In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Drich]

One final note.  Your latest citation only states that Broecker was the first to use the term global warming in a paper, not that he was the only one who made that claim that year, so your conclusion that there was only one paper suggesting warming in 1975 simply doesn't follow.  But then, in this case, as in the others, you are hoist on your own petard.  The very article you cited says the following:

Broecker was not the first to predict CO2-induced warming. In 1965, an expert report to US President Lyndon B. Johnson had warned: “By the year 2000, the increase in carbon dioxide will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate.” And in 1972, a more specific prediction similar to Broecker’s was published by the eminent atmospheric scientist J.S. Sawyer in Nature (for a history in a nutshell, see my newspaper column here). ... Overall, Broecker’s paper (together with that of Sawyer) shows that valid predictions of global warming were published in the 1970s in the top journals Science and Nature, and warming has been proceeding almost exactly as predicted for at least 35 years now.

Happy 35th birthday, global warming!

"That appears to be the first use of the term “global warming” in the scientific literature (at least it’s the first of over 10,000 papers for this search term according to the  of journal articles)." never mind the crux of the article... let look for common words even if they are used to describe something else.


The long and short of it is in 1972 the only thing we/al gore's picture of global warming has in common is the term co2 emmissions mentioned in that paper was the idea that co2 raises temps.. which that in itself has been debunked. Co2 does indeed work as a green house gas but it is not the only one nor is it the best example./have very little impact on the planet's temp over all, considering all of the other contributors. water vapor is 70% of the earth's total green house effect. far more potent than co2. yet we are focused on the gas humans least contribute to. As it sits the primary contributor of co2 is the earth it self specifically in the pacific ring of fire where trillions of tons of the gas are released due to underwater volcanic activity. not to mention all the arobic contributors. 

Why are we worried about a .07% human contribution to carbon emissions when there was a 25% increase in water vapor?
https://www.popsci.com/environment/artic...es#page-11

So again, even if I backed into this one everything about co2/global warming is wrong.

what is right?
The planet is warming, but it has been since the last ice age. as the ice diminishes the planet warms faster.. why? because the ice acted like a solar reflector, now that it is gone the ground absorbs more energy. co2 does play a part, but the sun and water vapor plays a much larger part. but we can't tax that yet can we?

These global warming sky is falling people are simply trying to cash in (google the kyoto conspiracy or carbon credit, carbon tax. ) and see who was to benfit in the way of hundreds of trillions of dollars... just so happen to be everyone who was screaming the sky was falling/ telling us about global warming.

If the US whored itself out for billions in taxable revenue created by the CFC scare, how much more would the blood thirsty in politics be willing to cash in on a world market/scam to tax globally people companies and countries a carbon credits?

which was the point I was making. we went from co2 to global warming, to global climate change as a catch all phrase that encapsulates the sky is falling without even giving you the details any more. Some are pushing co2 emissions still other push the destruction of the rainforests while other still point to the ocean as being our reasons for climate change and our only hope.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/solutions/stop-deforestation/tropical-deforestation-and-1.html#.W5fdskZKjIU
the next one says deforrestation adds more co2 than all the cars and truck in the whole world ever could
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

here the ocean is the largest solar energy conductor on the planet... fix the ocean fix global warming..
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

The point I was originally making was science is a faith based system of belief not unlike Christianity.. that's all. you can't deny this, rather you nit pick facts. 

so lets throw everything I just said away and let me conceed everything here is wrong. 


Now I will still say science is a faith based system of belief. then I will site the changes made as new things are learned. the faith comes in in the way on believing that what you know now is the truth, in this case climate change... Despite the evidence I've shown you that science is being used to manipulate the way people think, and even spend their money. My final point would be to show that people who have faith or 100% faith in science to the point where belief and faith seem to be seperate things. Those people can be manipulated into believing anything if the lie is simply presented to them into the correct 'scientific box.'

This blind faith was what was used to sell the german people on their racial superiority. Science was used because people were conditioned to implicitly trust every scientific 'fact' as it were that the government backed! How are things now any different?