Should we change the phrase “global warming” to something more inflammatory like “irritable globe syndrome”?7
Posted In down syndrome
Question by Pilgrim: Should we change the phrase “global warming” to something more inflammatory like “irritable globe syndrome”?
Since the purpose of the “global warming” debate is to transfer money from polluters into the pockets of environmentalist alarmists, we need a more neutral, less easily defined phrase that nobody can really pin down and prove doesn’t happen.
Global warming is so specific it’s almost worthless when weather statistics don’t cooperate, but “irritable globe syndrome” is universally applicable! Every weather anomaly is easily attributed to such a squishy, imprecise, meaningless phrase.
it’s time to change. YES WE CAN!
Defending Sanity:
I suggest you read something other than those paid to confirm global warming. You know, the 80% of scientists that say it’s a load of bollocks.
C’mon Grandma zaza, “global climate disruption” isn’t anywhere NEAR as clever as “irritable globe syndrome”. It almost paints a mental picture of AlGore giving the planet an enema.
Fractured Fairy Tales:
I’m probably more of an environmentalist than you are, and I can prove it! I just parted with $ 26k for solar panels to entirely neutralize my carbon footprint . . . have you?
Best answer:
Answer by Chewy Ivan 2
No. Semantics are pointless. We should stick to facts.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
7 Comments
Leave a Comment
FreshPopular
Steampunk Professor Xavier Wheelchair Project
January 20, 2011- TSA Discriminates against disabled people then violates rights to privacy
January 16, 2011 - UP SYNDROME - famous Netflix documentary Down Syndrome PART 1 OF 2 Down's
January 8, 2011 - Metric - "Blindness"
January 8, 2011 - Wheelchair Dance Competion
January 8, 2011
Didn’t they just change it to “global climate disruption?”
http://environment.change.org/blog/view/global_warming_climate_changenow_global_climate_disruption
That’s why they have been trying desperately to move to “climate change” but they beat the drum so long and loud with global warming that they can’t move away easily.
Remember if it’s hot, it’s global warming
If it’s cold, it’s global warming
If it’s wet, it’s global warming
If it’s dry, it’s global warming
It’s just global warming, if you don’t think so please present your credentials to have an opinion. On second thought, just shut up and give me your money.
BTW, @Defending Sanity, nearly 100% of scientists believed that the sun circled the earth, also that the earth was flat, etc. Scientific progress is littered with “concensus” that was proven incorrect. Just because a bunch of scientists believe that something is true doesn’t mean it is. Proof requires something more rigorous than “I think…” I would expect that 100% of real scientists to agree with me on that one.
No. The term ‘Global Warming’ is just fine for those of us that understand that it doesn’t literally mean the weather is getting warmer.
As for being an alarmist, I don’t think it takes a brain surgeon to figure out that we can’t keep raping the planet by drilling, cutting, polluting, bombing, filling, trolling and so on without some repercussions.
Good for you. As I rent, no, I haven’t dropped a bundle on solar panels but would do so in a minute given the money to improve the landlord’s property.
However, I do not own a car (not broke, just don’t need one) and walk, ride my bike or take public transit e-v-e-r-y-w-h-e-r-e I go. How ’bout you? I recycle, repurpose or resell everything I need (or choose) to get rid of. You? I compost and I garden organically. I own energy efficient appliances.
As well as donating time to help clean up parks, beaches, schools and anywhere else that needs it.
What do you do besides have solar panels installed to save a buck? Anything that puts you out? I doubt it. But I’ll give you credit for at least doing that much. However, that’s still a far cry from your “entirely neutralize my carbon footprint “.
You can call a steamy pile of BS whatever you like, it’s still a steamy pile of BS.
Why did ‘scientists’ have to lie, invent data, and intimidate other scientists into going along if this BS was real?
Actually the money is being transferred into the hands of the polluters under the guise of fooling those who believe in global warming.
Case in point; The Chinese increased CO2 emissions because they were able to do so and sell carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol.
GE mostly owned by the globalist bankers, is also reaping benefits, as they take their light bulb plants to China.
I think the people who actually bought into the global warming BS as something altruistic that would have honest results rather than just transfer money into the hands of the already powerful had “irritable bowel syndrome of the head”.
It is a scheme to funnel money into the Global Banking Cartel
“Critics claim that chemical firms are producing more HCFC-22 than the market demands to profit from the carbon credits.
The projects under review belong to five Chinese and one Indian chemical maker and are aided by investments from financial firms in Europe, one of the places in the developed world where carbon credits are sold.”
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/88/i35/8835notw8.html
Yes or just the Redistribution of wealth…
Here is a gem.
Weather Report
> The Washington Post
>
> The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen, Norway.
> Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
>
> Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
> Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
> Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
>
> More below:
>
> I’m sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922
> As reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post..
> ..nearly 88 years ago!
>
>
> It does make you wonder about the current global warming “crisis”, doesn’t it?????????
>
> AND GLOBAL COOLING WAS ALL THE RAGE IN THE 1970′s.
By MELISSA MEEHAN
Published: December 20, 2007
Last week the Senate failed to muster the 60 votes necessary to move forward an energy bill that would, in part, redirect tax subsidies away from oil and utility companies and channel them instead to clean, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.
In a passionate post-vote speech, Senator Dick Durban of Illinois quipped, “The future just failed by one vote,” and sadly, he may be right. At a time when oil companies are enjoying the highest profits in their history and the Arctic ice is melting faster than expected, why does the Senate choose to protect dirty, polluting energy sources instead of embracing clean energy solutions?
The Senate ultimately passed a version of the energy bill, signed by the president this week, that removed many of the meaningful provisions to advance a clean energy future. While the Senate deserves praise for raising our automotive fuel economy standards for the first time in 32 years, the final energy bill is not the visionary piece of legislation it once was.
We’ve all read the news about climate change – we know the planet is warming; it is primarily caused by humans, and if we want to protect ourselves, we must reduce our global warming pollution now, before it is too late. The path forward is a clean energy revolution that ends our fossil fuel addiction and stimulates our economy with jobs and new business opportunities in emerging technologies.
Ironically, the same week that the oil-controlled Senate voted against clean energy, American delegates in Bali dug in their heels and refused to move signficantly forward on international climate talks.
In both circumstances, politics and adherence to “business as usual” created an insurmountable roadblock on the path to a clean, energy independent future.