Slashdot Mirror
Let's Call It 'Climate Disruption,' White House Science Adviser Suggests (Again)
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "First there was 'global warming.' Then many researchers suggested 'climate change' was a better term. Now, White House science adviser John Holdren is renewing his call for a new nomenclature to describe the end result of dumping vast quantities of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into Earth's atmosphere: 'global climate disruption.'"
Nothing is permanent. They earth's climate has 'changed' drastically over several billion years.
And disruption really is more accurate. The data really does support that anthropogenic inputs have altered the natural climate flows (along with meteors, volcanoes and perhaps some other things, but this time it's all about us). And this will disrupt many human activities (I suppose it will also change them).
Still and all it's semantics and unlikely to make a dent in the noise surrounding the topic.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
It usually turns out that those things use *more* resources than the alternative, hence why they are more expensive. You may save an ounce of oil from the plastics but you use two on the paper processing.
If the science behind global warming is so fake, why don't you expose it and convince everyone it's fake? I see people thinking they're doing that all the time, but I haven't seen one good argument to suggest that our carbon dioxide emissions are not causing significant warming.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Incorrect. The guy stuck his neck out making GW his cause and trying to promote activism to reverse it. I'm big into documentaries and there have been dozens since that have come out that are just as important that barely made a whiff in theaters. It's ludicrous to think that someone would use the documentary genre to get rich. Al Gore's efforts took off and to add to that he turned out to be a damned good businessman with his Current network.
Besides, the way to get rich is to be a scientist on the take from Big Oil who uses is credentials to pretend GW isn't real.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The problem with that is that "the greenhouse effect" is a *cause*, but "climate change" is a *result*
An effect is not a cause. For example, the second definition from that link:
an event, condition, or state of affairs that is produced by a cause
Anything is a pollutant of there's too much of it in the wrong place.
Watch this Heartland Institute video