possibilities of a megadrought (Montecito: luxury, tax, to live in)

[Jenkay]

Originally Posted by docmcstuffin

Yep, you said this:
But as I stated, J6pack can't wrap their head around the term "climate change" either. I've seen it on both sides confusing climate with weather. So, I agree with this statement from you:
except I would go farther and say it's very hard, not just kind of hard. Both "global warming" and "climate change" are correct and both terms are confusing to joe public. We'll just leave it there.

So because it's confusing, it should be changed. Regardless of the fact that it's accurate and correct.

You may not be a denier, but you are arguing your own version of what climate even means even after it's been explained by someone who actually knows what it means, and that's what I'm taking issue with. If you don't understand stuff, ask questions, don't insist that your limited understanding defines how it should actually be. It's incredibly frustrating.

[docmcstuffin]

Originally Posted by Jenkay

So because it's confusing, it should be changed. Regardless of the fact that it's accurate and correct.

Um, no.

So, you're saying global warming is not accurate and not correct? I think global warming is both accurate and correct. But Gentoo said it was confusing, which is why it was changed to climate change, no?

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Because the average person doesn't understand Global Warming. Most people here that and think it will just get warmer as something they can feel and notice. Climate is much more complex than that.

Do you disagree with this statement?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Jenkay

I did. Concisely.

I also addressed your protestations about climate changing "all the time" in a post above. This is coming from a person who has actually studied meteorology and atmospheric dynamics and isn't just making things I read on Wikipedia mean what I want them to vs what they actually say. Because I actually know this stuff. So maybe, just maybe, you could concede that the person who knows what they are talking about might have a point, and that your idea of what climate means is erroneous, and therin lies the crux of why an observably changing climate is a big deal, and why climate change is actually a very accurate way to describe it.

Jenkay, he/she is not trying to discuss point by point but just trying to occupy you in an argument. Think about it, does it really take four long paragraphs to disagree with a person and state another opinion back up on facts? No. Just let this one go as food for park fed pigeons. They actually asked if I disagreed with my own statement LOL

[Jenkay]

Originally Posted by docmcstuffin

So, you're saying global warming is not accurate and not correct? I think global warming is both accurate and correct. But Gentoo said it was confusing, which is why it was changed to climate change, no?
Do you disagree with this statement?

They actually refer to two different things. Global warming being the overall average temperature rise of a couple of degrees, and climate change being the change in climatic conditions as a result of said overall average temperature shift.. Which means they are BOTH CORRECT. But climate change is more precise and directly addresses the phenomena that people are most concerned with.

The problem is not with the terminology. It's with the people using it. You claim "climate change" is confusing, but that is only because you have an erroneous idea of what the word climate means. If it was called anything besides climate change, it would be inaccurate. So changing the terminology to something that doesn't describe the phenomenon in as accurate a way would serve what purpose?

[Jenkay]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Jenkay, he/she is not trying to discuss point by point but just trying to occupy you in an argument. Think about it, does it really take four long paragraphs to disagree with a person and state another opinion back up on facts? No. Just let this one go as food for park fed pigeons. They actually asked if I disagreed with my own statement LOL

I just can't help but believe if you throw enough logic at someone they'll eventually get it. What can I say, I'm an optimist.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Jenkay

I just can't help but believe if you throw enough logic at someone they'll eventually get it. What can I say, I'm an optimist.

Yeah I know but when some have made up their minds, they will confuse it with their own bewilderment.

[docmcstuffin]

Originally Posted by Jenkay

They actually refer to two different things. Global warming being the overall average temperature rise of a couple of degrees, and climate change being the change in climatic conditions as a result of said overall average temperature shift.. Which means they are BOTH CORRECT. But climate change is more precise and directly addresses the phenomena that people are most concerned with.

I totally agree.

Originally Posted by Jenkay

The problem is not with the terminology. It's with the people using it. You claim "climate change" is confusing, but that is only because you have an erroneous idea of what the word climate means. If it was called anything besides climate change, it would be inaccurate. So changing the terminology to something that doesn't describe the phenomenon in as accurate a way would serve what purpose?

I claim "climate change" is confusing because I've seen average people use climate and weather interchangeably. But regardless, thanks for being patient and explaining your point.

I personally think something like "anthropogenic climate change" or something along that line would much clearer describe the actual problem we're faced with.

[Think4Yourself]

Originally Posted by Jenkay

I just can't help but believe if you throw enough logic at someone they'll eventually get it. What can I say, I'm an optimist.

This only works with intellectually honest.people. You will never meet an intellectually honest denier.because.they do not.exist. They are without exception fools and liars.

[docmcstuffin]

TIL... don't talk to zealots.

[Jenkay]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

This only works with intellectually honest.people. You will never meet an intellectually honest denier.because.they do not.exist. They are without exception fools and liars.

I was referring to the whole semantical argument, not whether or not a person believes in climate change.