Is the name 'Global Warming ' holding us back?

'Global Warming' That doesn't sound so bad. On a cool day it even sounds like a good thing. As a label, 'global warming', isn't doing us any good. It's like saying a house fire was really just a 'domestic warming'.

I've seen some names here and there but let's make a list of more descriptive names for our planet's building environmental destruction.

Do you have a suggestion? List them here and then we can set them up in a poll form. From there I think DU should lead the way for the replace of 'global warming'.

That's what we're really talking about.

more like a "realignment".

Did you read the article about the monkeys dying in Costa Rica? 25% of the population, they had to close a national park because the stench got so bad. That's not a "realignment", that's a collapse. An environment unable to support life. Actually, I just saw it on my own coast last year, huge dead zones where they have never been before, all sea life, DEAD.

Collapse. That's the word.

That so much more accurately describes what I see. It's so sad.

and who cares about the actual "collapse" part being an exaggeration - it is closer to the truth than "Clear Skies Initiative" and "Patriot Act" will ever be.

If that isn't a collapse, I don't know what is. That's what we're talking about here.

would be more effective. :+ :shrug:

Global Reconstruction

The Reicht thinks its just flucuations in the weather, and like every other idea theyve resisted (civil rights,womens right to vote,etc.) itll be years before they see reality, no matter whats it called.

I wish it would change them, but it wont imo.

HOW is that?

:D

I mean, c'mon...keeping us in fear, trying to get us to change our ways...

Besides, folks seem to pay attention to the "T" word. People that drive Escalades and H2s are climate terrorists.

"Earth Distruction."

Are you now, or have you ever been, a global climate changist?

A fish is only called a fish because we named it a fish. It would still be a fish even if we named it a rock. Although it would then be a rock, not a fish.

A dollar only has value because we give it value. All it is is a tinted piece of paper.

We had a good run thinking we could control nature. But, sadly(from a productive capitalist point of view), we're nothing more than a part of nature.

Or, more fully, Human-Abetted Catastrophic Climate Change.

But as Ksec noted above, whatever it's called, those who are wilfully blind to it won't come around, even as the air they breathe gets more poisonous, the water more undrinkable, and so on.

language and they'll offuscate.

GLOBAL WARMING works for me.

if global warming continues. The ice cap melts and catastrophic-sized ice chunks float toward the continents, changing everything from temperate climates into sub-zero frozen wastelands where you're not going to survive unless you happen to be a great woolly mammoth.

Fred Barnes on The Beltway Boys pointed to record cold temperatures this winter in Europe and used that to dismiss the very idea of "global warming". Apparently he thinks that this phrase means that every place on earth gets warmer and warmer every day.

A more sophisticated (or honest) person will recognize that an overall warming trend will alter weather patterns, including high-level winds, and will occasionally cause cold winds to be directed to an area that had previously had warm winds. That's right, "global warming" actually makes some places colder.

Perhaps the phrase "climate change" gets around this particular difficulty. There's no getting around Fred Barnes, though.

Current. As factually inept as the movie The Day After Tomorrow was (though entertaining IMO :D), that much about it was true.

Short, punchy and about as accurate as any two-word summation of such a complex problem could be.

They are already happening.

Edited to K&R! :kick:

60 Minutes did a segment last night. In the short 20 minute segment they covered a lot of ground.

Here is a link if you missed it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml




(CBS) The North Pole has been frozen for 100,000 years. But according to scientists, that won't be true by the end of this century. The top of the world is melting.

There's been a debate burning for years on the causes of global warming. But the scientists you're about to meet say the debate is over. New evidence shows man is contributing to the warming of the planet, pumping out greenhouse gases that trap solar heat.

Much of this new data was compiled by American scientist Bob Corell, who led a study called the "Arctic Climate Impact Assessment." It's an awkward name — but consider the findings: the seas are rising, hurricanes will be more powerful, like Katrina, and polar bears may be headed toward extinction.

What does the melting arctic look like? Correspondent Scott Pelley went north to see what Bob Corell calls a "global warning."

cont'd...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml

...most people don't understand the difference between climate and weather. It just takes a major cold snap and people will start saying "I guess them Murrika-hatin' scientists were lying about global warming". :banghead:

Buh-bye humans...