Skip to comments.The UN defines “climate change” as being man-made: Orwell could not have done it better
Posted on 06/15/2012 12:05:42 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Sloppy language works for cheats and charlatans. In the search for the truth only accurate language will do. Orwell understood the power of language to change the way we think, indeed to fence off some possible options completely.
Roger Pielke Snr put out a call today asking for precise definitions and protesting about the misuse of the term climate change. But when did this nonsensical term start? Where else, but with the UN.
All the way back on May 9th 1992, UN defined climate change as man-made. See The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, (paragraph 6):
Climate change is defined by the Convention as change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods (article 1 (2)).
In other words, there is no climate change without humans because there cannot be, and by extension, the climate did not change, could not have, for the 4.5 billion years before 1880 when the first coal powered electricity station was fired up.
Such nonsense is what international treaties are made of. Only millions of taxpayer dollars could have propagated an inanity so profoundly inane, and so abjectly silly. No mere student report could have swept around the world destroying sensible conversation for two decades (and taking the entire field of paleoclimate as collateral damage too).
By misusing climate change so audaciously (and getting away with it), the UN ensured that an army of distracted or not-too-sharp supporters would adopt it, and it would reduce conversations about the role of man-made emissions down to a caricature. Do you believe in climate change ask the thought police, its a loaded question that invites any sane person to say Yes because who believes in climate-sameness?
The term climate denier springs from this sick well as if, somewhere on the planet, in asylums or day care centers, there might be someone who denies we have a climate. Bystanders watching a debate at this nonsensical level dont accidentally step into the dissenter camp by default, they are with the UN.
The answer to stopping this is to turn the nonsense against those who issue it, and not fall for the tactic and join the perversion.
So when the journalists / pollsters inanely repeat the litany there are lots of options.
Do you believe in Climate Change:
1. What are the alternatives? (I mean, does anyone believe in climate unchange?)
2. Do you mean climate change as used in the English language or climate change as the UN defines it. (I need to I know what you are really asking?)
3. Have you heard of an ice age?
So yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Roger Pielke, but we need to do more than just expect science journals to be scientific, we must demand that journalists and pollsters use English.
More suggestions of responses welcome
It matters not how long men may argue about the number of angels that may dance on the head of a pin - the fact remains that it is not possible to resolve the question.
There are far too many variables for men to accurately assess what degree the activities of mankind may or may not affect the overall climate of the entire planet. What the theorists seem to miss, is just how BIG the earth is, and of all the living mass on its surface, just how insignificant the sum total of all the humanity on the planet is, as compared to ALL other forms of life that exist simultaneously.
So we produce a little extra carbon dioxide. Does that carbon dioxide then continue to accumulate endlessly in the atmosphere? Not as long as ther are green growing plants greedily sucking it up and converting it back into oxygen and some form of carbohydrate. Is the proportion of oxygen suddenly and otherwise inexplicibly being reduced by the presence of all this new carbon dioxide being produced? Not that anybody has recorded, which seems to support the hypothesis that the carbon dioxide is being pulled out of the atmosphere (and from where it is dissolved in water as well) at just about the same rate at which it is being generated by the combustion of so-called “fossil” fuels.
Man simply does not have enough influence, so far, to change climate except on very small scale, like the microclimate of an otherwise arid valley, when water is diverted there and crops are grown by irrigation. Or in the heat sinks that are the modern version of a city, where the overall output of energy may affect the storm tracks of very large masses of air, but only a little to one side or the other.
Boasting about the power and influence that mankind has on the climate of the earth as a whole is like the flea on the back of an elephant riding on a barge, who then proclaims, “Raise the drawbridge, I’m coming through!”
Get over yourselves, you self-important heralds of climate change. You are vain popinjays and of little intellectual attainment.
Oooh what’s a few words here and there. Trillions of dollars in extortion monies perhaps...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.