New word in the lexicon

[wiffleball 4,639]

Just now started hearing this word:

 

Turns out, mouf-breavers used to be "Climate Change Deniers".

 

 

Now, they're "Climate Change Denialists".

 

 

- What? Like it's a skill set now?

 

"I'm a radiologist, what about you?"

"Oh, I'm a denialist!"

 

I'd say something like "It's not even a word!" But, MW, in it's futile quest not to be entirely irrelevant, immediately adds stupid shiit like this as soon as it's uttered. They're the same people who now see "LOL" and "AXE" as legitimate words. ,

 

Note: When you hear about some guy going all 'Charlie Hebdo" on Merriam Webster, that'll be the day that they somehow recognize the poop emoji.

[IGotWorms 3,311]

Is this some kind of code?

[SUXBNME 1,328]

Same thing as the term Barista, right?

YOU SERVE COFFEE. YOU'RE NOT SPECIAL

 

Also, I love how it's morphed from MMGW to GW to CC. Stoopid greenies

[fandandy 3,311]

I think lexicon is already a word, dude.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

It's not a question if the climate is changing. It is (like always). The question is what's causing it?

[GobbleDog 816]

I changed my paradigm and synergized in the 90's. Um, why does "synergized" have red squiggly lines under it when typed? Lexicon my ass.

[SUXBNME 1,328]

It's not a question if the climate is changing. It is (like always). The question is what's causing it?

Hence, my earlier post.

[penultimatestraw 473]

It's not a question if the climate is changing. It is (like always). The question is what's causing it?

that ain't the question.

 

Its agreed upon that man is making an impact. The questions are:

 

How much?

What can we do about it?

Is it worthwhile to alter our behavior to lessen our impact?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Three questions to the Climatologists here:

 

1. How old is the Earth? (approx 4.5 billion years old)

2. How long have we been accurately tracking the weather patterns and global temps? (maybe 200 years MAX)

3. What percentage of #1 is #2? (less than 1%)

 

Pretty clear we don't know with any degree of certainty that people are the cause of climate change.

 

Should we treat the world irresponsibly? No, of course not. Should we continue to investigate our impact? Sure albeit with a much CALMER attitude.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

Three questions to the Climatologists here:

 

1. How old is the Earth? (approx 4.5 billion years old)

2. How long have we been accurately tracking the weather patterns and global temps? (maybe 200 years MAX)

3. What percentage of #1 is #2? (less than 1%)

 

Pretty clear we don't know with any degree of certainty that people are the cause of climate change.

 

Should we treat the world irresponsibly? No, of course not. Should we continue to investigate our impact? Sure albeit with a much CALMER attitude.

We can all try to play scientist here, but in reality we have no idea what we are talking about. I'll defer to the 97% of climate scientists who agree climate change is man made.

 

And there are ways of collecting climate info from long ago, by looking below ice sheets in Antarctica

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

We can all try to play scientist here, but in reality we have no idea what we are talking about. I'll defer to the 97% of climate scientists who agree climate change is man made.

 

And there are ways of collecting climate info from long ago, by looking below ice sheets in Antarctica

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/26/wsj-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-what-is-the-origin-of-the-false-belief-that-almost-all-scientists-agree-about-global-warming/

 

That's disingenuous to say the least and really just a talking point for those that have a vested interest in keeping their funding going.

 

As far as looking below ice sheets in Antarctica, again it's their bread and butter so do I trust their motives are pure? Hardly.

 

97% of all stats are made up on the spot btw.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Three questions to the Climatologists here:

 

1. How old is the Earth? (approx 4.5 billion years old)

2. How long have we been accurately tracking the weather patterns and global temps? (maybe 200 years MAX)

3. What percentage of #1 is #2? (less than 1%)

 

Pretty clear we don't know with any degree of certainty that people are the cause of climate change.

 

Should we treat the world irresponsibly? No, of course not. Should we continue to investigate our impact? Sure albeit with a much CALMER attitude.

Actually...we do know with quite a bit of certainty that we have an effect. To what extent is the only question.

[cyclone24 1,814]

Ooooh....youre an anti denial-lite.

 

I am not an anti denial-lite!!

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Actually...we do know with quite a bit of certainty that we have an effect. To what extent is the only question.

 

Even on cloudy days my shadow is always here.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Pretty clear we don't know with any degree of certainty that people are the cause of climate change.

 

 

Actually...we do know with quite a bit of certainty that we have an effect. To what extent is the only question.

 

Yep........thanks for verifying what I said.

 

We don't know with any degree of certainty that people are the cause climate change (i.e. the whole change).

[RLLD 3,455]

Is it that they deny climate change, or that they deny humans have any impact on it?

 

The distinction is important I think.