data suggest that from about 30,000 year ago until the last glacial maximum about 18,000 years ago, the Earth’s climate fluctuated wildly, sometimes within the space of decades.”

Some what sobering when viewed against some of the predictions being made on the basis of short-term temperature changes!