Did changing it from global warming and skeptic to climate change and denier convince anyone?

*sigh*

It's always been about climate change.

Global warming is a term that was coined by the media.

Some never learn a single thing from any questions that they ask or answer.

That's denial.

Some completely ignore or dismiss any evidence that doesn't support their point of view.

That's denial.

Skeptics ask questions and learn from the answers. They don't keep repeating the same mistakes, like that 'global warming' was changed to 'climate change'.

_

As always the simple answer is what change

It has been the IPCC since it started no amount of spin can change that.

As for changing from skeptic to denier, again sorry, if you guys ignore facts make stuff about conspiracy theories, make up theories that simple don't fit the facts at all (like it's the Sun) then you are deniers pure and simple and have no right to the term skeptic.

A skeptic would not continue to make claims about the Sun, when there is 40 years of solid solar data showing the Sun has has had no increase in activity, in fact the data shows a slight decrease in the Suns activity, as long as you carry on with that sort of nonsense you will always be deniers.

I have heard from several different sources that climate change was the original term used to describe what has for some time been popularly referred to as global warming and it was the media who began calling it 'global warming' for various reasons. Seems the main reason, though, was the term was more of an attention grabber. I don't know if that convinced anyone of anything any more than going to calling it climate change in popular lexicon has. But it is pretty obvious that there are a lot of people out there who don't grasp much basic science to begin with, so maybe there is an effort affoot by some to disassociate the 'warming' part of the phrase from the concept for the benefit of the people who don't understand that just because it is cold or snowy in one small corner of the world that means that warming has stopped all around the globe. Maybe they don't get the concept of 'global' is what the problem is.

But there was no change in phraseology from skeptic to denier, those two terms always had different meanings. I think that people who are in denial about where the research and data are leading us aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to understand the stark difference between skepticism and denial, and on the other side of the argument people who are frustrated with the ignorance shown have tended to lump skeptics and deniers together and call them all deniers, which may have made the use of the term more generic. I don't know for sure on that...but calling people deniers sure hasn't convinced anyone of anything other than what they already believe, whether those beliefs are rooted in knowledge or ignorance.

I also think-not strictly related to your question but relevant-that the term 'denier' is a very powerful term and it has been used very effectively. It is one of the few times I have seen a tactic pulled directly out of the politically conservative bag of tricks and used with as much success as conservatives have used so many tactics they have honed to a razor sharp edge. It seems as if people are by and large EXTREMELY offended when they're called (climate change) deniers. I don't know if that is a good thing overall or not, but it is entertaining to watch the offended ones struggle to come up with an equally offensive term for the believers. Like 'Believer.' Boy, did that ever get people's collective goat. Not. Warmist...that really caught on. There have been a few so awkward you almost feel embarrassed for the people who use the term because it is so obviously transparent what they are trying to do-alarmunist is the most recent one I have seen here in this category of Y/A.

Global warming and climate change are two different things - they always have been and always will be.

The media tended to use the term ‘global warming’ as a cover-all, even when the correct phrase to use was ‘climate change’.

In science the term 'climate change' has been used since the 1970's, it was the term used in the NAS’s first published study of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere. Prior to that it was referred to as ‘Inadvertent Climate Modification’ or ICM, not surprisingly it got shortened. For example, here is the Charney Report from 1979 http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charne... which talks about climate change, not global warming.

Skeptics and deniers are two different things, always have been, always will be.

For example, the above explanation about GW and CC is a demonstrable fact, you can refer to the publications from the 1970’s and see for yourself. However, a denier will not accept these facts and will no doubt continue to use the same disproved argument in the future that global warming changed its name.

This is what deniers do – they deny the facts and evidence even when it’s right there in front of them. For more insights into how the mind of the denier works you could research the Psychology of Denial – it’s fascinating stuff although I don’t think deniers would like it very much.

A skeptic is simply someone who questions something, there’s a world of difference.

Well AGW ALREADY sounded like a Socialist scam to me, some far distant fairly unprovable catastrophe, preventable ONLY by handing over control of all fossil fuel energy to the Government.....

BUT one needs to keep an open mind & environmental issues do matter.

Then the Globe stopped warming though CO2 levels continued to rise. So I thought a lot of advocates would become a bit more skeptical.

NOPE. The name was changed to the even LESS provable 'Climate Change' and Skeptics became 'Deniers'

So Yeah I'm convinced - Villianizing dissent to Government power is EXACTLY the way Socialists function.

I'm sure there are a lot of sincere scientists are involved, but overall it's a SCAM funded by Socialists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE was founded in 1988.

I'm having a very bad day, please can you stop your intentional idiocy soon?

The term "Global Warming" was initially used by the Warmers to market their cause..... as it sounds more ominous than 'Climate Change'.

A huge problem arose with the Warming religion when the Earth's temperature did not cooperate and ..... as we all know ...... the Earth's temp stopped warming and began a modest decline.... about 10 years ago, it was discovered.

'Climate change' is now the brand name for the movement because it provides more flexibility or 'wiggle-room'. Now, anything and everything is attributed to Climate Change (man-caused, of course).

The religion of man-caused climate change has become a drug for those who follow it. Their so-called supporting science has been thoroughly debunked and of course, the bullet in the head for them came by virtue if the Climategate Email scandal.

The real trick now is going to be in demanding that politicians give up on this potential golden goose of taxpayer $Trillions and to convince the pro-warmer scientists that they need to go out and find REAL jobs..... jobs that don't depend on selling out their profession for the sake of taxpayer-provided

welfare/grants.

That the Warmer crowd has stooped to re-branding and name-calling is simply an indication that they are desperate to salvage something..... anything.... of their treasonous hoax.

Global Warming issue is a big Hoax and not only skeptics and deniers are talking about it but world leaders behind the curtain.

It's a money making issue out of nothing.

Yes. It added a dodge and a lie to the conversation.

fgds