Denying Climate Change, Using Words

GLOBAL WARMING, previously known as "the greenhouse effect", now known as "climate change", has been fully understood for two hundred years. Considering this, its a wonder that everyone doesn't understand it, and accept its reality, now. Joseph Fourier outlined the basic theory in 1824. In 1896, Svante Aarrhinius first calculated, with astonishing accuracy, the effect on earth's atmosphere, in terms of temperature, of increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Shortly after World War Two, several scientists pointed out that by deliberately increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, agricultural yield could be greatly increased. The idea was endorsed by Albert Einstein, proving that even Einstein could be wrong. The problem with the idea is knowing when to stop, and how to stop. People can die by drinking too much water, or eating too much food. Too much of a good thing, as they say. In 1965 president Lyndon Johnson, who listened to scientists, issued a warning about global warming. So really, we have no excuses. As of now, the monthly global temperatures have exceeded historical norms for almost four hundred consecutive months; something seems to be going on. Those who claim that there has been no temperature increase for sixteen years are in the same category as those who claim that a single volcanic eruption spews more pollution into the atmosphere than all human activity ever activated; the category could be called "wrong", "dishonest", mistaken", or "prevaricator", your choice. Anyone who has passed high school chemistry should understand the problem. If you add carbon to a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen, the new mixture retains more heat than the old, since carbon retains more heat than the other two elements. Air samples taken anywhere in the world reveal a carbon content of over four hundred parts per million, an increase of twenty five percent since 1900. Today, liberals believe in climate change, conservatives, in general, do not. By the time we find out who's right, it may no longer matter. Obviously, people base their beliefs on personal ideology, not information, and this never changes, regardless of the quantity or quality of information. Deniers of climate change are fond of pointing out that the term "global warming" has been replaced by the term "climate change", and carbon dioxide has been replaced by carbon. This they cite as proof that claims of human caused climate change are false, a liberal hoax, a conspiracy of tens of millions of socialists disguised as concerned citizens. People who understand that global warming is real seem not to understand that it does no good to try to simplify the relevant terms. We now use the word carbon instead of carbon dioxide because oxygen isn't the problem, and climate change is a more accurate term because global warming will bring about an ice age in Europe. Explaining this to deniers, who are intent on resisting any force which might require change, is ineffective. Similarly, we now use the term "tsunami" rather the term "tidal wave", and yet, the water remains the same. "Peking" is now "Beijing", but the cit is the same city. In order to deny climate change, or whatever you choose to call it, it is necessary to believe that hundreds of millions of tons of carbon can be added to Earth's atmosphere annually without having any impact on anything. If you can believe that, you can believe anything.