3 ms·

Global warming gives the impression that you will have warming everywhere all the time. In humanly understandable terms it is better to talk about climate chang

Global warming gives the impression that you will have warming everywhere all the time. In humanly understandable terms it is better to talk about climate change, as global warming give a number of other effects. Such as wider variability of weather (stronger storms, longer dry spells, more precipitation etc). So climate change is a better description of what people can expect to see around them.

SeanDav 13y ago
Throughout the entire history of our planet the climate has been changing. It was changing before Man and will be changing long afterwards. To call it "Climate Change" is utterly useless and serves only to put up a convenient label that is completely impossible to disprove, because everyone agrees - the climate is changing. What is not agreed, is the degree of change, its manifestation and the effect, if any, that Man is having on said climate change.
- gwright 13y ago
  I'd add to that is that there is certainly no agreement on what to do about the effects of climate change. In particular I rarely if ever see a comparison between the costs of adjusting to a warmer climate (e.g. relocating low-lying communities if you think the sea level will rise) vs. the costs of radically changing our energy systems (production & usage).
graycat 13y ago
You might be correct, but you are missing the bigger picture: First, the whole thing, climate change and/or global warming is a guilt trip, another morality play about sinful humans, the old trilogy of transgression, retribution, and redemption, a flim-flam, fraud scam by a few people to get power and money. So, the trasgression is, in short, the Industrial Revolution. The retribution is climate change. The redemption will, right, involve the usual -- sacrifice, in this case, send your money. The reason for talking about climate change is not the technical one but just the sales pitch: For the past 15 years or so, the predicted warming did not occur, so a memo went out to talk about climate change. Heck temperature, or average global temperature, should be easy to report, just degrees F, C, or K. Still, the usual evidence was in terms of the snows of Kilimanjaro, icebergs crashing into the sea at the ends of glaciers, and pictures of polar bears, pictures of ice in the Arctic during the summers, exploitation of the fact that due to winds and currents where the Arctic ice collects varies from year to year. BTW all those people talking about the warming of the Arctic didn't report from first hand data during the winters, right, with maybe -80 F and 80 MPH winds. A reason for that? I know: Lots of reporters tried but just didn't come back! If can pull off the warming scam using mostly just pictures of polar bears, etc. without talking about temperature, then for climate change, where the evidence is much more difficult to analyze for significant changes or trends, can be talking about absolutely nothing for centuries until finally the scam shuts down the first world economies, which is one of the goals. Or as one global warming scientist admitted, a major benefit is the collection of beneficial social changes. He had in mind that from the cooling from shutting down the Industrial Revolution teenagers on dates would have to wear lots of extra clothing and, thus, make it more likely the girl would still be a virgin when she got married??? It's a scam, guys. The science is just window dressing. Don't be gullible. It's essentially the same as the threat of a pool table in town in the movie The Music Man where the real goal was to get money and take the next train out of town. Did I mention, it's a scam? You believe that Al Guru is interested in the science? What about Tom Friedman: On a late night TV show he said that the threat of CO2 is that it absorbed sunlight. Wrong, Tom. If CO2 absorbed visible light, then we could see the CO2 as we exhaled. Instead, the issue of CO2 is that it absorbs in three narrow frequency bands, one for each of twisting, bending, and stretching of the molecule, out in the infrared, and the main source of the infrared in question is not directly from the sun but just the black (gray) body radiation of the surface of the earth warmed by absorbing the visible and UV radiation from the sun. I know, Tom, in freshman physics you were out on the quad arguing that the earth was flat. Why do the NYT and WaPo keep flogging this old horse? To have stories easy to write, for years, and get ad revenue. They have heavily just created the story so that they can write about it. Other fellow travelers in this scam include business people who want Federal Government money and politicians who, then, want kick backs, excuse me, campaign donations. Did I mention, it's a scam?

SeanDav 13y ago

Throughout the entire history of our planet the climate has been changing. It was changing before Man and will be changing long afterwards. To call it "Climate Change" is utterly useless and serves only to put up a convenient label that is completely impossible to disprove, because everyone agrees - the climate is changing. What is not agreed, is the degree of change, its manifestation and the effect, if any, that Man is having on said climate change.

gwright 13y ago
I'd add to that is that there is certainly no agreement on what to do about the effects of climate change. In particular I rarely if ever see a comparison between the costs of adjusting to a warmer climate (e.g. relocating low-lying communities if you think the sea level will rise) vs. the costs of radically changing our energy systems (production & usage).

graycat 13y ago

You might be correct, but you are missing the bigger picture: First, the whole thing, climate change and/or global warming is a guilt trip, another morality play about sinful humans, the old trilogy of transgression, retribution, and redemption, a flim-flam, fraud scam by a few people to get power and money. So, the trasgression is, in short, the Industrial Revolution. The retribution is climate change. The redemption will, right, involve the usual -- sacrifice, in this case, send your money. The reason for talking about climate change is not the technical one but just the sales pitch: For the past 15 years or so, the predicted warming did not occur, so a memo went out to talk about climate change. Heck temperature, or average global temperature, should be easy to report, just degrees F, C, or K. Still, the usual evidence was in terms of the snows of Kilimanjaro, icebergs crashing into the sea at the ends of glaciers, and pictures of polar bears, pictures of ice in the Arctic during the summers, exploitation of the fact that due to winds and currents where the Arctic ice collects varies from year to year. BTW all those people talking about the warming of the Arctic didn't report from first hand data during the winters, right, with maybe -80 F and 80 MPH winds. A reason for that? I know: Lots of reporters tried but just didn't come back! If can pull off the warming scam using mostly just pictures of polar bears, etc. without talking about temperature, then for climate change, where the evidence is much more difficult to analyze for significant changes or trends, can be talking about absolutely nothing for centuries until finally the scam shuts down the first world economies, which is one of the goals. Or as one global warming scientist admitted, a major benefit is the collection of beneficial social changes. He had in mind that from the cooling from shutting down the Industrial Revolution teenagers on dates would have to wear lots of extra clothing and, thus, make it more likely the girl would still be a virgin when she got married??? It's a scam, guys. The science is just window dressing. Don't be gullible. It's essentially the same as the threat of a pool table in town in the movie The Music Man where the real goal was to get money and take the next train out of town. Did I mention, it's a scam? You believe that Al Guru is interested in the science? What about Tom Friedman: On a late night TV show he said that the threat of CO2 is that it absorbed sunlight. Wrong, Tom. If CO2 absorbed visible light, then we could see the CO2 as we exhaled. Instead, the issue of CO2 is that it absorbs in three narrow frequency bands, one for each of twisting, bending, and stretching of the molecule, out in the infrared, and the main source of the infrared in question is not directly from the sun but just the black (gray) body radiation of the surface of the earth warmed by absorbing the visible and UV radiation from the sun. I know, Tom, in freshman physics you were out on the quad arguing that the earth was flat. Why do the NYT and WaPo keep flogging this old horse? To have stories easy to write, for years, and get ad revenue. They have heavily just created the story so that they can write about it. Other fellow travelers in this scam include business people who want Federal Government money and politicians who, then, want kick backs, excuse me, campaign donations. Did I mention, it's a scam?