Jul 26

This is getting ridiculous.

Lately it’s been called “our deteriorating atmosphere“.  Before that it was the “climate crisis”.  Before that it was called “climate change”.  Before that it had been called “global warming”.  Before that it had been called the weather.  Now, Joy Trueblood, of Sandy, Oregon proposes it be called, “man-made atmosphere change”. No doubt because the earth hasn’t been warming for the past eleven years.

From The Oregonian:

The recent letters in your paper disputing climate change show clearly why we need to relabel the problem as “man-made atmosphere change.”

Man-made atmosphere change is real. It’s happening now. It can’t be disputed. It can be measured. All reputable scientists know it’s happening, and most laymen can understand it.

It can be shown in pictures of smokestacks and tailpipes emitting carbon dioxide along with other pollutants. Pictures make it easier for climate change deniers to understand what is happening.

Climate change is just one consequence of letting polluters mess with our atmosphere. It seems incredibly stupid, as well as morally wrong, to change the atmosphere that produced and sustains our life on Earth, especially if solutions are as simple as more emissions controls on smokestacks and cars, driving less, eating less beef and using birth control.

JOY TRUEBLOOD
Sandy

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share

13 Responses to “As temperatures continue to fall, letter writer suggests rebranding global warming yet again: ‘man-made atmosphere change’”

  1. Mario says:

    Global warming is a theory, not a fact. A global climate change caused by human activity is a possibility that is far from proven, and about which there is no consensus in the scientific community. Warming means raising temperature, but when considering free data available, we cannot even say that there was global warming.

       0 likes

  2. fred says:

    What, no equality of the sexes here ?? What about women-made atmosphere change ?

    Feminists !! Stand up for your rights, take back the bogus global warming labels before men get all the glory !

       0 likes

    • Klockarman says:

      Oh that’s just ridiculous. Everyone knows that men are the source of all the misery in the world, and more specifically – white men.
      😉

      Thanks for reading the blog, and for your comment.

         0 likes

  3. Parse Error says:

    “pictures of smokestacks and tailpipes emitting carbon dioxide”

    Typical clueless alarmist; it would be rather entertaining if only such mental midgets weren’t making great strides toward driving us all into the poorhouse.

       0 likes

  4. John from Northville says:

    Joy. Joy. Joy.

    Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If it were, you’d be killing yourself by breathing in what you breathe out.

    Carbon dioxide not cause climate change. Historically, increased CO2 follows a rise in climate temperatures. You’re saying that something in the future causes something in the past. Think about it.

    Most of the “carbon dioxide” you see coming from smokestacks is water vapor. If it’s white, it’s water. And most of the “carbon dioxide” you see coming from autos is simply warm air.

    Carbon dioxide makes up slightly more than 3 percent of the atmosphere, and human-produced CO2 makes up only three percent of that. Anthropogenic CO2 is but a trace element. Water vapor makes up 95 percent of the greenhouse gases. And greenhouse gases keep our planet from being frozen wasteland. They are necessary for us to live.

    You’ve been sold a bill of goods based on a false belief. Educate yourself.

    You’ve been conned.

       0 likes

  5. Parse Error says:

    You’ve misplaced a decimal point, John. For the record, and rounded upward just for good measure, it makes up about 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere by volume. The other instance where you mention 3% is also our current annual contribution rather than the total. The total increase in concentration is about 36% above the often idealized pre-industrial level, however nobody can argue that we haven’t had a substantial impact upon natural CO2 sinks as well, which I would think should be more of a concern than our emissions.

       0 likes

  6. anon says:

    It’s New Coke ^ 3

       0 likes

  7. burbank says:

    After reading Joy’s article I’m begining to see why the female species is called the weaker sex…it’s that big weak spot between their right ear and left ear.

       0 likes

  8. Markus Frank says:

    Mario says that AGW is theory, not fact. I’m afraid that AGW hasn’t made it past the hypothesis stage, and is, as yet, not elevated to theory. So far, the empirical evidence doesn’t support the hypothesis.

       0 likes

  9. goodspkr says:

    You know, I’ve never seen a smokestack or tailpipe emitting CO2. Sandy must have a special kind of vision to see CO2 (although I can see it when it’s frozen).

    The desparate last gasp of a dying theory.

       0 likes

  10. Peter Weggeman says:

    H.L. Mencken said in the ’50s that “The urge to save humanity is always a front for the urge to rule it”. When will we learn?

       0 likes

    • Klockarman says:

      Peter,

      Yes, that is certainly a quote to keep in mind. I quoted that one myself on a Tweet just last week.

      Thanks for reading the blog, and for your comment.

         0 likes

  11. Jinbanme says:

    A better new name to adopt would be Overseas Contingency Operation.

    Also, I suggest we stop using the term “rename” and instead use “recalibrate.”

    It’s much more smarty pants sounding, and that’s what makes me feel good about big government.

       0 likes

preload preload preload