Predicting 'climate change' is like predicting light at sunrise. Of course the climate is going to change, it always has and probably always will. But it's actually even worse and less useful than that. Climate alarmists have predicted WARMING as the said 'climate change' and of course it is not warming and hasn't been for more than 18 years.
Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars wasted over the last 30 years and these crooks are still not in jail. In fact, we are still funding them and the alarmists are still living large and telling the same old lies trying to get even more of our money.
-----------------------
Climate change is not a term proper scientists would use, Real scientists try to explain terms in specific accurate as possible means.
Climate change is obviously a political term, very vague and available for different interpretations, but then that is what is happening to science nowadays it is becoming politicalized.
Climate Change (old meaning) - Natural Climate Variability - natural changes in the climate
Climate Change (new environmental unabashed dictionary meaning) - CO2 induced changes in the climate.
---------------------------------------
When these "climate clowns" get a grip on their egotistical, self-centered, and self-serving analogies, then Natural Climate Variability may regain its true meaning again. Their intensions have been clear since they started this "theft" of the English language for a political purpose. The 0.012% change in the atmosphere due to humans must be confusing them. Maybe that's why they put on lipstick, a red nose, and act so goofy? Maybe that's also why they tie the arms of those white smocks behind themselves also?
Climate change isn't simple English Peg and you claim to be an Earth Scientists or whatever. Obviously climates always change. To then invent a word to use for your cause that is a natural occurrence anyway isn't English. It is nothing short of propaganda. Global warming is another non-scientific "term" that is more about propaganda than science but I am guessing Peg thinks that is simple English as well. Alarmists first hoped that the simple minded would blame any warming on global warming and hence on humans and particularly America and capitalism. When warming stopped cooperating they decided climate change was a better simpler explanation and then the simple minded could blame everything on capitalism. Alarmists approve of whatever furthers the Cause. They use simple English to fool the simple minded. IMO some of them are lying Marxists and some of them are just simple minded.
This story proves again that there are no climate researchers that doubt humans are causing change. It is an absolute myth that educated people deny AGW.
Deniers cling to this unsupported myth that there are actual scientists who deny AGW. The claim is that the only reason they are not published is a global conspiracy by the science journals. Here we have a great opportunity for a capable climate scientist who denies AGW to get a decent contract. So, where are all the educated deniers?
It is a myth that 97% of climatologists acknowledge that human activity is changing climate. It is 100%, or very close to 100%.
It can't be. The climate is always changing as there is no such thing as a static climate. Climate change is as scientific as perpetual motion.
When deniers say "cyclical", they don't mean cyclical at all in its scientific sense, they simply mean "natural", but why say natural when cyclical sounds so much more scientific? Whenever anyone says "cyclical" I want to say, "Oh yeah, what's the cycle? Have you done a Fourier transform on it? What are the spectral coefficients?"
Climate change is simple English.
EDIT: Jim Z says
"Climate change isn't simple English Peg and you claim to be an Earth Scientists or whatever"
I think all you're proving Jim is that your English skills aren't that good, either.
No. It is the current name of a movement whose purpose is to scam Taxpayers out of as much money as they can by scaring illiterates with stories of doom and gloom.
because it is used as such in the ipcc
OM posted this article on one of my questions and in it he pointed to this article:
http://www.omaha.com/news/state-climate-change-study-may-go-begging-for-scientists/article_0a3fc1ab-6103-5841-9e07-b4cdb4a1d373.html
In this article it states, "For one thing, “cyclical” isn't a scientific term, said Barbara Mayes, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service.
“You won't get a credible response,” she said.
As written, the proposed study asks for a report on “cyclical climate change in Nebraska” and a review of “historical climate variability and change; climate projections; and possible impacts.”
The committee asked Kriz-Wickham to revise the study proposal and define cyclical."
If cyclical isn't a scientific term what makes you think that Climate Change is a scientific term?
