Is it giving them too much credit to even refer to "AGW" or "Global Warming" or "Climate Change"?

Question

The climate always changes - so "climate change" is a meaningless term.

As for AGW and "global warming" - - - - - isn't it more accurate to look at the bigger picture and refer to "the philosophy that America, industrialization and the free market suck and must be stopped" and just consider AGW/global warming to be the latest in dozens of iterations of that philosophy?

Because, in 25 years, when the global warming scare is long over, does anyone doubt that UCS, Greenpeace, PIRG, Sierra Club, and Y/A posters who call everyone "deniers" and cite their own blog entries as source material will have simply jumped on the NEXT anti-modern-civilization bandwagon?

Isn't this just the latest resurgence of the many-times-de-bunked Malthusian Catastrophe?

Answer 1

Point 1: "Climate change" is an accepted shorthand way of referring to a complex topic. It is similar to saying "America" instead of "The Untied States of America" even though the USA is not really synonymous with "America". Trying to use it in its literal sense is simply a matter of semantics - a typical strategy that many deniers use to deflect debnate away from core issues.

Point 2: You say we should refer to "the philosophy that America, industrialization and the free market suck and must be stopped". This is in quotes - please give the source for this so we know how to refute it.

Or is it just your statement that you are trying to attribute to AGW proponents? Another typical strategy by the deniers - a mud-slinging campaign founded on untruths.

There may be some truth to your argument - it is possible, after all (if highly unlikely), that current AGW theories will be found inaccurate - that is how science works.

Unfortunately, you have dressed it up in so much "red-under-the-bed", conspiracy-theory paranoia that the argument gets lost.

You also demonstrate a third typical mistake by deniers: Blinkered egocentricism. The issue is GLOBAL warming. Your entire question revolves around the USA when the USA is the nation that is possibly least affected (for now) by AGW and the nation that is doing the least about it. If the AGW "movement" is actually a conspiracy theory to tear down the USA, why has it had its most success in places as disparate as Costa Rica, Portugal, Singapore, etc?

So the answers to your four questions are:

No, it isn't giving them too much credit

No, it isn't more accurate

Yes, at least one person doubts (you ask if "anyONE")

Possibly

Answer 2

yup, you got it right...if 'Obamanation' wins, you can depend upon a significant move toward socialization, and the elevation of 'environmentalism' to the new state religion...good question Randall E

Answer 3

what are you talking about?

pollution already kills people! save the environment!

Answer 4

That sums it up.  A power grab, by folks that don't have any because their views are so extreme.

Only CO2 put out by democracies is bad, CO2 emitted by the Chicoms and India is "okay".

I think their ideal is OTHER people all living in huts, on the edge of starvation, watching their children die before age five.  As long as they don't have to live it themselves.

Answer 5

1. Climate always changes, so "Climate Change" is a perfect term. And before scientist cloned the term, you probably had no clue as to how and how often climate changed, so your objection to the term is puzzling to say the least.

2. It's more accurate to look at AGW in the sense that scientists see CO2 as a climate forcing agent, not as an enemy of the market. If, in the long run, AGW affects the market in a negative fashion, it's because we failed to act.

3. You always, along with Jello, admonish anyone who attempts to predict future warming, yet you are predicting warming will end and we'll magically realize scientists were all wrong and you, along with Jello again, with all your scientific knowledge, were correct. Tell you what; I'll throw my support in with mainstream science.

4. I don't cite blogs. I cite NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, AIP, GSA, AGU and so on.

5. The only thing that has taken over Green is the public, and you don't like it. Industry has befriended Green. The free market seems to be doing quit well with Green products, if you notice all the commercials. With the free market thriving with Green products, that debunks your position.

6. No one is talking "Malthusian Catastrophe" except for you. But it's not beyond reason.

7. Your Straw Man arguments are pathetic.

Answer 6

Exactly - This is a war on Capitalism, a war on those who are successful. a war on intelligence.  Science is not taking a vote to see if the majority, or a consensus agree that an idea is correct, but the ability of smart people to determine the calculations that show us the cause and effect co2 has on the environment.  No one knows if it will be warmer or colder in the future, let alone show you how they came to their conclusion.

"Global Warming" is just a SWAG, nothing more.

Answer 7

You certainly hit the nail on the head there! Well done.

I am constantly furious at the rhetoric of hippies, neo-Luddites, and the "left" ; anti-human, anti-technology attitudes designed to plant seeds of doubt in our science and our achievements. A handful of anti-progress lunatics disseminating their anarchic nonsense through feeble-minded groups of people with a point to make, have managed to have their nonsensical worldview legitimised. Just like the progenitors of the Malthusian catastrophe of which you speak just simply moved the dates of the so-called "end of the world", so too do AGW pundits conveniently couch their predictions in "years to come" terms.

Nobody likes pollution. Nobody likes our lakes and waterways being poisoned. But trying to foist some "Chicken Little" disaster on the human race in an effort to push their barrow, is nothing short of terrorism...