Shouldn't it be called 'Global Thermal Redistribution'?
Answer:
Yes, because it meshes well with the IPCC plan for "Global Wealth Redistribution."
Global Climate Change roles off the toungue easier.
Besides, if it was called Global Thermal Redistribution, it will give people who think this is another partisan competition matter, a reason to call it Climate Socialism.
Many already deny it as a liberal conspiracy, as it is. no sense in adding more confusion to their lives.
Personally I think calling it "global climate change" fits much better, since the Earth - cyclical as it is - has been through warming and cooling phases that have nothing to do with CO2.
Mankind is not the real problem, but the Sun.
That would be fine if was indeed simply redistribution in that there was no total increase or decrease in composite temperature. Such a situation would exist if the poles got warmer and the equatorial region got colder.
That's not what is happening. The entire planet is getting warmer.
There will be some areas that cooler for a little while anyway. Antarctica is the main one, because of complex interactions between global warming and the ozone hole.
But averaged over the whole Earth, we're headed up, because the enormous rise in greenhouse gases is simply overpowering everything else..
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/ima...
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/ima...
thats why "global warming" isnt the technically correct term (i wont use the word political). It is actually "Climate change" and this suites it perfectly because that is exactly what it is. Climate Change is the proper terminology especially in any peer reviewed science article.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: