If Global Warming is now Climate Change?

Question

How would anyone know when the problem of global warming was fixed?

The climate always changes. And if the climate naturally changes, then we should always have climate change.

How is this bad, and how would we know when man made climate change is over?

Answer 1

You discovered exactly the reason why the name MUST be changed to "Climate Change".

Environmentalist know that "global warming" isn't really happening, and that the climate isn't going to continue to get warmer every year.

They know the climate of the Earth is going to cool down, and if the temperatures go down, so does their income stream.

By calling the problem "Climate Change", well, like you said, the climate is ALWAYS changing, so how can anyone determine if the change is natural, or man made?

It can be easy to determin that all climate change will be because of man, and if you think otherwise, they you just aren't smart enough to interpret the tea leaves correctly, or your some right wing religious nut.

Answer 2

So the first-class arguments up to now had been unsubstantiated & beside the point (three% declare) and erroneous & routinely debunked (800 12 months lag). That's beautiful unhappy. To deal with the latter (once more!), ago there was a lag among temp and CO2 raises. That's since CO2 isn't the one rationale of international warming. When there is one other rationale, it may end up in a CO2 broaden with a view to enlarge the international warming. However, the truth that CO2 is not continually the major rationale of international warming does now not imply that CO2 can't be the major rationale. That is a logical and clinical fallacy. Any contributor to international warming will also be the major rationale below the right stipulations. In this example, persons burning colossal quantities of fossil fuels is making CO2 the major rationale. There are then feedbacks comparable to an broaden in atmospheric water vapor which additionally give a contribution to international warming for this reason of our greenhouse gasoline emission forcings. Sorry I did not reply your query Trevor, since I cannot! Clearly neither can any person else. I just like the "since I do not suppose it" solutions. Now that is credible!

Answer 3

This is the catch-all term for man-made global warming. It implies that humans can control their environment on the global scale.

But humans change the climate everyday. In buildings and in cars. Doing so requires lots, and lots, and lots of energy.

Now try to imagine how much energy it takes to cause GLOBAL climate change. Only the sun can produce that kind of energy.

The gov't and scientist have a huge stake in this debate. The gov't forks out lots of money to "enhance science and research."

Answer 4

Dude, just because someone calls the theory by another name doesn't mean the theory has changed. The change being referred to in "climate change" is still a warming trend.

We would know the current climate change has "ended" if the current warming trend were to stop or reverse. Either due to a halt in human emissions of greenhouse gases, or some other forcing that overwhelms the warming signal from human produced greenhouse gases (possibly anthropogenic itself).

Answer 5

"Natural Climate change" doesn't happen as fast as it is happening currently. The earth does go through temperature changes and ice ages, but they take 100's of years to occur and what were experiencing is a lot faster than "natural change"

Man made "climate change" will never be over unless we change to other resources to slow down the amount of CO2 we are putting into the air. By using renewable energy sources, we can slow down the "human climate change" but in my eyes, it will never be over.

Okay if its "natural" then show me where the climate and average temperature has changed this much, this fast. Let me remind you that the hottest 10 years on record have happened in the past 14 years. We have also hit record hurricane/typhoon seasons. The same for snow. Several parts of the earth are experiencing stronger droughts or monsoon seasons. So the whole earth is changing faster than it usually does in nature without the added effects that humans put in.

But that's just what i think.

Answer 6

Inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. Although a full ruling has yet to be given, the Court found that the film was misleading in 11 respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
The inaccuracies are:
· The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
· The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
· The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
· The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
· The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
· The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
· The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
· The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
· The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting; the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
· The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
· The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Henry Louis Mencken (1880- 1956 )

More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.
It was a telling moment when, in August, Gore's closest scientific ally, James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was forced to revise his influential record of US surface temperatures showing that the past decade has seen the hottest years on record. His graph now concedes that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934, and that four of the 10 warmest years in the past 100 were in the 1930s.
Furthermore, scientists and academics have recently been queuing up to point out that fluctuations in global temperatures correlate more consistently with patterns of radiation from the sun than with any rise in CO2 levels, and that after a century of high solar activity, the sun's effect is now weakening, presaging a likely drop in temperatures. climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so. It also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance.

NewsAccording to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.

Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)

SO the ANSWER to YOUR QUESTION IS THEY WANT a CARBON TAX to tax evil OIL Corporations,Presidential canidate DEM Senator DODD. that means trickle down to you $8.00 a gallon Gas Higher food prices TRUCKS deliver food run on FUEL,higher electric they will build NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS its a low carbon foot print .

Answer 7

It takes time to mold a political movement from something that does not exist as people are blindly being told. It might take a few name changes to make it general enough to where you can't refute it...

Answer 8

I think global warming us just a bunch of b.s. if you do research you find that yes there is a hole in the o-zone layer, however it's about the size of a dime and over antarctica. And as you can see, the ice has not melted away.

People just like to create propaganda.