Why do people talk about global warming in the present tense?

Question

Believers talk about warming in the present tense as if were happening now, not just 10 years ago.

If we don't assume that whatever caused the 1970 to 1998 warming is going to persist, then why would be believe it is warming right now?

Is the proof of significant AGW a circular one (ie if we assume AGW is real and significant, then we can prove it's real and significant).

Answer 1

The phrase, Global Warming is an acknowledgement that Gobal warming is due to past actions, present actions and that it is a continous process, if nothing to done to address it.   It is a continous tense.   In the 70's and 80's, environment issues were placed in the "back burner", pardon the pun, in favour of Industrialisation.   People were more concerned with making money.   Also, the Environment Groups had a tough time getting the message across to the masses that the earth was being destroyed. Now, with all the climate changes happening...some very obvious, like the reduction of the polar ice caps...freaky weather..and such, more people have taken note of the effects of global warming.  The introduction of the Internet as a meduim to connect to the masses has also helped to create a awareness amongst the people of the world.

Answer 2

Because the fact that one year, 1998, was unusually warm, has no great meaning.

The 5 year average (the red line) shows that warming is continuing.  You can place 1998 in its' proper context, and real scientists do.  This argument is laughed at by scientists, who understand the difference between "signal" and "noise".

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

This kind of denier (the term is very appropriate here) argument is exactly what these people are talking about:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

Utter nonsense.

Answer 3

i have a feeling that its just a cycle of nature but we cant ignore what green house gas's could possible be doing

Answer 4

The Left is stealing your birth right. If they are successful there will not be a working class like the rest of the world. A working will not be able to own a car,it that what U want.

Answer 5

dude,it is all a scam to grab more of your $$$$$ ! visit  http://globalwarmingheartland.org

Answer 6

Most if not all the proponents, speak in terms of 'hyperbole'. It's often over emphasized to their gratification, not science. I would even go as far to state that only 2 alarmist, actually use science in the literal sense. The rest use euphemism's, and vague analogies. Yes some of the things they consider paramount have conflicting data, (ie; 1998-vs-2005). That was a selective comparison, but if one looks hard enough the truth comes to light. The data ignored polar oceans temps, and anomalies. The current PDO also caught them with their pants down, but you didn't need to hear that.

Answer 7

They're going to tell you to look at "five year averages" - adjusted to reduce deviation from the mean.

And if in five years that analysis posted on a graph no longer shows an upward slope, they'll change it to the ten year average, with whatever adjustments they need to make.

And if in ten years that no longer works, they'll tell you to take the 20 year average.

All of 1999 the only thing they had to say was that the prior year had been the "warmest year on record."

Believe me, in 2009, they won't be talking about 2008.

Their story, the way they frame the evidence, changes so that they can with a straight face argue that it is in fact still warming.

And to point to the dinosaur age is ridiculous.    Not all past warming periods are understood, and we know that they weren't all CO2-driven.   We also know that those that were CO2-driven involved massive increases - - - "the dinosaur age" involved CO2 levels 12-15 times today's levels.    1500 percent.  We've had an increase of less than 30%.   And we're not going to keep burning oil for thousands of years - - it will run out - or rather, be used up to the extent where it makes economic sense to switch to another resource.   Not tomorrow but in 200 years.    Honestly, even if it IS us, that would bring us about to Holocene Maximum levels of temperature - - not "unprecedented" within human history at all.

They grasp at straws.

Answer 8

Hello

Sea is raising

Heavy unseasonal rain

Earthquake and Tsunami

The above are affects of Global warming

Answer 9

I agree to this...but things will change

Answer 10

I'm not sure that I understand the argument you are tabling, but I fear that you are trying to argue semantics against scientific evidence.

We use the present tense for AGW because scientists are studying the effects of man on our climate now.

"Is the proof of significant AGW a circular one (ie if we assume AGW is real and significant, then we can prove it's real and significant)."

I don't understand your question here, but I think we can prove that global warming is significant. Previous warming and cooling trends have shaped our world significantly. The warm period of the dinosaur age allowed gargantuan lizards (cold blooded animals that get their heat from the sun) to rule the earth. The large ice ages the earth has experienced have given rise to mammals in place of the dinosaurs.

If there's a remote chance that AGW exists, isn't it our responsibility to do something about it?

Answer 11

Well i'm a skeptic just like you Ben O and i keep giving you thumbs up in my questions cause you give awesom answers!

They do the present tense thing because then it get you used to the idea of present tense so then suddenly they go "NOW YOU HAVE TO ACT!" and go all present tense on when you have to do/act. Its a demanding tone in my words!