"Climate Change" or "Global Warming"

bobblepuzzle

In my opinion climate change is a more accurate term as global warming has a ring to it that seems to suggest its a proven fact us humans are causing it.

Now, I don't know of any compelling evidence that humans are causing a change in the climate, so I disagree with the whole hypothesis from the so called 2,500 worlds best scientists.

Also, "Global Warming" seems to imply that the planet is warming.... didn't we just have the coldest winter since at least 1982?

Anyway, just thought I'd give my opinion on it...

Which term do you prefer?

weisses

Its just a new way to tax people .. and we all stand still bend over and let them get away with it

Duiske

Pringles^IRE wrote: »

Which term do you prefer?

Climate Change. The climate is constantly changing and will continue changing for as long as the sun shines.
The term Global warming is in itself not the wrong term for what is (or was ?) happening, but some people are using the term to paint a scenario where it will continue warming forever, and we are all going to either drown because of rising sea levels or burst into flame.

bobblepuzzle

Duiske wrote: »

Climate Change. The climate is constantly changing and will continue changing for as long as the sun shines.
The term Global warming is in itself not the wrong term for what is (or was ?) happening, but some people are using the term to paint a scenario where it will continue warming forever, and we are all going to either drown because of rising sea levels or burst into flame.

Well said, but I was a bit surprised when my friend asked me to vote for her kids drawing on Google which included the words "Stop Global Warming".... are our young people being thought that its an absolute scientific conclusion that we are changing the climate??

Scary and manipulative stuff! And certainly not the scientific way!

Turtwig

Global Climate Destabilisation would be what I'd call it i.e Natural Climate Change variations destabilised by the activities of humans. (Less of a chance for people to misinterpret it that way.)

Scientific term is : Anthropogenic Global Warming. And that's fine for science but when it comes to PR, I think we ought to call it GCD that way people might be prone to less misconceptions about it.

bobblepuzzle

Malty_T wrote: »

Global Climate Destabilisation would be what I'd call it i.e Natural Climate Change variations destabilised by the activities of humans. (Less of a chance for people to misinterpret it that way.)

Scientific term is : Anthropogenic Global Warming. And that's fine for science but when it comes to PR, I think we ought to call it GCD that way people might be prone to less misconceptions about it.

A term like that would in fact be worse in that it actually states we are to blame

Duiske

Pringles^IRE wrote: »

Well said, but I was a bit surprised when my friend asked me to vote for her kids drawing on Google which included the words "Stop Global Warming".... are our young people being thought that its an absolute scientific conclusion that we are changing the climate??

Scary and manipulative stuff! And certainly not the scientific way!

Theres an interesting guy called Dr Stephen Schneider. In the late 60's and early 70's he was trying to convince the world that we were heading for an ice age !! Thankfully though, Dr Schneider had a change of heart, decided it was actually getting warmer, not colder, and he is now (or was until recently) one of the lead authors of reports from the IPCC.

The reason I mention him is because he seems to think that telling the world the scary and manipulative stuff you mention above is perfectly ok.
During a 1989 interview, he said this...

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Anyway, not to worry. We have carbon taxe's now. We're saved !!

Pa ElGrande

Whether you call it anthropogenic global warming or man-made climate change matters not, very little is about actual scientific research and even a lot of that research is being compromised by pre-determined outcomes of sponsors. This manipulation is being used to present definitive conclusions to the public and solutions are being proposed based on sometimes fraudulent data, imperfect data and incomplete data and without sufficient knowledge of all the factors affecting weather systems and climate on the planet.

There are also fringe ecologist groups with agendas such as significant human population reduction that have attached themselves to the anthropogenic global warming vehicle. Then there is the religious aspect of the movement with anyone who questions the conclusions or motivations of the adherents being labelled a denier.

The inconvenient truth is that governments are using AGW as a means of expanding the tax base, trying to undermine the sovereignty of nations, and as a means of trade protectionism.

Corporations such as banks are using it as a profit vehicle for carbon derivatives trading and others as a means of forcing inefficient and sometimes foist bogus and or destructive technological solutions on us, while others use it for carousel fraud.

It is not the first time politicians or rulers have used science to further their agendas, eugenics was very popular with regimes in the first half of the twentieth century, while scientific research conclusions had to conform with the Marxist doctrines of the former Soviet Union. Is the green agenda our 21st century equivalent?

Eventually the situation will be resolved, we are now in a period of major socio-economic re-alignment with the locus of power shifting from the western hemisphere to Asia. AGW is one of several last gasp attempts by Western states to maintain their status and access to resources. Very few will be talking about AGW in ten years time.

Theowolfe

Hi All, new here.

The alarmists love the term 'Climate Change' because they can blame everything on man made CO2 emissions. So when it is freezing it is due to CO2, when it is hot it is CO2, when it floods or storms abound, it's CO2.

So because the weather doesn't obey the computer models it can all still be blamed on mankind and the devil CO2.

Turtwig

Pringles^IRE wrote: »

A term like that would in fact be worse in that it actually states we are to blame

Which it appears that we are!

Theowolfe

Malty_T wrote: »

Which it appears that we are!

As the ediface of that scientific certainty crumbles, along with the reputations of some scientists and agencies, that assertion could become one of the biggest frauds in history.

Min

When it comes to anthropogenic climate change I believe it is man made.

Not how certain people want it to be though, more man made up climate change, no problem with climate change being a natural phenomenal.
The term 'climate change' has been hijacked by fundamentalists of the eco variety.

Su Campu

From the Oxford English Dictionary...

Climate
• noun 1 the general weather conditions prevailing in an area over a long period. 2 a prevailing trend or public attitude.

The climate changes....period. Always has, always will. Sometimes it warms, sometimes it cools, but by its very definition, it is a measure of the conditions over a long time period (usually 30 years). It's traditionally not been longer than 30 years, as it was always known that any longer than that was likely to be not representative.
The public are being given the impression that climate never changed until we came along, and now we've disturbed the hornets' nest and no amount of smoke's going to sedate them. First the term Global Warming was used, but when the hockey stick runaway warming didn't materialise like they wanted predicted during the last decade, they decided to change it to Climate Change....as if that's something new.

But with the way things are going, I think we're really going to be looking at Climate Change in the sense of the 2nd definition above, ie. a change in the public attitude towards the "consensus" ("con" is right!) and the truth will win out.

superhooper

Seems most people here don't buy the carbon,human caused global warming but I'll ask the question anyway. Does anyone know of somewhere that provides a balanced debate on the whole subject?

Turtwig

superhooper wrote: »

Seems most people here don't buy the carbon,human caused global warming but I'll ask the question anyway. Does anyone know of somewhere that provides a balanced debate on the whole subject?

The problem here is that there isn't really a debate any more as such. Science has reached a huge consensus on one theory. As with any theory though there are challenges to it (That is how science works). Your best bet would be to read up on the alternative hypothesis and find out where they actually stand. Not some amateur weather presenter or Mc Expert who thinks he's figured out something that puts 150 or more years of climate research to shame. Read what the climatologists are saying and proposing.

Alternative hypothesis, that I can think of off the top of my head:
Cosmic Rays affecting cloud cover. -> Svensmark.
Solar Activity. - (More or less dead in the water). -> Eigil_Friis-Christensen(And sorta Svensmark)
Galactic Spiral Spinning. - (Can't remember )

I'm more than willing to discuss the actual science of the theory with people. Not the politics, or the tax, or what I consider bizarre (and somewhat insulting) conspiracy claims of fabricating data etc.

superhooper

superhooper wrote: »

Seems most people here don't buy the carbon,human caused global warming but I'll ask the question anyway. Does anyone know of somewhere that provides a balanced debate on the whole subject?

I doubt that you'll ever to be able to find one place that has a truly balanced view, simply because the subject is so large.

For instance, starting with the historical analysis of climate - there are several interpretations derived from different proxies, there have been debates as to which proxies provide the most accurate data.

Then there is the "measured" data from the past century or so, the number of stations that provide data and methods has increased at an exponatial rate in the past few decades, thus providing vast amounts of data to "marry" up to earlier data (like an upsidedown pyramid), many produce "conflicting" trends.

Finally, you have the interpretation of the data, this will depend on what parameters you decide to use, some will show a rise and some will show a drop in "total global temperatures", the local climate for a particular region could (will or just has) change and have a catastrophic (or benificial) affect on the flora and fauna (& humans) in that area.

My conclusion is that climate change has happened in the past, it is happening now and it will happen in the future, the issue is "how much is mankind responsible for".

Followed by "what can be done to mitigate the damage?".

My rather unscientific (don't try to pin me down on this!) response is 80% natural 20% manmade, the manmade part is NOT going to cause the catastrophic changes predicted, but will make them worse.