Global Warming & Climate Change Rotating Header Image

Since we now concerned not about global warming but about climate change, why should we worry about grenhouse?

Since we now concerned not about global warming but about climate change, why should we worry about emissions of greenhouse gasses?

Greenhouse gasses should cause global warming, right? They absorb infrared radiation yada yada yada look at your greenhouse in your backyard. At least there was some appearance of logic there, if not real science. But since we now fight climate change where are the greenhouse gasses there in this new liberal scheme of things?

5 Comments

  1. GlobalWarming says:

    The Ozone has been damaged by chemicals, and as a result more radiation comes to the earth. Also, gasses (such as automobile exhaust) makes the atmosphere warmer, which result in harmful effects such as the melting of polar ice, which makes the level of the oceans rise, which in turn causes a chain-reaction which affects other aspects of the earth.
    We could definitely benefit from technology which doesn’t depend of burning of fossil fuels.

  2. firefly says:

    on my way home I just passed a field full of farting cows, they had the nerve not to even care that they are destroying the ozone. oh the shame of it.

  3. Nik says:

    Didnt you realize all the cities of the world are melting, flooding, and fires from hades are raining down….and we should all be taxed for it?

    Welcome to Climate Change.

  4. aj says:

    I cannot compete with firefly’s farting cows…

  5. Frst Grade Rocks! Ω says:

    I’ll take the well-informed, intelligent liberal position (not the Gore position).

    The three major existential threats to our current human existence, in no particlular order, are:

    1. Emergence of a new highly lethal, highly contagious, disease,

    2. Nuclear war,

    3. Widespread environmental degredation and ecosystem collapse (the oceans seem particularly vulnerable given that many of the species at the bottom of the ecosystem are sensitive to ph, and to a lesser temperature and currents. I’d rather not see an ocean dominated by jelly fish)

    You could probably add an asteroid strike, or a new wave of volcanism, but the short-term probabilities are low.

    Climate disruption increases the probability of all three of the existential threats. However, there is not an "if – then" causal relationship.

    I’m wary of ‘climate change’, but in many ways it is illusory. Our leaders need to understand the true threats and act accordingly.