Why Did "Global Warming" Become "Climate Change"?

[Heissonear]

.

Which is easier to defend?

Climate is always changing.

For Global Warming , well, the Earth's temperature has to increase. If it stops increasing that is not good (at least to CAGW Alarmists)!

Meanwhile, promoting Climate Change can be fuzzy grey and hard to prove wrong. And just about any weather related event can be stated as being due to "Climate Change".

The result, the below from National Geographic is an example of the moving goal posts where anything and everything proves Manmade Global Warming like the following about the NE U.S. snow:

National Geographic – January 14, 2008
Earlier blooms. Less snow to shovel. Unseasonable warm spells.

Signs that winters in the Northeast are losing their bite have been abundant in recent years, and now researchers have nailed down numbers to show just how big the changes have been……

Snowfall totals dropped by an average of 8.8 inches (22.4 centimeters) across the region over the same period,……

=======================
National Geographic – January 26, 2015

Blizzard of Nor’Easters No Surprise, Thanks to Climate Change
More extreme storms are expected to fall on the Northeast as climate changes
………”Big snowfall, big rainstorms, we’ve been saying this for years,” says climate scientist Don Wuebbles of the University of Illinois in Urbana. “More very large events becoming more common is what you would expect with climate change, particularly in the Northeast.”……

What would we NOT expect with "Climate Change" regarding snow in the Northeast?

There we see the propaganda at work, always promoting "Climate Change" and interchanging this terminology with "Global Warming" at a whim and as if saying the same thing.

Is this propaganda trail to be followed? It is pushed constantly before others. Line up, deniers!

No, I'll take the name calling, rather than the corrupt propaganda behind "the sky is falling" and everything proves it!

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why Did "Global Warming" Become "Climate Change"?

For the same reason "babe in the womb" became "fetus."

It's a way of watering down terminology so as to be able to promote certain activities and ideas more easily.

You can't win a court case using "babe in the womb," but you can using "fetus."

By the same token, you can't push "global warming" past the court of public opinion, but you can using "climate change."

 

[That Guy 11200]

I remember searching on scientific search engines for papers using the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' in their titles. The earliest mention of global warming I found was a paper called (rather ironically) 'Climatic change: Are we on course for runaway global warming?' That was from the 60s.

'Climatic change' was in use for some time before that. Notably, in a paper published in the 50s called 'The CO2 theory of climatic change'.

I don't expect the conspiracy theorists to take that on board though. They'll continue to peddle the same lie, that 'global warming' was changed to 'climate change', to the ignorant and gullible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I remember searching on scientific search engines for papers using the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' in their titles. The earliest mention of global warming I found was a paper called (rather ironically) 'Climatic change: Are we on course for runaway global warming?' That was from the 60s.

'Climatic change' was in use for some time before that. Notably, in a paper published in the 50s called 'The CO2 theory of climatic change'.

I don't expect the conspiracy theorists to take that on board though. They'll continue to peddle the same lie, that 'global warming' was changed to 'climate change', to the ignorant and gullible.

Didn't the tree-huggers want a ban on flurocarbons back then?

 

[MerlinJ]

Didn't the tree-huggers want a ban on flurocarbons back then?

It's called the Montreal Protocol, and it was passed in the late 80s. Signed by that damn, dirty hippie Reagan.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's called the Montreal Protocol, and it was passed in the late 80s.

In spite of what scientists said, or with respect to what scientists said?

 

[Heissonear]

J

I remember searching on scientific search engines for papers using the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' in their titles. The earliest mention of global warming I found was a paper called (rather ironically) 'Climatic change: Are we on course for runaway global warming?' That was from the 60s.

'Climatic change' was in use for some time before that. Notably, in a paper published in the 50s called 'The CO2 theory of climatic change'.

I don't expect the conspiracy theorists to take that on board though. They'll continue to peddle the same lie, that 'global warming' was changed to 'climate change', to the ignorant and gullible.

.

A little confused!

We are not conspiracy theorist. We are scientists.

Climate Change has been arounda while, with details for example when a dam is place on major tributaries, and like desertification. Nothing new.

You jumped the gun.

Maybe you need to know more? Yes, the use and change of "Climate Change" for Global Warming did factually occur. The trend in the propaganda - yes real war propaganda - to the next.

Global Warming > Climate Change > Climate Justice.

Yes, Climate Justice. The continued stray from "the science" of Climatology to greed, power, and money objectives. With Environmental Extremism included.

Rather than being a side picker and talk down maybe you should be a learner. As we go we face and then examine things. Picking sides is a cope out, with the he bias statements and promotion of propaganda to meet your sides goals.

.

 

[Heissonear]

.

Some people are ignorant and do not know there is a "Climate War"!

The percussion has already " cost much". The bending of "science" by political groups is one, flat out deception is another, and group thinking leading rather close to a type of facism is another.

And let's not forget the toll on careers and hardships for those that did not line up to the infamous "The Science is Settled".

Some do not understand the Climate War and its intricacies. They need to be more observant and critically examine the arena. The Battlefield is not pretty nor prosperous. The ones out to win regardlessly are not the ones we want running things, nor having their worlds view pushed forcefully upon others freedoms.

This " line up" over-promotion some just don't get. This "The Science is Settled" and those who do not accept it are "Deniers" and "anti-science" MANY do not get it. Is it brainwashing or over their heads?

I hope for many it is mostly due to lack of critical thinking and examination.


.

 

[Nithavela]

Flurocarbons have nothing to do with climate change/global warming.

 

[Heissonear]

.

What an erroneous ploy: there are all types of weather events promoted as being due to "Global Warming" but the Earth stopped warming .

Is the climate suppose to change because of the Earth getting too hot by CO2 GHG effect?

Then why is the talk about "Climate Change" and not Global Warming events ?

Why don't we see and observe WARMING, AND WARMING EVENTS?

And they call the Earth's current LACK OF WARMING "a Pause".

Nothing about increased earth temperature to talk about. Can't directly talk about the Earth "Warming".

But they talk. Snow means the Climate has Changed. Tornado outbreaks mean Climate Change. Below average amount of hurricanes means the Earth is Climate Change.

Weather events of all types now means Warming, I mean Climate Change.

The above is called bias observation of natural events. A promotion of something without proof of WARMING!


.

 

[[serious]]

.
Why Did "Global Warming" Become "Climate Change"?

It didn't "become climate change" both terms were in common use until about 1994 when climate change began being favored:

But why? Well, 2 reasons:

1. More than just temperature changes. Precipitation changes are another major effect causing flooding or drought in different regions as climate patterns shift. Not all regions will necessarily warm either. For example, if the gulf stream stalls due to melting of the greenland ice sheet, Europe would see cooler temperatures even as global averages climbed.

2. Republicans thought climate change sounded less scary.

"It’s time for us to start talking about 'climate change' instead of global warming and 'conservation' instead of preservation … 'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming'."

Now though, since it still means the same thing as global warming, climate change sounds just as scary since it's still referring to the same thing.

 

[Heissonear]

.

Some need to get over the fear that CAGW propaganda has produced in them.

.

 

[RealityCheck01]

.
...

Because someone is lying to you, Heissonear ?
These terms mean different things.
Both terms have been in use for decades.

 

[RealityCheck01]

.

What an erroneous ploy: there are all types of weather events promoted as being due to "Global Warming" but the Earth stopped warming .

I guess that someone else is lying to you, Heissonear, because the Earth has not stopped warming up.
The global surface temperatures have warmed in the last couple of decades less than they did in the previous couple of decades. But the Earth is more than a surface - there are also oceans
Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

And look at What has global warming done since 1998?
One deception that is in circulation is the "No warming for 18 years 3 months" graph from Monckton (an economist!), e.g. at WUWT.
That graph is wrong:
* Any graph that starts in 1997 will include the 1998 peak value and reduce any warming trend.
* It is only the RSS dataset that shows this. Three other datasets show warming.

 

[AV1611VET]

So does earth have a fever or not?

 

[RealityCheck01]

.

Some need to get over the fear that CAGW propaganda has produced in them.

.

.

Some need to get over the fear of reading science that anti-CAWFG propaganda has produced in them

.

The science is strong enough to convince 97% of climate scientists that AGW is happening. That is science, not propaganda, Heissonear.

 

[RealityCheck01]

So does earth have a fever or not?

yes

 

[AV1611VET]

yes

This global warming stuff was an issue when I was in college in 1977-78.

I guess some things never die.

Aren't we supposed to be on the verge of another ice age or something?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Aren't we supposed to be on the verge of another ice age or something?

No - that is thought to be thousands of years away. Except for climate change deniers who really want an ice age now !

 

[Heissonear]

.

There has been a recent shift in calling any and all weather related events as being due to "Climate Change".

Even recent heavy snow events in the Northeast U.S.

When the earth "stops warming" what else can you do? You cannot talk about "warming".

.









.