Why is it still called Climate Change instead of Global Warming?
- Thread starter JEDI
- Start date
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
boomerang
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2000
- 18,883
- 641
- 126
The term 'Global Warming" is too limiting. Climate Change on the other hand is an all encompassing term that can apply to anything that may happen - anything.
As an example, Al Gore doesn't want the cash cow killed solely by the use of the wrong terminology. He's set himself up to profit outrageously from this latest crisis.
Redistribution of wealth sounds great to the unwashed masses. But the harsh reality is that a lot of Dem's are rolling in cash. They don't really want their lifestyles to be affected. So, you get all the people to assume the financial burden of reversing 'Climate Change', but you structure it in a manner such that the proceeds get funneled back into the pockets of the rich. It's really shear brilliance if you think of it.
The public is being played again by the same players that have been doing it for ages - politicians. What's important is to maintain their lifestyles. They're humans just like the rest of us. Their time here on this earth is finite. Whether these problems are real or imagined makes no real difference to them. It's all about the money. It's always about the money.
Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns
As an example, Al Gore doesn't want the cash cow killed solely by the use of the wrong terminology. He's set himself up to profit outrageously from this latest crisis.
Redistribution of wealth sounds great to the unwashed masses. But the harsh reality is that a lot of Dem's are rolling in cash. They don't really want their lifestyles to be affected. So, you get all the people to assume the financial burden of reversing 'Climate Change', but you structure it in a manner such that the proceeds get funneled back into the pockets of the rich. It's really shear brilliance if you think of it.
The public is being played again by the same players that have been doing it for ages - politicians. What's important is to maintain their lifestyles. They're humans just like the rest of us. Their time here on this earth is finite. Whether these problems are real or imagined makes no real difference to them. It's all about the money. It's always about the money.
Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns
Another thread to bring out the deniers. And here they are.
If you actually read the science (not talking points from either side, the science), there really isn't any debate about it. You can argue some of the finer points about it, but there's no debate.
But, that' would require actual thought and challenging one's own preconceptions, so most people would rather not do that.
If you actually read the science (not talking points from either side, the science), there really isn't any debate about it. You can argue some of the finer points about it, but there's no debate.
But, that' would require actual thought and challenging one's own preconceptions, so most people would rather not do that.
'Global cooling' never really existed as a scientific theory. (at least one with any significant support)
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Awwww CAD, I'm glad you're back too. I would argue global warming with you, but you would probably complain that we were using climatology definitions for words instead of ones you invented in your basement.
EXman
Lifer
- Jul 12, 2001
- 20,079
- 15
- 81
No after many of their conferences on gobal warming were snowed out they decided that they looked like arrogant turds predicting warming just so they can make a buck.
It's all about Money for Gore. Follow the money trail. It's all a marketing scheme to sell green products that have little or zero marketability unless they are mandated by the government.
Facepalm all you want Look Where Gore is dumping his resources in. Go Look at his house, jets, cars, lifestyle... guy is an energy animal.
Yes, I'm sure you're totally correct.
Your post definitely makes me want to facepalm some more though.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Your hatred has made you retarded (or maybe you were before then, I don't know). But, but, but Gore, GAFL.
EXman
Lifer
- Jul 12, 2001
- 20,079
- 15
- 81
I learned it from you BUSH BUSH BUSH people at least you cannot refute the global warming conferances getting snowed out in D.C.
Please don't tell me Global warming is proven to be man made. When most research has been paid for by people that have an agenda. Just because you say something is so and you get a lot of opinions does not make it fact. Period.
EXman
Lifer
- Jul 12, 2001
- 20,079
- 15
- 81
shocking post!
Want to refute Gores lifestyle?
Want to refute that many gobal warming conferances got snowed out in the springtime?
Want to refute that Gore is investing heavily in so called "green" alternatives?
Want to refute that GW was the buzzword for years until they looked rediculous and wanted to call it "Climate Change" this way they could be more ambigous and cover every angle.
Want to refute that the world has not gone through many different climate chages in it's lifetime?
Nope you'd rather just point and laugh just like what the liberal playbook tells you to do. Facts be damned just swiftboat people you saw how that worked. Why bother using your brain.
How Karl Rove of you.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,699
- 6,257
- 126
Originally posted by: EXman
shocking post!
Want to refute Gores lifestyle?
Want to refute that many gobal warming conferances got snowed out in the springtime?
Want to refute that Gore is investing heavily in so called "green" alternatives?
Want to refute that GW was the buzzword for years until they looked rediculous and wanted to call it "Climate Change" this way they could be more ambigous and cover every angle.
Want to refute that the world has not gone through many different climate chages in it's lifetime?
Nope you'd rather just point and laugh just like what the liberal playbook tells you to do. Facts be damned just swiftboat people you saw how that worked. Why bother using your brain.
How Karl Rove of you.
Total Fail. All your points are completely Wrong or completely Moot.
Originally posted by: EXman
shocking post!
Want to refute Gores lifestyle?
Want to refute that many gobal warming conferances got snowed out in the springtime?
Want to refute that Gore is investing heavily in so called "green" alternatives?
Want to refute that GW was the buzzword for years until they looked rediculous and wanted to call it "Climate Change" this way they could be more ambigous and cover every angle.
Want to refute that the world has not gone through many different climate chages in it's lifetime?
Nope you'd rather just point and laugh just like what the liberal playbook tells you to do. Facts be damned just swiftboat people you saw how that worked. Why bother using your brain.
How Karl Rove of you.
No I don't want to refute Gore's lifestyle, it's irrelevant as to whether or not global warming is true.
No I don't want to refute the local weather conditions in a debate about planetary systems, it's irrelevant as to whether or not global warming is true.
No I don't want to refute that Gore is investing in businesses he thinks will be successful, it's irrelevant as to whether or not global warming is true.
No I don't want to refute whether or not global warming was the buzzword for years until they altered it to climate change, it's irrelevant as to whether or not global warming is true.
No I don't want to refute that the world has gone through many different climate changes in the past, that alone is not indicative of whether or not global warming is true.
I'm pointing and laughing at you, but it's because your argument is hilariously stupid.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: EXman
shocking post!
Want to refute Gores lifestyle?
Want to refute that many gobal warming conferances got snowed out in the springtime?
Want to refute that Gore is investing heavily in so called "green" alternatives?
Want to refute that GW was the buzzword for years until they looked rediculous and wanted to call it "Climate Change" this way they could be more ambigous and cover every angle.
Want to refute that the world has not gone through many different climate chages in it's lifetime?
Nope you'd rather just point and laugh just like what the liberal playbook tells you to do. Facts be damned just swiftboat people you saw how that worked. Why bother using your brain.
How Karl Rove of you.
Total Fail. All your points are completely Wrong or completely Moot.
That is what is nice about ATOT...even members like Exman can post, even if they know nothing about the subject!!
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Scientifically speaking, I thought climate change was a more appropriate term. The entire Earth may get warmer as a whole, but certain regions may not get any warmer and in fact, may get cooler due to shifting currents and such.
0marTheZealot is correct. The fact is that the planet is warming. Speaking of climate change encompasses all of the differences it will make in various regions of the planet.
One of the reasons for the change in terminology was the large number of people that were too dense to understand that "global warming" did not simply mean "everywhere will get hotter".
One of the reasons for the change in terminology was the large number of people that were too dense to understand that "global warming" did not simply mean "everywhere will get hotter".
You know, I don't care if global warming is true or not. I think the important thing, no matter what, is if we get things like pollution and deforestation etc under control. I think we all know that the things that cause global warming have already been proven to be bad for the environment, so why don't we just go ahead and pass the regulations needed to control environmental damage? I guess getting it passed is the problem. But for the people on this board, obviously you are daft to think that the things that cause climate change are not harmful for the environment, whether or not you believe in climate change or global warming anyway. And don't ask me to prove that these things are harmful to the environment b/c you would have to have been living under a rock since the 70s to not know this.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter