JudasIscaredycat, if you’re going to dismiss my posts, you should not be surprised when I do the same to you.

Except that the long-term problems we’re trying to prevent are mostly not the temperature change. The temperature is dangerous, but not that difficult to survive and would bring some benefit to some areas. And, if the uncovered Viking villages in Greenland are any indication, humanity’s even survived a higher…

If I were going to argue that global warming is the better term, I’d have outright argued it. And I’ve been proven to be full of shit before (like the Santa Claus discussion).

NASA says otherwise. Global warming is specific to an aspect of climate change.

I hunted it down, and I think I know why it got the name global warming... and why science since moved away from the term.

Did I say that it was? Don’t attribute an argument to me I have not made.

Most people don’t know that, though. Don’t believe me? Go out and ask random people what “climate change” is short for. And don’t be surprised when many of them give you blank looks or looks of surprise.

Except that Earth’s climate moves incredibly slow. If I remember the last IPCC report correctly, they outright pointed to the current problem taking over a thousand years of human effort to create. If that is accurate, then this isn’t something that happened overnight, and very much is something that can’t be solved…

There... may be more to it than that. The British promised the land that is currently Israel to the Palestinians, then offered it to the Jews after World War 2. And Britain was a very heavy practitioner of “divide and conquer.” I don’t believe for an instant that they didn’t know the level of conflict that would…

“Climate change” is also something that is purely natural, and the term doesn’t necessarily imply anything about human involvement or disaster. Earth’s climate is always changing, and has been for over a billion years.

That would be a disaster. There is already the increasingly-popular conspiracy theory that global warming/climate change exists purely for scientists to force some agenda on the populace. Changing the name in that manner would lend some evidence to the stance, and they’re already nuts enough.

Not anywhere near the deficit you have. I at least have the capacity to tell when something is a joke.

I won’t be surprised if he pulls us from the treaty, then tries to form a new pact dedicated purely to shipping pollution to the nations still in the treaty.

The keeping us in the treaties, or the doing something stupid?

The name is problematic. Why? Because if climate change didn’t exist, Earth would be incapable of supporting life. That’s why they tend to clarify it as man-made climate change.

This article gets the King of Trolls Stamp of Approval!

Yep. And, it’s impossible to humblebrag without sounding like a jerk.

Of course he’s open-minded about climate change. He’s so open-minded about it his brain fell out. Which explains his cabinet choices.

Considering it would be World War 3 if we did, since Russia and China would be aiding Iran and most of Europe fucking hates Israel? We would be the Axis Powers right after the Battle of Stalingrad.

We elected Donald Trump as President. Feel free to Seig Heil away.