Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to CNN we should remember global warming also causes global cooling, and that any confusion is the fault of the Republicans.
Is it climate change or global warming? How science and a secret memo shaped the answer
By Jen Christensen, CNN
Updated 1423 GMT (2223 HKT) March 2, 2019
…
It’s complicated
“The term ‘global warming’ confuses people because it triggers thoughts about warmth, and it sort of lends itself to misinterpretation when it also impacts the cold,” said Mike Hulme, a professor of human geography at the University of Cambridge whose work focuses on the way climate change is discussed in public and political conversations.
…
“You could think of global warming as the large macroperspective phenomenon,” said Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science and an affiliated professor of Earth and planetary sciences at Harvard University who focuses on climate change. “Climate is more complicated.”The term ‘global warming’ also doesn’t get at how it impacts weather locally and regionally.”
…In 2002, GOP strategist Frank Luntz sent a memo to Republican candidates to create an environmental strategy. He argued that the environment is “probably the single issue on which Republicans in general — and President George W. Bush in particular — are most vulnerable.”
The memo suggests that candidates express their “sincerity and concern” about the environment, but he also wanted them to downplay concerns.…
So, which is it?
When people ask Yale’s Leiserowitz whether it’s climate change or global warming, he tells them he uses both.
“The key thing about terms like this is, they are plastic. Or, well, maybe since we are talking about the environment, we should say words are renewable organic latex or something,” Leiserowitz joked. “Essentially, meaning changes.”…
Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/02/world/global-warming-climate-change-language-scn/index.html
The CNN article left out another interesting memo from Climategate, in which the climate scientists themselves discussed the marketing advantages of switching from using “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”;
date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:53:26 -0000
from: “Bo Kjellen” [redacted]
subject: RE: FWD: Abrupt Climate Change
to: “‘Asher Minns'” [redacted], [redacted], [redacted]
Dear Asher, and all,
I think this is a real problem, and I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming. But somehow I also feel that one needs to add the dimension of the earth system, and the fact that human beings for the first time ever are able to impact on that system. That is why the IGBP in a recent publication “Global Change and the Earth System” underline that we now live in the anthropocene period. Climate change is one of the central elements of this process, but not the only one: loss of biological diversity, water stress, land degradation with loss of topsoil, etc etc all form part of this – and they are all linked in some way or another. Therefore a central message probably has to be that humans are now interfering with extremely large and heavy global systems, of which we know relatively little: we are in a totally new situation for the human species, and our impact added to all the natural variations that exist risks to unsettle subtle balances and create tensions within the systems which might also lead to “flip-over” effects with short-term consequences that might be very dangerous.…
Climategate Email 4141.txt
It is possible that when climate scientists wrote the 2004 Climategate email they were worried that the abrupt drop in temperatures since 1998 would continue.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Step right up to some climate word salad, folks. Just remember, our words have no meaning at all.
As far as gibberetic word salads are concerned, I liked “macroperspective phenomenon” — 9 syllables in only two words, no meaning. What a masterful display!
The inestimable and lovely Dr Oreskes can always be counted on for such logarrheic verbal outputs.
The IPCC was established by the UN and WMO in 1988; so more than 30 years ago. It has always been called the ‘IPCC’. The ‘CC’ part of its acronym doesn’t stand for ‘Global Warming’.
No, and in their official charter (UNFCC treaty) “Climate Change” is specifically defined as being caused exclusively by human agency.
Another good example. That document was adopted by the UN in 1992. It contains the term ‘climate change’ about 2 dozen times. The term ‘global warming’ isn’t used once (pdf): https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
It was 1989 when the first 12-years-away doomsday prediction was made by the UN. It said we had until the year 2000 to do something or entire nations would be wiped off the face of the Earth..
See kids, the latest 12-years-away doomsday prediction by the promoters of CAGW from the UN and elsewhere is just another in a long list of failed predictions by these people. This particular prediction has not failed yet, but there is no indication that we are headed in that direction, in fact, we are headed in the opposite direction with global cooling taking place over the last three years. So takes these predictions with a grain of salt, and keep in mind that they haven’t been correct yet.
Doomsday predictions are used as a method of stampeding people into doing things they wouldn’t otherwise do. The problem for those promoting CAGW now is they have made so many predictions that have failed that they are now in the position of the boy who cried wolf all the time, when there was no wolf, until the townspeople finally stopped paying attention to his cries..
A single usage proves that everyone was using the phrase.
All the examples of people referring to Global Warming didn’t happen?
There is a problem with their double speak, of warming and cooling.
Their models only predict warming.
Are they now going to tune them so that warming is cooling. I know, just turn the chart upside down.
Regards
“The CNN article left out another interesting memo from Climategate, in which the climate scientists themselves discussed the marketing advantages of switching from using “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”;”
“date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:53:26 -0000
from: “Bo Kjellen” [redacted]
subject: RE: FWD: Abrupt Climate Change
Mr Worrell FYI….
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess climate change based on the latest science.”
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html
Has anyone else noticed that the IPCC website has changed.
They no longer have their Mission Statement, they no longer talk about assessing Human Caused Global Warming etc.
What happened to their “Principles Governing IPCC Work” where it stated the IPCC will assess:
the risk of human-induced climate change,
its potential impacts, and
possible options for prevention.
Also, it appears they did a stealth edit to the TAR Technical summary: they changed the sentence “The climate system is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” to “The climate system is a coupled non-linear
chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.”
when it also impacts the cold,”
Isn’t that what warmth does ?
In the 1970’s it was “global cooling.” In the 1990’s it was “global warming.” In the 2000’s the alarmists finalized realize they didn’t know if the Earth was cooling or warming, so they called it “climate change.”
The root fact is that without the so called problems with the molecule CO2, the whole of this great big “Problem” would not exist.
Now despite the millions of printed words about CO2, and its so called effects, I for one do not clearly understand jut what actually happens when a Photon of energy from the Sun actually strikes a CO2 molecule.
But what I do know from living in the semi desert climate of South Aust alia is that following a very hot day, like right now, if the humidity is low, a normal situation, then at night something causes the air temperature to drop very quickly.
So minus that other who called greenhouse gas, H2O, is it CO2 which has gone into reverse. As it will respond to the heat energy froth Sun during the day, does it also respond to the heat energy in the air and again in working its “Magic” alter the frequency and re- radiate that energy in all directions, with a large amount going to Space. Hence at night in dry conditions CO2 does appear to cool.
The old newsreels from the desert war in WW2, shows the troops at night with thick greatcoats on as it was very cold.
MJE
” is it CO2 which has gone into reverse”
No, but CO2 only absorbs in a relatively narrow band, in contrast to water vapor, so in a dry atmosphere heat is quickly lost into space. I’m not from Oz myself but I’ve been there quite a lot, so I know how cold the desert nights can be. I’ve even scraped ice off the windscreen up in the Flinders Ranges.
It seems that the CO2 effect would be most obvious in deserts where water vapor is less of a factor. Has anyone shown that deserts are warmer at night now than they were fifty years ago?
If you can control the language, you control everything.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Off topic, but I just “read” (google translation) the german wikipedia on the greenhouse effect :
“Probleme haben manche mit der Energie, die die Treibhausgase in Richtung Erdoberfläche abstrahlen (169 W/m² – wie schon oben genannt), da diese Energie von einem kühleren Körper (etwa −40 °C) zu dem wärmeren Körper (Erdoberfläche etwa +14 °C) strömt und dieses angeblich dem II. Hauptsatz der Thermodynamik widerspreche. Das ist aber eine falsche Interpretation, denn er lässt die Solareinstrahlung (von sogar 6000 K) unberücksichtigt, in der Bilanz ist wieder der II. Hauptsatz erfüllt (siehe auch Strahlungsaustausch).”
Traduction (with google) :
“Some people have problems with the energy that greenhouse gases emit towards the earth’s surface (169 W / m² – as mentioned above), as this energy reaches from a cooler body (about -40 ° C) to the warmer body (earth surface about +14 ° C) and this allegedly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But this is a wrong interpretation, because it allows the solar irradiation (of even 6000 K) disregarded, in the balance is again the II. Main clause met (see also radiation exchange).”
So, the German wiki is saying that the greenhouse effect exists because of the Sun irradiation which permits atmosphere to warm the ground while respecting the second law of thermodynamics.
Have I to conclude that greenhouse effect only exists in daylight ?
The all thing is getting more and more ludicrous.
That is an idiot explanation. There is no mechanism that prevents a photon from a colder object to be emitted and then absorbed by a warmer one. The photon doesn’t carry a card telling the temperature at which it was emitted.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statistical law. It says that the net heat flow is always from warmer to colder. IR from the colder atmosphere to the warmer ground can’t heat the ground, but it can cause it to cool more slowly than it would have done otherwise.
It is weird how few people actually understand the Greenhouse Effect, even among supposed scientists.
You speak with such authority when you say “The photon doesn’t carry a card telling the temperature at which it was emitted.”
Yet it does, in 2 ways first it’s vibrational frequency and second it’s Electron Energy.
If vibrational frequency doesn’t matter why do CO2 Molecules ONLY absorb and transmit in the 15-18 Micron band? How do the CO2 molecules know which Radiation to absorb?
If as you suggest all photons making up Radiation are identical that makes all Radiation identical as well.
So are you prepared to “Sunbathe” for 8 hours in UV Rays or X Rays or Gamma Rays or Beta Rays?
The temperature of the molecule doesn’t matter. All that matters is that there is sufficient energy in the relevant electron shell to emit a photon.
The temperature of the receiving doesn’t matter, all that matters is whether there is “room” in one of the electron shells to absorb the energy of the photon.
“So are you prepared to “Sunbathe” for 8 hours in UV Rays or X Rays or Gamma Rays or Beta Rays?”
Beta Rays aren’t even photons, they are electrons.
Let us say that we have a photon with 16 micron wavelength.
How do you tell whether it was:
1. Emitted by a vibrating CO2 molecule
2. Came from the low-temperature shoulder of a hot Black Body radiator
3. Came from the high-temperature shoulder of a coolBlack Body radiator
4. Or from something else
If you have a method of telling this I can virtually guarantee that you will be going to Stockholm to pick up your Physics Nobekl Prize fairly soon.
By the way I am living in a Precambrian shield area with a fairly high uranium content, so in a way i have been sunbathing in gamma rays all my life.
“Beta Rays aren’t even photons, they are electrons.”, OK but Gamma, Xray and UV are photon based, so I ask you the question again, would you sunbathe in Gamma, Xray or UV?
So you two do not believe that Photon’s have a frequency then.
OK, Physics is wrong, as in “The energy and momentum of a photon depend only on its frequency (ν) or inversely, its wavelength (λ): “.
AC, the mis-understanding here is yours. The energy of a photon is independent of the total energy of the atom that emitted it.
When a photon is absorbed, an electron jumps from one shell to a higher one. The amount of energy needed to make each jump determines the amount of energy that can be absorbed. If a photon with a different amount of energy hits the atom, it will have no affect on the atom.
Emission is the same process in reverse. When an electron drops from one shell to a lower one, a photon is given off. The energy of the photon once again depends on the difference in energy between the two shells.
As you can see. There is nothing in the above description that depends on the temperature of the atom.
MarkW, I have mis-understood nothing.
The comment I answered was “The photon doesn’t carry a card telling the temperature at which it was emitted.”
Whereas I showed that they do indeed have a very distinct calling card.
Just like tty you speak with such authority when in fact you are wrong.
We are discussing CO2 MOLECULES here not individual ATOMS.
If photons are all alike and just photons please explain why CO2 Molecules in the 13-18 Micron band do NOT Absorb and re-emit White Light, UV and Xrays, only LWIR?
Do those photons not actually have more energy than LWIR?
Shouldn’t those CO2 molecules be Blocking the Extra Energetic Photons from the Sun that do all the actual warming?
Why haven’t I read about that?
Come to think of it you say “If a photon with a different amount of energy hits the atom, it will have no affect on the atom.”
So the ENERGY is the calling card.
Thankyou for confirming it for me.
MarkW March 4, 2019 at 7:32 am
” There is nothing in the above description that depends on the temperature of the atom.”
So the photons that make up the Radiation being emitted do not reflect the Temperature of the object it comes from?
OK.
>>
So the ENERGY is the calling card.
Thankyou for confirming it for me.
<<
It’s not for temperature. To determine temperature, you need lots of photons from the same source. Say we have three black bodies: the Sun (which is a reasonably good black body), the CMBR, cosmic microwave background radiation (which is an excellent source of black body radiation), and the Earth (which as a black body, is not so much). They all emit a photon at the same energy (say 9 microns). Black bodies emit at all frequencies, so this is possible. Now tell me which source each photon comes from based solely on its energy?
Jim
How can IR radiation to the ground not heat the ground? That’s like saying that the IR part of sunlight doesn’t warm the Earth to begin with.
It doesn’t cause cooling to happen more slowly. According to Stefan-Boltzmann and the Laws of Thermodynamics it increases the IR radiation from the surface of the Earth and increases conductive flow from the surface of the Earth to the cooler atmosphere, which then radiates it into space. Thus the cooling happens at a faster rate, not a slower one.
The *net* flow has to do with the warmer body radiating and conducting at a higher rate than a cooler one. So the net flow is from warmer to colder. But that doesn’t mean the colder body can’t add to the temperature of the warmer body, it just causes more radiation and conduction from the warmer body back the other way!
Tim, have you actually tried it for yourself?
Because I have.
A temperature gauge will cost you about $25, with that you can measure 2 items at the same time and the difference in temp between them.
I have tried it with
2 objects the same temperature, neither of them got warmer when placed near each other and their cooling rate did NOT measurably change.
1 object hotter than the other, the hotter one got cooler and the cooler one cooled much more slowly as you would expect.
1 object hotter than ambient and one cooler than ambient, the same result.
In the first 2 cases the Air between them got warmer if the objects were not subjected to air circulation.
So what is your point?
“neither of them got warmer”
Doesn’t mean they didn’t exchange IR. They just exchanged it at the same rate!
“1 object hotter than the other, the hotter one got cooler and the cooler one cooled much more slowly as you would expect.”
Which is exactly what I said. If the Earth heats up then it *will* get cooler, through radiation and conduction. The “cooler” object, i.e. space, can’t get any cooler. IR sent back to Earth doesn’t warm the Earth without the Earth responding according to S-B and the Laws of Thermodynamics.
No, CO2 in the Troposphere is much colder than the surface even though it is warmer than space, when I placed a colder object (but still warmer than ambient) next to a warmer object the warmer object got colder, it did not get warmer, it did not even slow the warming by any measurable amount.
Like I said I tried this to prove to myself how “Back Radiation” works, what it showed me was that it doesn’t work as advertised.
Which is why I said do it yourself and then come back on here and tell me the radiation from the colder object warmed up or slowed the cooling of the warmer object.
I have tried it many times and it didn’t do it once, perhaps it has to be in a vacuum to do so.
“when I placed a colder object (but still warmer than ambient) next to a warmer object the warmer object got colder, it did not get warmer”
I never said the warmer object got warmer. I said there is no reason why the colder and the warmer object can’t exchange IR.
From “Introduction to Heat Transfer”, Brown & Marco, Page 41, “In 1702 Prevost proposed the “theory of exchanges”, which states that there is a continuous interchange of energy among bodies as a result of the reciprocal processes of radiation and absorption. Thus, if two bodies at different temperatures are within an enclosure, the hotter body receives, from the colder body, less energy than it radiates; consequently its temperature decreases; whereas the colder body receives more energy than it radiates, and its temperature increases. This interchange of energy continues even after thermal equilibrium is reached, except both bodies receive as much energy as they radiate. According to this concept, which agrees well with observations, any body would cease to emit thermal radiation only when its temperature has been reduced to absolute zero.”
“Which is why I said do it yourself and then come back on here and tell me the radiation from the colder object warmed up or slowed the cooling of the warmer object.”
I don’t have to try it. I believe Brown and Marco. Put one of your objects in the vacuum of space isolated from all heat sources except space and it will cool based on its radiation of energy. That radiation will lessen as the object cools (S-B).
Now put a cooler object next to it. What happens?
Tim, that is my point, the CO2 and Earth’s Surface are not in Space, they share the same Atmosphere, just as my 2 objects do.
You say any kind of photon must exchange Energy with whatever it strikes, actally whatever absorbs it.
So how does a 13-18 micron CO2 DWIR photon get to the Surface through the ever denser atmosphere, exchanging Energy all the way down from the Troposphere (Cold) and still make the Warmer Surface warmer when my “as warm object” doesn’t and my “cooler object” doesn’t from less than a 1/2 inch away?
I have been through the “Science” numerous times, most of which does NOT apply to Gases and Atmospheres and non Black Bodies.
Which is why I invited you to do it yourself.
Can you explain why what I did does not work as advertised?
Is 1/10 of a degree C not a sensitive enough Instrument when we are talking about objects at 40-50C, or objects at 40C and OC?
“You say any kind of photon must exchange Energy with whatever it strikes, actally whatever absorbs it.”
Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said any such thing.
“So how does a 13-18 micron CO2 DWIR photon get to the Surface through the ever denser atmosphere, exchanging Energy all the way down from the Troposphere (Cold) and still make the Warmer Surface warmer when my “as warm object” doesn’t and my “cooler object” doesn’t from less than a 1/2 inch away?”
You are kidding, right? CO2 is *not* an opaque shield in the atmosphere. It doesn’t matter where the IR photon originates, whether it is the sun itself or a CO2 molecule radiating in the tropsphere, The phonton can still reach the surface unimpeded. If it is intercepted by a CO2 molecule, that molecule will re-radiate the energy it abosrbed or it will transfer it to another molecule upon a kinetic collision. In either case the energy will get re-radiated, some toward space and some toward the surface. The photon that is re-radiated may or may not be of the absorption wavelength for CO2 and maybe not even for H2O, in which case it won’t intercepted again.
When the Earth absorbs an IR photon it is similar to a CO2 molecule absorbing an IR photon. A CO2 molecule will vibrate faster and move faster as a result of absorbing that photon, i.e. its temperature goes up. Whatever the IR photon hits on the surface will do the same thing.
As the Earth’s temperature goes up it will radiate at a higher rate. This is where so many discriptions of what happens goes awry. Almost all of the descriptions of the energy flows in the Earth’s system assume that “back radiation” to the Earth is absorbed by the Earth which raises its temperature but that the energy is never re-radiated by the Earth. What happens is that the energy “bounces” back and forth between the Earth and space until Earth has reached equilibrium with its incoming radiation and outgoing radiation. It’s why it gets so cold at night in the desert! The Earth is radiating the energy it received from the sun back to space. The S-B equation says that is what happens. It’s the same for “back radiation” as it is for the sun.
“I have been through the “Science” numerous times, most of which does NOT apply to Gases and Atmospheres and non Black Bodies.”
Of course the science applies to gases, atmospheres, and non-black bodies.
From Brown & Marco: “In general, the net radiant-heat interchange between a gas and a solid surface may be found from an equation of the type
q = Ap(S-G) where
A is the area of the solid surface
p is the emmissivity of the solid surface
G is an intensity factor which depends on the product of the partial pressure of the gas and the the shape of the gas mass along with the temperature of the gas. For a space between two parallel plates it is (1.8) x distance between the plates. (That somewhat descriptive of the atmosphere around the Earth.
S is a similar intensity factor as for a gas as well as the temperature of the surface.
“Can you explain why what I did does not work as advertised?”
Because you couldn’t do a proper measurement of what was happening! And no, 0.1C is not a sensitive enough instrument to measure the small differential changes between the two situations over time.
>>
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statistical law.
<<
The problem with thermodynamics is that its four laws can only be applied under the correct conditions. For example, you can’t define “heat” unless you know the extent of the “system” you’re talking about. Heat is defined as the transfer of energy across a system boundary due to a temperature difference. They usually add the phrase: “from a warmer temperature to a cooler temperature.” (Notice that a bucket of hot water does not “contain” heat.)
If you don’t define the system you’re talking about, then you can’t even apply the first law, because both heat and work are boundary phenomena.
There are three basic types of systems: open, closed, and isolated. The second law ONLY applies to isolated systems. The universe is considered to be an isolated system–the second law applies to the universe as a whole.
The Earth’s atmosphere is clearly an open system, therefore the second law need not apply to it. Sometimes they model the atmosphere as a closed system, but again, the second law need not apply to closed systems.
If the second law applied to closed systems, then hot objects could never cool down. A cooling, closed system decreases its entropy, and that would violate the second law–if it applied.
Jim
+1
“—–global warming also causes global cooling—-”
While anybody is claiming this rubbish huge skepticism will always exist because this is simply not true. With this point of view there is nothing to distinguish between either, whether natural or not. Global warming or climate change don’t prevent dips in global temperatures because natural forces are larger. Any sane person knows that global temperatures in the past didn’t warm for a while because the underlying warming was not larger than natural climate change.
Changing the term to Climate change only made matters worse because it doesn’t actually say anything about what it’s suppose to represent. Vague messages that can often be claimed to be nonsense only increase skepticism.
What this comes down to is that climate change and global warming cause everything that natural climate does, therefore nothing to distinguish between religion and science. Hence why global warming become a religion by using only pseudoscience and avoiding scientific method. Soon as future predictions fail they change historic data.
This type of behaviour causes huge scepticism especially those with critical thinking.
There is a distinct difference in the actual meaning of Global Warming, Anthropogenic Global Warming Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate Change.
Climate change is all changes to the Climate, which have always happened since the Earth had an Atmosphere.
Whereas the inclusion of the words Warming, Anthropogenic and Catastrophic Anthropogenic means that only Warming can be considered, or only Warming by Humans can be considered or only Catastrophic Warming by Humans can be considered.
As they could not prove any of the last two they resorted to the catch all of Climate Change, at no point has the IPCC talked about Anthropogenic Global Cooling or Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Cooling.
In fact during the “Pause” there was also no mention of an Anthropogenic Global Pause.
What is CNN? Is that the waiting room network?
Heads you lose tails I win as long been ‘normal ‘ practice in climate science ,one reason they can never offer what would ‘disprove ‘ their theory is by doing that they can claim everything proves it.
It is not how you do science of course, but they the norms of good science have long been a stranger in climate ‘science’
“Global Warming does not always mean Warming”
Still waiting to hear how they know what they claim.
‘According to CNN we should remember global warming also causes global cooling, and that any confusion is the fault of the Republicans.’
“Reality is an invention of the Right to confuse people.” – GC
The principle advantage of ‘climate change’ over ‘global warming’ is it is undefined. As commented above, it can mean anything people want it to mean. And they never define it when they use it. Y’all just sposed to know.
‘Global warming,’ as an increase in Global Mean Temperature, is – theoretically – measurable. The nebulous ‘climate change’ is not. The last thing you want is for people to have metrics on your scare mongering, to be able to see if what you are saying is actually happening. See: The Pause.
Problem is, when this started, the whole scare was warming and “oceans boiling”, “runaway greenhouse like Venus”, etc were the selling points. Sadly, Nature did not read the research and failed these activists severely. Now what to do? Change the name? Sure. Admit that had the scientists actually contradicted the activists and said it might not be GLOBAL , they had no real clue what warming would do, then this “boy do we look stupid now” wouldn’t be happening ? Never. So, now, faced with the reality that this is NOT universal global heating up in any way, it’s CYA time. Make up stories, make up terms and try to salvage the mess. This is what happens when science sells out to politics.
The only problem with the new name is, that these climate changes only happens when the temperature changes. If the temperature was stable there would be no climate change we are told. So we are back to square one again.
Changes in precipitation or winds or cloudiness can happen without temperature changes and counts as climate change.
Dublin is covered with a white blanket of global warming today, 3rd March 2019. Perhaps we should be turning off all our heating so that it can get colder? At least we will feel good about reducing CO2.
A major factor in allowing and promoting this entire specious argument on the climate and whether or not WE are factors in climate changes is the complete lack of curiosity fostered in our schools at all levels, where an accepted viewpoint is to be blindly accepted and never ever questioned. This is true even when real world experience would tell the people more interested in figuring things out for themselves there is something majorly rotten in the whole deal.
It is so frustrating to hear people, friends, who parrot the party lines back to me. The science is settled, the CO2 is terrible, we must (destroy our way of life, really?) DO something!
In the meantime, western philosophy is denigrated because it might make someone decide to do some thinking about things. Thing is discouraged. Parrot=like behavior is encouraged.
What about using the term “Global Greening?”
Just out of curiosity why stop the graph at 2010 it seems a random cutoff date
I don’t suppose any of the ‘confusion’ could be coming from Progressive hacks who change their story day to day, year to year, to accommodate whatever predictions failed and whatever weather actually materializes.
CNN has quite proudly ditched any pretense of objective journalistic ethic.
They might as well be defense lawyers for the Progressive agenda.