Advanced Search
Most of the earlier comments are correct- because the greenhouse gas effect was disproved in 1909 by R.W.Wood an American physics and professor of Optics at John Hopkins University from 1901-1955. Since his work was peer reviewed and published. Professor Wood was an expert in IR and UV radiation. a simplified explanation is available on line. Other physicists have shown that the hypothesis of the ghg effect violates many laws of Physics. Look up Dipl-.Ing Heinz Thieme another is the work of Gerlich & Tscheuschner.Another good reference is the report of Alan Carlin of the US-EPA that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming or climate change. The head of EPA Lisa Jackson just wants to enslave industry and man-kind . Scientific knowledge means nothing to her- just power. The other lyres about global climate change have totally ignored scientific facts and they do not care. They want to make trillions of dollars for a non exist problem.
The term "Global Warming Hoax"! Scientifc evidence does not support man-made warming, cooling or climate change. Lack of sun spots seems to be the predominant basis for any climate change, warming or cooling. If man believes he can actually change the climate of the Earth I believe he has over reached his level of importance on this planet. God gave us this planet and we should care for it. This stewardship should not be accomplished at the detriment of man.
Use the more accurate terme "Global Climate Change" This phrase incorporates both the overall rise in temperature and regional fluctuations that are out of the norm and global trends.
How about "Climate Improvement." If you get past the alarmist attitudes and false theories based on questionable data and models based mostly on assumptions, you will realize a warmer climate will increase growing seasons, yields, biodiversity, etc. They can't even predict the weather for 24 hours. Man's effects are negligible compared to nature's. We are megalomaniacs to think we can control an entire planet's climate and destiny.
The fact that Global Warming claims are not based in science and fact needs to be more widely discussed and debated. The fact is that atmospheric temperatures have been much higher than current temperatures during the Medievel Warm Period (~800 AD to 1000 AD), during the Roman Warm Period (~200 BC to 50 BC), and during the Minoan Warm Period (~1500 BC to 1300 BC). Temperatures over Greenland were up to 2.5 C warmer during the time period of 1Kyears ago to 1 *** years ago. Temperatures over Europe were nearly 10 C during the Viking Era of 1100 AD versus 9.3 or 9.4 C today. None of this is being discussed and debated. We are simply told that the debate is over and something needs to be done. Any action taken now will not have any effect on the atmospheric temperature and will be an incredibly expensive effort for no measurable impact.
Global warming is more of a political issue than a scientific issue. Claude is correct in that the latest data shows that the average global temperature is as low as it was when there were predictions of an impending ice age. So, the phrase "global warming" is not accurate. Frank has accurate observations in that we are behind when compared to other nations. That is probably a result of arrogance and a lack of responsibility to utilize available technology to do the best we can. Another issue that is rarely brought up is that all the efforts are aimed at decreasing the CO2 emmissions, which account for less than 5% of global warming gases. I have read reports that indicate that about 95% of greenhouse gases is water vapor. If you're looking at the numbers, CO2 does not seem to be the bigger part of the problem. Another issue rarely brought up is the direct correlation of the solar temperature and the global temperature. Our sun's temperature increases, our global temperature increases. When it decreases, so does ours. Global Warming? Climate Change? When you look at the data - it's mostly politics.
The term "Global Warming" has become a mantra for all that ails us. Its kinda like having a Bomb Shelter in the 1950s. Models predict we will have to move to Minnesota and beyond while we read the "Good Book". But there is a lot to learn still and the models use databases that are not well tested. It is wise to implement environmental programs that have direct links we can support. But listening to the Media's banter and giving Politicians the reins to rush in and 'Save Us' is short sighted, while we struggle to deal with the fall-out (debt and red tape) that results. What's worse? The verdict is still Out on this one.
I call it global responsibility. We can no longer deny that our industiral activity and pollutants affect people in other parts of the world.
I'm thinking, "The normal cyclic nature of the planet Earth's climate."
Why change a title of something that is really happening? Why sugar coat something that needs to be addressed now? So I would say: "Don't Change the wording" and accept the fact that there is nothing positive about the fact that the USA is lagging behind a lot of countries in trying to stop global warming. The fact that some of this publication's readers claim it is a hoax is typical of stuff that causes folks in other countries to laugh at our stupidity.
If there were such a thing as global warming, why isn't there been any average increase in tempeture over the past several years? Back in the '60s they were predicting a global "ice age." What happened to those dire predictions? There have been temperature movements up and down throughout history, why worry about something that is so natural? CO2 is needed for plant growth. Why limit something that is so needed in nature?
I am investing in property in Minnesota now for you nonbelievers of Global Warming who live down south. I can't wait to get rich off of you Bible readers.
I think virtually all Americans would agree that we need to get off of foreign oil and develop alternative energy sources. Regardless of your politics, promoting energy conservation and energy efficiency would be good for our economy, the environment and national security. Why can't we find consensus and take action? We cannot continue "to be as dumb as want to be."
How about "Taxes for the Environment"? Obviously you can no longer call it "Global Warming" since we are experiencing colder weather and the data only shows a 1.3 degree increase over many years- which could be temperature reading errors/deviation/method of detection limits - oops! can't use scientific terms when discussing a political issue can we?
How about "A Tower of Babel Moment"?
A more accurate name would be Junk Science because man-made global warming has not been proven, and never will be. We are to be good stewards as God has entrusted this planet to us. I have a friend that says "show me the money" and I can tell you why something is happening. Sounds like Craig from Texas in a previous comment knows my friend. Al Gore is such a joke, it is hard to believe that anyone takes him serious. Just another way to destroy America.
How about we call it the "Global Warming Hoax"? Just latest in a series of "crisis" scams played out on the sheeple of the world!
Hey "Just a Theory" - it's folks like you who willingly arrest your own intellectual development via dark age loyalties that have got the rest of us and fellow species on this road to ruin. Learn the difference between science fact versus fairy tales employed to manipulate. "In wilderness is the salvation of the world".
Taxes won't matter if they continue to deforest the Amazon. America appears to be the only player trying to reduce emissions. No one else will care until Hong Kong and Rio are under water.
A more positive response...hmmm...guess that all depends on what a 'positive response' means to the one asking the question. "Global warming" as a man-made doomsday scenario does not mesh well with the fact the world has been on a cooling trend. Having Al Gore push for carbon credit initiatives to combat 'global warming' when he is part owner of a company that makes MILLIONS of dollars from the trading of carbon credits makes the push for 'combating global warming' look like just another corrupt money-making scheme (which it is). A positive response would be to give truthful data and stop the corrupt B.S. Just a thought...
Global Warming - since it has been debunked the politically correct term now is 'Climate Change'. Geologically the Earth is constantly undergoing 'climate change.' We need to protect our environment - but we also need to be economically viable in the world markets. Be real - All of the non-hydrocarbon and non-nuclear alternate energy sources combined in the mid-1970s would only account for 5% of the world's energy needs. I don't believe that technology has taken us significantly from that 5%. We must face it - we either are reliant on hydrocarbons for fuel or nuclear power plants until nuclear fusion is perfected.
We all need to do our part to protect the environment but unfortunately the pendulum has swung to far to the other side. Government can not solve the problem, private industry can.
Global warming, like evolution, is "just a theory". So sit back and read your Bible, folks, and you'll have nothing to worry about.
Global Climate Change. There are enough studies that show that human development impacts air quality and water quality. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that urban islands do exist, and that deforested areas are warmer than forested areas. Trees are natural CO2 scrubbers and we need to plant 7 Billion Trees worldwide to undo some of the damage that a world population of 7 billion creates.
Call it the Natural Tropical Expansion and Beachfront Property Relocation Phenomenon
Lets just call it what it is "Global Increased Taxation".
"How the US government wants to use fear to wipe out the Middle Class in America. " or maybe "How the US government will send jobs overseas while increasing costs for the Middle class by at least $1700 a year while telling everyone we can afford it." Apparently they forgot about the multiplier effect so that cost may be 2 to 3 times higher.
Concerning the rapid increase in temperature over the last 100 years, and the fact that the Earth has never seen it before is a bold statement, based on what? I am not trying to stir the pot here just asking a question, as I see it, to many government grants are being protected with such statements. I think it's a shame that our grant system doesn't ask more of researches than just a theory.
Weather Synthesis and its Negation Antithesis
Call it Al Gore's IRA or Al Gore second best invention (behind the internet)
Just call it "Political Hot Air". Climate variability is a natural process. Much larger swings in temperature have occured though history. Earth has never been in a steady state.
The Earth has never seen such a rapid increase in temperature as it has over the last 100 years, period.
Let's call it "evil plan for controlling and bankrupting America"
Ever since our Earth started forming there has been climate change. We will always have climate change, warming and cooling. This seems to be a plan for our tax and spend leaders can afford to pay for their iresponsible dreams. Conserving our resources, searching for sustainability, sources of clean energy will go a long way toward providing our children's future. We could be in an ice age just as easily. Earth Change may be a better phrase.
Change it to "Obama hot air taxes".
How about "Climate Stupid"?
We need to focus on the near and far end-result of severe 'Global warming' to give a minds eye-view of the calamity; perhaps we could identify some massive single events that may be expected such as 'flooded continents', 'Continents under-water', 'World-wide migration', ' barren land- mass worldwide', ' Planet Too hot for life', 'World climate worse than total World-War', 'Wasted World', 'End-Climate', 'Underground World', etc.
"Global Kumbaya"... This way it can be both associated with human and spiritual unity, closeness and compassion, or alluded to in satirical, sarcastic or even cynical ways that suggest blind or false moralizing, hypocrisy, or naively optimistic views of the world and human nature.... Plus we get a catchy uplifting tune to hum.
Cataclysmic alteration of our 'safe from the frigid universe' envelope affects universally.
"Global Climate Change" This is a real phenomenon, is anthropogenic, and will cause a variety of effects world-wide. The cool summer in the US does not reflect what happened world-wide. A shift to 'green' technologies can be viewed as an economic and environmental opportunity. China is positioning itself to be a leader in photovoltaic production, and we are poised to be left in the dust. News media coverage has been poor, with a focus on providing balanced coverage of a topic that is primarily scientific in nature.
How about "Climate Change is contrived false science?" Might be a catchy jingle...
We know from over 2000 years of historical data that climates change, often with great rapidity. One can no longer grow grapes in Vinland, now Greenland, as once occurred, for example. Global sea levels have fluctuated often. Climactic changes may have caused, or significantly contributed to the fall of the Angkor, Mayan, and Incan civilizations. So it will be in the present and future. Whether climate change causes are sunspot activity, methane production, CO2 production, vulcanism, or other effects is less important than preparing for the changes. Better water storage, better seawalls, better drainage and conservation, and other engineering are ways to moderate this. Taxing carbon production so that the world economy is damaged will just shift wealth, not create reasonable engineering solutions to predictable effects.
I don't know what a new word or phrase should be, but I know that it shouldn't include the term "pollution." Greenhouse gas emissions are not like the "pollution" that most people associate with dirty air, so it's not a useful term.
Dallas had the coldest and wetess summer in a long time. Northern Michigan, where my family is didn't get into the 70's until August and for a few days. Looks more and more like we are going to an ice age so the words "warming" is incorrect.
How about "global climate change"? Satirically, it could be "glowball climate change". Either way, we are in for some serious lifestyle changes for billions of people. "Mitigating" is a technology word for "coping". I prefer coping. It is less intimidating and more understandable. Like the word "works" instead of "functionality".