When global warming proponents finally admit....?

Question

the climate sometimes changes naturally, will they then insist on calling it "man-made climate irregularity" to differentiate it from normal climate change? Kind of like changing "global warming" to "climate change", since warming hasn't actually been "global" or always "present"...

Answer 1

This is just earth doing it's thing. It changes, so what? This has happened before, so we'll be fine.

But on the other hand we have had an ice age....

But that happened naturally because of the ellipses. We are supposed to be in a tightening ellipse orbit towards the sun, and that means a warmer climate.

Answer 2

It is climate change.... cause after the earth has done what it's going to do to warm (whether physically inclined or human) it's going to start freezing again....

so then when the earth starts to cool rapidly, would it still be called warming?

Answer 3

It is propagated by the LEFT to blame on Bush.

Answer 4

The natural impact of natural change is considered.  That is why scientist and sure much of the change is caused by human activity.  When will denialist recognize this fact?

Answer 5

They still haven't admitted they were wrong during the last big scare:

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.—Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.—Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.

—Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.—Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.—Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity…in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.—Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.—Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.—Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

Answer 6

Probably--- GW becomes Climate Change, Handicap becomes Challenged, g*y becomes Alternate Lifestyle, Illegal Aliens become Undocumented Workers---

Do you see a "pattern" here?

Answer 7

There's no clear point of reference for them to acknowledge. How can you show an increase in temps, when there's no optimal baseline. If out of the kindness of your heart, you give them credit for an ~ .5(?) increase that leaves ~ 95.%(?) due to nature. They like to state that increases in temps are mostly man made. They never represent true numbers, which is their best game. I know you've seen the statement; "(Mostly us)", a thousand times. Yet they still don't attribute the fact that out of that ~.5(?) increase, 20% is still a natural occurring C13 isotope. Which is going to reduce man made influence even farther. Yeah,  I've heard it before...I'm representing ratios with temp's, but until they come up with an optimal temp, why can't I play the same game? Now you got me wondering...how do they associate this cooling with  no clear/defined reference?

Answer 8

You mean to tell me that scientists havent already thought about all that?

Answer 9

When they find something else that will scare the public more.

Answer 10

If they admit that it's just a scam intending to raise taxes and make energy harder to afford, no one would fall for it.

They have to give it a nice name and say things like baby polar bears are dying and the ice caps are melting.  This way they get the truly ignorant to support the cause because they're too lazy to research and find out that they are being lied to.

It's not working though because most are finding out the whole "man-made global warming" scam is just a hoax.  The politicians have latched onto it, but we have to fight to keep from being taxed into the ground.

The price of gasoline is directly related to the hoax of man-made global warming.  We need to wake up to these fascist environmentalists before it's too late.

Answer 11

There's a term - anthropogenic global warming (AGW).  Maybe you've heard of it?

Answer 12

They won't admit they're wrong, because it really isn't about climate.  It's about political manipulation and their goal hasn't been reached yet.  Unfortunately though, it seems like they're getting off to a pretty good start.

Science is a good tool for them to use to promote socialism because it takes a long time to study theories like this, and by then kids will probably be born with green hair.  Everything else is going green these days it seems.

Answer 13

Global warming is only a hoax to bring the country down. if you look at the natural history chart of temperature we are in a warming trend. Due to reduction of Arctic Ice this is a natural Cycle check the chart in the link unless there was a previous industrial revolution 400,000 years ago and every one hundred thousand years after wards. This proves it's not man made because Man wasn't here the last several times this happened. this is their data and cannot be refuted. besides it's extremely Vain as a human race to think we actually control any thing other than our diet and exercise on this vast planet. we are still very small and insignificant compared to the earth.

Answer 14

Global warming is, indeed, a natural cyclical event taking place over tens of thousands of years. But, man's 'industrial revolution' of these past 150 years has contributed to the acceleration of the natural process, not allowing many plant and animal species sufficient time to adapt to the coming climate changes.

I suspect that most who post juvenlie responses to this question are single, young (probably under 20 years old), and uninformed (since few of them bother to provide any sources or links to back up their statements about global warming being a 'hoax').

But one day most of you will marry, have children, and then have grand-children and great-grandchildren. And when your beautiful little grandchild climbs up on your knee and asks about global warming and what you did to protect and preserve the environment, HOW WILL YOU ANSWER HER?

As she struggle to breathe fresh air through some kind of gas-mask-like contraption, how will you tell her that you didn't believe air pollution was a serious problem?

When she can't find enough fresh drinking water, how will you try to tell her that you didn't believe those silly scientists who warned you about the deterioration of the Earth?

When she asks you why you had to drive a gas-guzzling SUV or Hummer, will you be honest and admit that it was all because of your own arrogance, avarice, ignorance, sloth and hubris that caused you to waste the natural resources here on Earth?

When you discover that she has a terminal illness and needs protection from infection, will you be able to look her in the eye and tell her she could have had a life-saving treatment if you and your peers had simply bothered to save the ugly, lowly horse shoe crab*?

And even if it would be proven - against all odds - that global warming isn't the big threat most scientists beleive it to be: how will you explain to her that you squandered all of Earth's beauty and bounty just for the sake of your own profit, comfort or convenience?

There's nothing wrong with conservation and preservation, even if we CAN afford to waste fuel on gas-guzzlers; chop down rain forests so we can eat cheap BigMacs; destroy caribou migration patterns so we can plunder more OIL from the Earth; decimate mangrove forests and kill off all those horse shoe crabs*.

Our great-grandchildren will pay dearly for our gluttony. I hope you practice your answers before she starts asking all the hard questions!   -RKO-  07/02/08