I use the term "global warming" for two reasons: it bothers the Right Sort of people, and it accurately describes the debate - after all, nobody is talking about declining temperatures. It's a more honest label.
Coyote Blog finishes up his great series of posts on the science of global warming. I've been meaning to update my Should You Be A Global Warming Skeptic? post for a couple years now, but this series is more complete.
Highly recommended if you actually want to know the state of the science.
3 comments:
"Global Warming" has all the Hallmarks of a religion.
Bad things will happen at some indeterminate point in the future unless we make sacrifices RIGHT NOW . Don't ask too many questions just believe what we say as "the truth". And no we can't actually prove anything.... You'll just have to believe the priest .
You know, if global warming were something people REALLY believed in, I'd be able to buy oceanfront property dirt cheap (because of the expectation that it'd be underwater soon). Because I can't, I can reasonably conclude that at least the smart money doesn't really believe in global warming.
In real estate purchases, there is truth.
BP, I remember you writing - a long time ago - that global warming washed you socks and made a great grilled cheese sandwich.
I'm all for returning to the use of "global warming" in the debate. That's where it started: BearManPig's movie-based accusations that the planet is warming faster than any time in its past, the glaciers are melting, and the seas are rising at a catastrophic rate.
When a religionist says "climate change", I respond by asking "don't you mean global warming?" and usually get either an angry glance or an insult in return.
And when they say "no, climate change', I tell them that the climate has been constantly changing since the planet was formed - and then ask them to explain the ice cores that show plant growth *under* the ice sheet in Greenland (North Greenland Ice Core Project).
Science.
Post a Comment