What does a warm-monger say when the facts clearly show
no sign of global warming, but there's more than enough evidence of manipulating data? How does he prove that his beliefs in man-made climate disaster have any scientific merit? He says that the theory was incorrectly named and that
the proper name would be "global weirding" or "global climate change" or "global climate disruption":
White House science advisor John Holdren made news when, in a recent presentation, he recommended describing the changes occurring to the Earth's climate as "global climate disruption" as opposed to "global warming." Holdren referred to the term global warming as a "(dangerous) misnomer" (for reasons stated in the slide to the right).
So, the "global warming" is not really global and not really about warming. Nonetheless, they insist, it's certainly happening and certainly harmful. That's why you certainly need climate experts like Holdren that are always glad to tell you what to do to "save the Earth"...
How come there are still people who call this global climate fraud a science?
No comments:
Post a Comment