Why Did They Name It “Global Warming?”

Because scientists thought it was supposed to be warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/is-jim-hansens-global-temperature-skillful/

That hasn’t been going according to plan, so the global warming cult has had to change the name to “global climate disruption.”

Given that the climate is a huge, chaotic, poorly understood, constantly changing concept – there is absolutely no way to prove that it is either disrupted or not disrupted.

Every weather event can now be blamed on “global climate disruption.”

“We can’t say for sure that this particular event was caused by global climate disruption, but we expect events of this type to increase in frequency as a result of global climate disruption.”

I have been documenting here that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, etc. are not increasing in frequency. The big lie marches on relentlessly. It is about power and control – not science.

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Why Did They Name It “Global Warming?”

  1. Leon Brozyna says:

    New name, same old paradigm. Still sounds like desperation to me.

    Karl will be pretty disruptive to Mexico.

    Igor will be pretty disruptive to Bermuda.

    And last night’s thunderstorm downburst was pretty disruptive to NYC.

  2. Njorway says:

    Hi Steven!

    What do you think about this article?: Say Goodbye to Sunspots?

    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/say-goodbye-to-sunspots.html

  3. PhilJourdan says:

    “Global Climate Disruption” – I guess they had to get something to replace the “TV SNOW” that disappeared with digital TV. 😉

  4. Peter Wilson says:

    Surely the whole point of the CO based CAGW scare is that CO2 will cause global WARMING. There is no known mechanism for CO2 to cause anything other than warming (except rapid plant growth).

    Not “change” (unless the change is warming). Not “disruption”. Not “weirding”. ONLY warming can possibly be blamed on CO2. To suggest it could cause anything else is to DENY THE SCIENCE

    And we wouldn’t want to do that now, would we?

  5. Michael says:

    CO2 and CO2 equivalent additions should have only a slight warming effect on the global weather systems if the laboratory studies work the same way in the field. Note its an effect, we don’t understand the rest of the dynamics of the global weather systems, let alone what would have happened if there was no CO2 equivalent additions. So if there is warming, can you put it down the CO2 or other dynamics -its just not possible to tell.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s