It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

It's time to ditch the 'climate change'

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 10:03 AM
Have you heard the news? In case you haven't here's the lowdown.

Late last century and ever since then, men with beards have been debating if our planet has been going through a climactic shift due to human interference, and earlier this century they gained a prominent supporter in Al Gore, and despite not having a beard his work had it's share of accolades from prominent people, and the 'global warming' movement really took off.

But a few years later the term 'global warming' was unceremoniously and inexplicably dropped, and was replaced by 'climate change' and in under a year the term stuck and we've been using it ever since. But why? global warming isn't entirely inaccurate, after all we are technically coming out of an ice age:

An ice age is a long interval of time (millions to tens of millions of years) when global temperatures are relatively cold and large areas of the Earth are covered by continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within an ice age are multiple shorter-term periods of warmer temperatures when glaciers retreat (called interglacials or interglacial cycles) and colder temperatures when glaciers advance (called glacials or glacial cycles).

Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago. The last period of glaciation, which is often informally called the “Ice Age,” peaked about 20,000 years ago. At that time, the world was on average probably about 10°F (5°C) colder than today, and locally as much as 40°F (22°C) colder.

Utah Geological Survey

Makes sense-we've all seen pictures and graphs that depict the rising temperatures and shrinking icecaps-so the evidence is global warming is true by natural means, let alone the possible unnatural means. But what about climate change? we have been convinced of it's validity as well, but has the climate really changed?

In recent times we've seen record high temperatures in summer, record lows in winter, deserts are getting drier and blizzards are getting denser. The climate hasn't changed, only intensified over time. So why is there so much emphasis on a 'change''? should we be expecting snowstorms in downtown Dubai by 2050? now that would be a climate change.

If people are to be alarmed by the increasingly bad weather (as they should be) then the term 'climate change' needs to be replaced with something that is more alarming, something that will have people genuinely concerned about the future of our planet rather than some catch phrase that has been exploited by political figures to gain influence.

It's time we ditched the 'climate change' and moved on to something else. It doesn't matter where you stand on this subject, the truth is that every moment that we bicker is a moment we haven't spent preparing from the oncoming disasters. Earth is not going to sit around and wait while we sort out our differences, it's at it's final draft and awaiting publication.

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 10:14 AM
How about natural climate shift?
And stop polluting. ..

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 10:20 AM
Maybe global climate fluctuation

Is this helping?

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 10:31 AM
How about this, an alien race tells the terrestrial race, 'you are very vulnerable with all this flammable matter in the surface crust, you need to diminish it', here's a plan for an engine, the more inefficient the better...

Climate Change, ha, when they ice skate on the River Thames again, then you'll know it's changed. A very clever idea that has created a lot of money for private research companies.
edit on 43ub312014p41am by subtopia because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 10:32 AM
Climate Flux?

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 10:40 AM
What bothers me about it all is why the changes in the jet streams are never discussed. When i was a kid i did a report on the jet stream with colored charts i made. I quoted the text books how the jetstream was fixed and did not change. Now it is all over the place. It even dropped altitude and touched the Earths surface a few years back.
it is either man made changes or i believe its from the magnetic poles shifting and the coming physical pole shift that is and has been taking place lately.reply to: Thecakeisalie

edit on 1-8-2014 by manna2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 10:46 AM

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

Maybe global climate fluctuation

Is this helping?

That one I like, but it's doesn't exactly speak to the masses.

You'll need a term that can appeal to everyone, and in this day of age it needs to be shortened and abbreviated, Like Kimye of Bennifer-that would get the kids attention.

Eg Climapocalypse, climageddon-terrible examples but you get the picture. As long as it doesn't have 'gate' affixed to it.

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 10:47 AM
So basically what you are saying is that the phrase "climate change" is too gentile a term, and you want something more scary... Is that about right? From your last paragraph, you agree that the world is heading down a disastrous path and the only way to save ourselves is to pay al gore lots of money. At least that's what I pick up from it

Anyway a scarier term.... Hmm... Well this should scare you to death..."not real" as in global warming/cooling are not real.... Here's another term that might scare you.... "Natural". As in the temperature fluctuations are a natural cycle of the earth for over 4 billion years.

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 10:55 AM
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Actually, the term "climate change" has been around quite a while... This is because global warming and climate change are two related but independent phenomena.

You have also mentioned what climate change models predict, more intense weather patterns. Droughts and floods (when it does rain). You are denying only the words used to describe these phenomena, and if all it takes would be to call it something different, I'd be fine with that. But what you are talking about, yeah, you're describing it. In science, a good name describes what the concept is. Climate change indicates long term changes in weather patterns, and is a good name. Global warming indicates long term average temperature increases at Earth's surface, good name. That said, you just insulted the perceived (non-existent) name change, so why do this and fuel that kind of thought process?

As for Earth, it couldn't care less about humans. It's been around longer than life, and should all humans die, the Earth would not care. If you care for humanity, then sure, do what you can, but don't think it will be the end of the Earth if one more silly species goes extinct.

Sincere regards,

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 11:15 AM
"Man made global warming" would be the most accurate and apt term to use.
And no, I'm not a doom and gloom--sky is falling--kinda guy.

Our presence, and our use of resources on this planet, is definitely having an
effect on our climate. The question, though, is whether that effect will
make a tangible difference in the far or near future.

I believe the Earth, as the normal engine of climate change, is much stronger
than we are. I don't believe any man made global warming will stave off the
next natural ice age...

We might warm the planet (and definitely pollute the planet) enough to put
our own existence in peril. And if it turns out that man is, in fact, having a
tangible effect on global warming then we can only expect for it to get worse
as our population continues to explode...

edit on 1-8-2014 by rival because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 11:21 AM
hmmm I think i can take what the scientists tell me is pretty much fact till proven otherwise. I am not going to take cues from people who havent the intellectually capacity to see the bigger picture with regards to man made warming or the destructive way we consume everything on this planet. The IQ of the human species is less than that of a gnat and posts like these just sums it all up for me

sorry OP feeling grumpy today i know you mean well but what i was getting at is that what is happening to the world today is down to the climate warming up but there is another major factor in the jigsaw puzzle of "climate change". The way we humans spread out and consume everything in sight like a cancer, we destroy delicate eco systems through pollution, deforestation and animal hunting. These are VITAL to the health of the climate.
edit on 1-8-2014 by Cantbebothered because: Grumpy today. did not fully explain myself

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 11:28 AM
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

"The climate hasn't changed, only intensified over time" - what? that sentence flat out contradicts itself. if the climate has intensified then it HAS CHANGED. it is changing. the climate has always gone through changes..... but currently it is undergoing RAPID change, too rapid for us to adapt to with the amount of humans we have on the planet.

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 11:31 AM
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Here I hope this helps you understand where the terms came from and hopefully it will clear up your miss-understanding on how long they have been in use.

Both Terms Have Long Been Used

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term

In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:

Click on link to gain knowledge

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 11:37 AM
How about "climate related global power grab and taxation agenda". It's both accurate and scarier than climate change.

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:51 PM
The reason why it's "Climate Change" and not "Global Warming" is because it's more accurate. With global warming, yes things get warmer. This causes the climate to change. How? Well some places get really hot! Some places get really cold! Some cold places become hot, some hot places become cold. Then the weather changes as well.

Well if some places get cold, then why is it global warming? Because global warming doesn't mean that the planet will turn into an oven. It means that the earth will get warmer, causing climate to change. So you know what, why not just call it Climate Change!? Makes more sense!

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:59 PM
How about once a climate somewhere actually changes then people can feel free to say "climate change". You know, like say if Australia changes from "Arid" to "Tropical Wet" or "Subarctic". Until then all were talking about is greater weather variation in highs and lows by a few degrees. Until an area's climate changes it's a lie to say climate change.

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:17 PM
climate depopulation

deadly climate cycle's

climate destruction

destructive climate migration

rapid climate revolution

rapid climate transition

edit on 1-8-2014 by pez1975 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:10 PM
Flat earth - no flat earth - stable climate - no stable climate

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:35 PM
I keep reading on non main stream media news sites that the mean earth temperature has not risen for the last sixteen years, Antarctic sea ice is the most its ever been (since records began) The sphinx had a coating of snow this year, a town in New Zealand had snow for the first time in seventy five years, various glaciers are growing again, um, perhaps the world is only warming up where volcanoes are?

posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 06:18 PM

originally posted by: pikestaff
I keep reading on non main stream media news sites that the mean earth temperature has not risen for the last sixteen years,

Not true.

Antarctic sea ice is the most its ever been (since records began)

Perhaps, but it is the ice on land in Antarctica which is slipping into the water which is the real problem.

The sphinx had a coating of snow this year, a town in New Zealand had snow for the first time in seventy five years, various glaciers are growing again, um, perhaps the world is only warming up where volcanoes are?

And this means that there is variation---when you look systematically at *global* effects, there are more high extreme records than low extreme records. And yes you do expect new patterns to emerge, some of which cool locally and some warm.

Two summers ago, it was over 100 F in Dallas every day for a month.

And there is no correlation with volcanic activity, unless such volcanoes emit particulates up to the stratosphere in which case there is cooling for a year or so.
edit on 1-8-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in