Quote: Originally Posted by mabudon
I actually saw an article- not sure if it's posted anywhere here- about how "global disruption" was a much more accurate term as to what is happening on our planet, and I tend to agree, there is NO way the asshats can argue against the obvious fact that SOMETHING is afoot- tho I bet ol walt will give it his kindergarten copy and paste try
See, that's why I like to stick to the term "Climate Change"
because it's very much the same meaning as "Global Disruption"
The majority of us do understand and see that something is going on, but one can not claim it is "Global Warming"
because what happens if and when it starts to cool down suddenly for whatever reason? Are we going to still use "Global Warming"
as the term or shall we switch to "Global Cooling?"
I mean, some places are being affected by the changing climates more then others, while other areas haven't really had that much noticable change. Some places are warming, while other places are cooling, such as the above explination..... when something cools, shall we still call it "Global Warming?"
If it's going to remain in this new changed environment, doesn't that mean it has changed? Therefore, if the Climate has changed in an area of the planet..... wouldn't one call it "Climate Change?"
~ It did change afterall.... be that for the better or for the worse.
If you don't want a paticular area of the planet to change into what it's starting to change into, then we can focus attention there and try and "Change it Back"
if possible, or at least reduce the pollution, etc. in that area to make sure the change isn't as drastic.
To me, Global Warming only seems to focus on Pollution and Man Made effects on our planet, and the term itself make it sound like the entire planet.... the Globe.... is Warming overall and they based their theories all around the concept of "Warming" that there is this inpending doom coming our way.
The term itself creates division in trying to find a solution, because many don't believe the theory based on how it is presented..... however if you present it as "Climate Change" which focuses on not just Man made influences, but other known factors out of our control, it will be far more easier to get people on board with the concept and to find a solution to the problem much sooner.
To me, the term "Global Warming" is a lie fed to the public in a manner to influence fear in the unknown... and many others see it that way.... but when you refer to it as "Climate Change" it makes more sense based on the evidence, and you will get the same outcome, if not better, when it comes to getting people involved, then you would by continually using the term "Global Warming"
As a person who works in Advertisment and Marketing, I know it sounds like a trival thing to argue about the term Global Warming, Climate Change, or your term Global Disruption to be used when addressing the current problems, but it's the small little things like that that get people on board with what you're trying to sell.
If it doesn't make sense or doesn't relate to them directly, they're not going to buy it.
Would you still eat at MacDonald's if it was called MacDiddles? If it was called MacDiddles, then chances are, many wouldn't go because of how it sounds in their head.
The point I'm trying to make is that the term Climate Change covers everything Global Warming stands for, and then some..... it's the reference to the Climates Changing, be that by warming or cooling.... be that by man or by natual occurances.
Once you get everybody on board as to what it actually is, then you can start collectively finding a solution to it. Right now we have a division on what the problem actually is, therefore you only have at best, half of the people trying to find a solution.
Last edited by Praxius; Jul 10th, 2008 at 09:15 AM..