latest 2023

You are searching about , today we will share with you article about was compiled and edited by our team from many sources on the internet. Hope this article on the topic is useful to you.

Global Warming Hyperbole

They call global warming skeptics “anti-science”. The term is, however, a misnomer, as skeptics are not actually against science, they are simply skeptical of the claims of its believers. Here are some reasons for their skepticism:

• Apocalyptic predictions. Future climate predictions for virtually all regions of the world tend to be doomsday in nature. If you live in a dry area, it will only dry out. Areas of heavy rainfall will only become rainier. More floods will inundate flood-prone areas; heavier winter snowfall will cover areas traditionally affected by heavy winter snowfall. Even in the short term, nothing ever improves. You might assume that the growing seasons in Siberia or Canada might get longer due to warming and they might receive bountiful crops for a few decades. Perhaps the Sahara Desert will receive more rain and turn into a more hospitable savannah. Such changes are never expected. Instead, we only hear doomsday scenarios. In my opinion, this is intentionally designed to scare the audience into action. It is understandable that politicians engage in such hyperbole since most politicians tend to stretch or exaggerate the truth, but scientists should be above spitting out pseudoscience.

• Scientific neutrality. Scientists claim to be neutral, speak only the truth, and are above personal politics. Ironically, that can’t be the case, since I’ve heard of scientists accepting the climate change label and questioning climate change as dishonest or as tools of Big Oil or Big Tobacco (yes, Big Tobacco! They just can’t kill enough kids with their cigarettes, so now they want to destroy the whole planet!). Skeptics sometimes point to a late snowstorm or cold snap as evidence against global warming. Climatologists, meteorologists and other scientists denounce such evidence, explaining that a storm or an atypical weather event does not disprove a climate theory. They’re right. Unusual local or regional weather events and climate are not necessarily related. Moreover, climate change will manifest over decades and may not be observable over a season, year or even years. However, when climate change advocates use that same storm as evidence to confirm their scientific beliefs, the scientific community is eerily silent. An impartial and honest scientist would be as quick to denounce this last assertion as the first. However, their silence, along with the doomsday scenarios mentioned above, demonstrate that many scientists are as inconsistent and biased as the skeptical scientists and the non-scientists they condemn.

• Climate change is responsible for everything. Whether it’s Tropical Storm Sandy, Hurricane Katrina or a severe winter blizzard, all are attributed to climate change. A cool day in the middle of summer? A hot day in the middle of winter? Melted snow? Wind? Freezing Rain? There is no need to accept unusual weather conditions, blame God or even blame “Mother Earth”, because climate change is the real perpetrator. Some also attribute tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic activity to climate change. Apparently, none of these “natural events” ever happened before human-induced (anthropogenic) climate change. Incidentally, this global guilt is why they changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. It allows its promoters to blame human activities for any “act of God”, inopportune weather or abnormally cold weather.

• Storm damage and loss of life. Every major blizzard, hurricane or storm has tragic consequences on human life. Everyone mourns the loss of life, and we must continue to do all we can to minimize these seemingly senseless deaths. However, all claims that storms are becoming more costly and deadly are misleading. Real estate in general is worth more today than it was a few decades ago. Buildings and structures also cost more, and construction often takes place in precarious areas, such as floodplains, near seismic fault lines, or even below sea level near the ocean. In addition, the population has increased considerably in a very short time. Over the past fifty years, the United States alone has gained more than 120 million additional people; The population of Canada and Australia has nearly doubled; the UK added nearly 10 million people; The populations of China and India have increased by more than 600 million each; and the world added over 4.5 billion MORE people. Any great storm will inflict greater monetary damage and tragically cause more casualties, simply because the cost of real estate has increased and the world’s population has increased.

• Carbon footprint. It’s the epitome of hypocrisy when the wealthy fly private jets to conferences on global warming, environmentally conscious celebrities are driven in gas-guzzling limos to openings and award ceremonies, and as performing artists transport and load personnel and equipment from city to city on a world tour, while preaching environmental platitudes during their performances. Maybe when they heat, cool and light their mansions with real renewable energy sources, and walk, bike or at least carpool to their destinations, the skeptics will start to believe. What happened to leading by example? Imagine a rally to save a local park from development. Celebrities, politicians and other speakers lament what it would be like to lose the pristine beauty. They call on the community to come together and do whatever it takes to save the park. After the rally is over, paper bags, empty water bottles, plastic bags, flyers and other assorted debris litter the park. Would anyone really believe that the speakers and their supporters were serious? And why is it acceptable to exclude the rich and famous from practicing what they preach, simply because of their position?

• Carbon credits. This brings us to carbon credits. Paying a company to invest in green energy can be a good investment; using this investment as an excuse to continue a carbon-spending lifestyle is duplicity. Many climate change leaders claim to be “carbon neutral” simply because they have purchased carbon credits. The easiest way to see if it works is to ask a simple question. What if everyone bought carbon credits, became technically carbon neutral, but continued to live in defiance of their way of life? Obviously, this would accomplish very little in the fight against climate change. We don’t have the technology to make the whole world or even entire nations carbon neutral. Carbon credits are a way for very wealthy people to “buy” their means of not changing their lifestyle. This gives the impression of a real sacrifice for the cause, and allows them to continue to speak out against those who remain skeptical of climate change. During the American Civil War, the wealthy avoided fighting in battles by paying fees or finding a replacement. They may have helped the cause, but everyone knows they weren’t involved in the actual fighting.

• Kyoto Treaty. Under the Clinton administration, the Kyoto treaty failed to gain a single vote in the US Senate. Among its many proposals, the Kyoto Protocol attempted to set global standards for carbon emissions. Even the “environmental senators” did not vote for it. Almost all global proposals on greenhouse gas emissions exclude China (the biggest “carbon polluter”) and India, the two most populous countries in the world. The argument against their inclusion is primarily economic. Emission reductions will cripple their economies, leading to increased poverty. If this is true for the economies of China and India, it is also true for other countries. Furthermore, proponents argue that these two countries, and Third World or developing countries, should be exempted, as they did not cause the problem. The culpability lies with the Western industrial countries. Even if this is true, exempting countries from emissions only makes the problem worse, since they will continue to emit greenhouse gases. Is the goal to appease our Western guilt or to save the planet?

• Satellite evidence. Large storms recorded by weather satellites are visually impressive. Experts point to video of huge storms and say their enormous size reflects the impact of climate change. They make a similar argument with Arctic sea ice. Thanks to satellites, we can now accurately measure ice melt in the summer each year, and science can confirm that the polar ice cap has shrunk in recent decades. However, although these observations may indicate climate change, according to NASA, the first successful geosynchronous satellite was launched in 1964. Polar satellites did not exist until the 1970s. We simply do not have any satellite data before that date. . So, from a climate point of view, most of this scientific information and observations, although valid, are very recent.

• Al-Gore. It certainly doesn’t help a science movement when the person most associated with that endeavor is a politician. There is no doubt that people have different opinions on the politics and personality of former Vice President Al Gore. But what is not debatable is that he has no scientific training. I would also argue that he doesn’t understand the scientific argument or method, and it’s unprecedented nerve when he questions the scientific expertise of those who disagree with him. If you don’t mind having a former politician like Al Gore as the face of the fight against climate change, imagine that face being Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, John Howard, Stephen Harper or even Sarah Palin.

• Transfer of assets. It also does not help the cause of climate change when there is an official discussion at the international level about the transfer of wealth from rich countries to poorer countries. Remember that the stated goal of climate change fighters is to reduce carbon emissions around the world. This goal is sensible and desirable. However, moving money from one group to another is social engineering and, again, an attempt to assuage Western guilt. It certainly has little to do with reducing global carbon emissions.

Video about

You can see more content about on our youtube channel: Click Here

Question about

If you have any questions about , please let us know, all your questions or suggestions will help us improve in the following articles!

The article was compiled by me and my team from many sources. If you find the article helpful to you, please support the team Like or Share!

Rate Articles

Rate: 4-5 stars
Ratings: 8565
Views: 89465080

Search keywords

way
tutorial
free
#Global #Warming #Hyperbole

Source: https://ezinearticles.com/?Global-Warming-Hyperbole&id=8793647

Related Posts

default-image-feature

The Most Wonderful Time Of Year Movie latest 2023

You are searching about The Most Wonderful Time Of Year Movie, today we will share with you article about The Most Wonderful Time Of Year Movie was…

default-image-feature

The Months Of The Year In Spanish latest 2023

You are searching about The Months Of The Year In Spanish, today we will share with you article about The Months Of The Year In Spanish was…

default-image-feature

Taking Away Pacifier From 2 Year Old latest 2023

You are searching about Taking Away Pacifier From 2 Year Old, today we will share with you article about Taking Away Pacifier From 2 Year Old was…

default-image-feature

T Ball For 3 Year Olds Near Me latest 2023

You are searching about T Ball For 3 Year Olds Near Me, today we will share with you article about T Ball For 3 Year Olds Near…

default-image-feature

Symptoms Of Rsv In 1 Year Old latest 2023

You are searching about Symptoms Of Rsv In 1 Year Old, today we will share with you article about Symptoms Of Rsv In 1 Year Old was…

default-image-feature

Summer Jobs For 14 Year Olds Near Me latest 2023

You are searching about Summer Jobs For 14 Year Olds Near Me, today we will share with you article about Summer Jobs For 14 Year Olds Near…