Trying to understand your post....???
Not enough ice?
Jeeves, bring us another bucket, will you?
Oh, and ring up the broker. I want to buy an air conditioner manufacturer.
Someone should send a link for this article to Bill & Melinda Gates accompanied with a link to the other article concerning their $1.4 B petro investments. Since the civilization I live in gives greatest societal value to the people with the most zeros in the computers in Switzerland I suppose I should try to model myself after them. So I am going to invest all my money in a fracking rig behind my house.
Honestly, if a guy as comfortable monetarily as Bill Gates doesn't take this stuff seriously how can the plebes be expected to care? Opting out of Russian Roulette when you don't have control of the gun doesn't really change the outcome, now does it?
It's scary and depressing. The short article would have more punch if the picture had been taken February 25, 2015.
It would have more punch if "climate change" was more accurately called "global warming". But the media continues to follow Frank Luntz's directive to use the less disturbing term "climate change".
Climate change sounds so innocent and natural.
Very true. That phrase needs to be changed to: CLIMATE DEVASTATION.
He's a "HAARP" and "chemtrails" kook. He thinks that global warming is a deliberate "inside job" by "The Government".
Your "argument" is at variance to the facts. The term "climate change" has been in common scientific usage with regard to the greenhouse effect and fossil fuels since before Frank Luntz was born.
Climate change has been happening for billions of years. The ice ages are examples of climate change. The issue today is not naturally occurring climate changes, but man-made global warming, which is a unique form of climate change.
When you call what is happening today "climate change", you could just as easily be arguing that the climate is cooling. It is not. This is why the fossil fuel industry and most politicians prefer to use the more benign term "climate change". They base their choice of words on focus groups and the words that influence people the most.
You are welcome to call it whatever you want. I'll use the more specific and thus more accurate term, "global warming", if you don't mind.
If you are talking personal preference and accuracy, my preferred terms are "climate chaos" and "climate disruption." If you want to talk "more benign," "warm" sounds pretty nice to me.
You are giving this tiny turn of phrase weight that it does not have.
Would you advocate for the HAARP program to be shut down then?
The program ended in 2013; I'd post a reference but Common Dreams won't let me at this time. However it is in the website Earthsky.org; you might search for "You Can't Blame HAARP any more".
“Global warming” refers to the overall heating of the Earth system as a result of the greenhouse effect, the anthropogenic addition of atmospheric CO2 and other gases and land use changes.
“Climate change” refers to the complex effects of that warming on the Earth’s climate and ecological systems, including both long-term effects (e.g. “dust bowlification”) and short-term effects (e.g. extreme weather events including both hot and cold) in addition to increased fires, floods, storms, droughts, heat waves, ocean acidification, and other effects. Most people don’t think of human effects, including war, civil strife and resource conflicts, spread of disease vectors and serious :"pests" when “climate change” is mentioned.
“Climate chaos” may refer to the disrupted and disruptive effects on weather and ecosystems caused by warming; we may also use it as the catch-all term for the almost universally bad but unpredictably-spaced and timed effects on human society and conflict that result from each of those “natural” effects.
Without human civilization, “warming” and “change” would be the end of it—no “Climate Crisis”. Time would pass with changes coming and going. But looking forward as the effects worsen, especially in a world with human ownership, and attachment to structures (buildings and borders, countries and industries...) and our numbers, and level and types of technology, we can also frame the problem as Climate Catastrophe, Climate Cataclysm, Climate Ragnarok, Climate Götterdämmerung, Warmageddon, (although making light of the most dire crisis in human existence with a pun gives that one somewhat limited applicability) and other names.
Also, if you're British, consider climate cockup...
I know nothing about what you state. But why would they need to track the car? After all, some cars might get by on far less then others. If it is about fuel consumption, then why not tax the fuel? Might it be more about surveillance than being truly about cutting down on fuel use?
"Climate disruption" is the best term I've heard yet. Since science forecasts the effects on arctic ice, sea level and unusual weather variability, the term should directly address human causes that disrupt and perturb weather processes that would not have been as extreme without the added carbon. Climate disruption is getting closer.
I'd still like to see a photo of the Arctic Ocean taken February 25, 2015 and so dated.
Do some research. Pictures from space are out there. I have seen them recently but forget where. Try Alaska!
But it would be easier and more convincing if you could give us the specific reference.
This is one of the first great tipping pts. happening right in front of us and happening in fast forward geologically speaking. Following on this rapid change will be an accelerating rate of sea rise and its consequences , although loss of Arctic sea Ice doesn't directly add more water to the sea. The addition of huge areas of dark open ocean though absorbs sunlight instead of reflecting it ( the albedo effect.) This added energy warms the global ocean melting the ice sitting on land areas like Greenland and Antarctica. These two huge Ice covered areas are also losing ice at an accelerating rate and this loss is rising sea level.
For what reasons?