No Scientist Denies "Climate Change"
The somewhat ambiguous term "climate change" itself states only an undeniable, known fact.
Fact: all of the Earth’s several climatic zones are dynamic (not static) ecosystems, each in their own way, and they all combine to form the overall natural ecosystem that makes up our planet. Since they are dynamic, they are in a constant state of change.
The tropical rain forests cycle through changes as do the sub-tropics, as do the desert regions, arctic regions, tundra regions, temperate zones and so on. A changing climate in any of the climatic zones is normal. Virtually every scientist knows and understands that ecosystems are dynamic.
What makes the term "climate change" ambiguous is that first of all, there is no such thing as the "Earth’s climate" and, second, you need to specifically define what exactly is the change and to what extent are you relating to that change.
Most people have now been brainwashed to think that the term "climate change" is the equivalent of the following conclusive assertion, expressed in as concise a form as possible and formulated into an equation:
The now universally touted position on climate change: The planet Earth is experiencing an ecological disaster and existential threat to human life (hence mammalian life) due to planet-wide increases in atmospheric temperatures (i.e., global warming) that is [i]the direct result of greenhouse emissions (e.g., carbon dioxide) that are due primarily to human population growth, technology and ‘carelessness / indifference’.[/i]
As you can see, there is a rather huge leap from the (realistic) recognition that our planet experiences dynamic climate fluctuations - real climate change - to the (fanciful, agenda-serving) concept of a disastrous, human-induced catastrophe that postulates warming and finds connections to human produced CO2.
In other words, the term has been hijacked and redefined in order to support a narrative. Packaged in the colour RED, for extreme danger.
Be afraid, be very afraid, we are urged. By highly specialised and competent persuaders.
There is no universal consensus when it comes to the above equation and its consequent catastrophic assertions.
Compare the terms: [b]afraid, [/b]and [b] a fraud[/b]
Fact: all of the Earth’s several climatic zones are dynamic (not static) ecosystems, each in their own way, and they all combine to form the overall natural ecosystem that makes up our planet. Since they are dynamic, they are in a constant state of change.
The tropical rain forests cycle through changes as do the sub-tropics, as do the desert regions, arctic regions, tundra regions, temperate zones and so on. A changing climate in any of the climatic zones is normal. Virtually every scientist knows and understands that ecosystems are dynamic.
What makes the term "climate change" ambiguous is that first of all, there is no such thing as the "Earth’s climate" and, second, you need to specifically define what exactly is the change and to what extent are you relating to that change.
Most people have now been brainwashed to think that the term "climate change" is the equivalent of the following conclusive assertion, expressed in as concise a form as possible and formulated into an equation:
The now universally touted position on climate change: The planet Earth is experiencing an ecological disaster and existential threat to human life (hence mammalian life) due to planet-wide increases in atmospheric temperatures (i.e., global warming) that is [i]the direct result of greenhouse emissions (e.g., carbon dioxide) that are due primarily to human population growth, technology and ‘carelessness / indifference’.[/i]
As you can see, there is a rather huge leap from the (realistic) recognition that our planet experiences dynamic climate fluctuations - real climate change - to the (fanciful, agenda-serving) concept of a disastrous, human-induced catastrophe that postulates warming and finds connections to human produced CO2.
In other words, the term has been hijacked and redefined in order to support a narrative. Packaged in the colour RED, for extreme danger.
Be afraid, be very afraid, we are urged. By highly specialised and competent persuaders.
There is no universal consensus when it comes to the above equation and its consequent catastrophic assertions.
Compare the terms: [b]afraid, [/b]and [b] a fraud[/b]
