Can one person slow global warming?

[Bill in Houston]

Does this stuff even belong here?

[Shining Arcanine]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

If you want to start a debate on the subject, you should realize that global climate change is the better term to use because it covers increases in global average temperature, as well as other issues related to climate change to to human impact.

I never wanted to start a debate on the subject. I just posted a few things that I knew and you replied. As for global climate change being a better phrase (the word term refers to a single word while the word phrase refers to multiple words), it seems to me that you used the phrase global warming at first and then when it became inconvenient to continue that jargon, you used the phrase global climate change, pretending that nothing changed and I called you out on it. Why else would you have used the phrase global warming so consistently until the post where you switched to using global climate change without any mention of global warming?

Originally Posted by Bill in Houston

Does this stuff even belong here?

I do not think that it does.

[SVOboy]

Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine

I never wanted to start a debate on the subject. I just posted a few things that I knew and you replied. As for global climate change being a better phrase (the word term refers to a single word while the word phrase refers to multiple words), it seems to me that you used the phrase global warming at first and then when it became inconvenient to continue that jargon, you used the phrase global climate change, pretending that nothing changed and I called you out on it. Why else would you have used the phrase global warming so consistently until the post where you switched to using global climate change without any mention of global warming?

I fancy the two things as rather analagous, if not the same. I think, in the context of my post, the aspect of climate change I was most refering to was that of warming. I decided to change my phrase, because, I thought there was a better one.

In any case, the issue is not (in my mind) whether or not one word is better than another, but where science lies on the issue. I like the original intent of this post, but you came in with a rather inane and lonely attempt at skewing people's view of the issue, so I responded in its defense.

I honestly don't care whether I say warming, or climate change, because I think that climate change in its current use is simply and extension of "warming" that includes the idea that warming may have other effects besides warming.

But, if you want to build your case by mocking me over the difference between my use of the word term of phrase, I could care less. I am not an english major, nor do I have a copy of strunk & white wedged in my ***.

[repete86]

I like to think that treesitting and blockading slows global warming even though we're rarely successful.



I haven't done any treesits yet, but did take part in one blockade.

[SVOboy]

Originally Posted by theclencher

word usage prolly gets mangled all the time, like calling an engine a motor. *shrug*

Haha, I write how I speak.

[Jim Dunlop]

I like to use the phrase "anthropogenic global warming", because it's less ambiguous than saying "global warming". When most people say someone is a "global warming skeptic", what they really mean is that the person doubts the significance of human contributions to the rise in average planetary temperature.

Since temperatures can be measured, I think most people agree that the globe is warming. However, not everyone agrees that a) humans are causing it or b) the human contribution to it is non-negligible. Those cause-and-effect relationships are not as easy to measure because of the massive field of variables.

For a phenomenon to be considered a theory, it needs to be shown to hold true under controlled experimental conditions. Yes, there is evidence that human beings are causing the planet to warm up, but as far as I'm concerned anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis at this time.

If anyone can point me in the direction of a real experiment performed in accordance with the scientific method I'd be interested in reading it. I have skimmed the IPCC report, but it seems to be mostly a compilation of observations and predictions. There is even a nod given to the Global Socialist agenda on Page 14.

I am not trying to be a smart-aleck here, but I will say that given my background in the physical sciences I have a certain amount of skepticism. I have seen often how difficult it is to model accurately the behavior of even extremely controlled events such as chemical reactions and flow in pipes; hence, I am hesitant to hop on board with AGW.

To repeat, I am leaving myself open to being convinced in due time, and in the mean time I am intrinsically not a big fan of wasting material resources anyway (mostly because I am financially conservative). I wonder, however, if we as Western societies may be on the brink of handcuffing ourselves unnecessarily when one considers growing economies like China and its role in Kyoto.

Certainly if we are able to shake this oil monkey off our back a lot of our problems (or perceived problems) will go away. I think we all can agree with that, and I'm certainly glad I found GasSavers.