Why does the terminology for "climate change" continuously change?

Your "Global cooling" claim is nonsense - it was a beat up in the popular press & did not reflect scientific consensus (or is Time magazine a scientific journal in the eyes of the denier industry?)

"Global warming" and "climate change " are different aspects of the same thing - The term "climate change " became in more popular use in USA as a result of focus group studies conducted for the Republicans by Luntz Research - you can read the briefing paper for GW Bush here : http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_e%E2%80%A6 - see page 7. (The rest of the paper is interesting information on how to lie to the US public on a whole range of environmental issues )

EDIT EDIT "Why does Al Gore own private jets and ocean side mansions? " Oh, wait..............I know this one....is it because he is really an Illuminati socialist stooge taking instructions from reptilians to bring about a NWO???

EDIT : I have never actually met anyone from the denier industry who has read the IPCC reports - here is the very condensed IPCC Synthesis report - please inform us where there are errors (ie put up or shut up) http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/a...

"Isn't it funny" is a good way to start, but the continuation should have been Isn't it funny how denier keep using the same tired and long disproved arguments, as if they wish to prove they are not the skeptics they claim to be.

There is a myth that scientists had a consensus in the 70's "it was cooling", this is a myth denier attempted to create only around a decade ago to try and discredit AGW science. Sadly the denier myth is one that is quite easy to disprove as the papers published by those studying climate back in the 70's are still very much in the public domain, they show no consensus, and clearly show up this denier lie.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climat...

The scientific consensus in the 70's reflected in major scientific bodies like NAS, was that at the time we did not have enough data to say what was happen (hardly scientific consensus of cooling)

This is of course why denier don't reference scientific papers when pushing this fiction, but try to use one or two stories from the popular press like the story from Time.

These sorts of argument usually degenerate into the absurd like try to claim some sort of name change (as if a name is actually of any real importance)

At the turn of the 21st century, the SAME scientists and politicians changed the terminology to "climate change"

To which (as always) the rather obvious answer is, the IPCC has had the same name since it was first created in the 1980's and "CC" has been part of that name since day 1, it almost seems like deniers enjoy making fools of themselves with this nonsense.

edit: I note 'climate realist' has already tried to point out to the fantasist asker here that the IPCC has had it's name from day one, the rebuttal is "the IPCC are not reliable", interesting!, whether you think they are reliable or not does not change the historical fact of their name, a point it's hard not to notice you utterly failed to address, do you think all those also reading this also missed your failure to answer this point, a feature common in denier responses that try to raise this absurd point.

Adapt to the usual alterations and fluxuations in the earth's climate, via moving if it turns into too unbearable or turning your thermostat up or down a measure if it would not. It is getting less warm, and it'll get colder for the subsequent 30 years. Artificial global warming is a farce, so given that all of the dire predictions of the final 30 years don't seem to be going down, they must now name it a normal "climate alternate" in order for their arguments to preserve some variety of water... Which they nonetheless don't.

>>TIME had front covers in 1974 informing us of the coming ice age and that we must destroy our industry, pay more tax and give more power to the UN to stop it.<<

That was a media story. The scientific community was not part of it. It was popular then - and now as an anti-science argument - among people with little or no understanding of science.

The term "glabal warming" first appeared in a 1975 "Science" article, "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" by Wallace Broecker. It gained "popular" recognition in 1988 during James Hansen's Congrssional testimony.

The first politician to advocate using "climate change" rather than "global warming" was AGW Denier Republican political strategist Frank Luntz.

http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment...

No sceintiic organization has ever advocated exchanging one term for the other - since they technically are not the same thing.

Your profound ignorance of the popular and political history of global warminng is exceeded only by your scientific illiteracy and intellectual laziness. I'm sure that you are just trying to help, but the Denier agenda already has more stupid members than it really needs.

You might be interested in the Institute of Metaphysics:

http://www.metaphysicsinstitute.org/mod/resource/v...

They offer Online correspondence courses leading to BS, Masters, and Doctoral degrees in cryptozoology.

And there is always the UFO Foundation (http://www.ufof.com/) and the Foundation for Paranormal Research: http://www.foundationforparanormalresearch.org/

In the 1970s the cooling scare was powered by the media and was due to scientists stating that if continued use of sulfur emitting fossil fuels continued the way it was aerosols would continue growing in the atmosphere which caused cooling. The results of the knowledge at that time was putting scrubbers on power plants and catalytic converters in cars. One way they did this was through use of a a cap and trade system in the EPAs Acid Rain program.

http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/ctresults...

The terms global warming and climate change are still used and mean two different things. Climate change is what causes global warming. As has been stated, the IPCC was born in 1988. It stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You are bringing up a non argument based on misunderstanding. These things have been brought up and shot down before in here. Actually there are posts to this effect at least once or twice a week.

Your bringing up of your personal belief that the IPCC has zero credibility in response to climate Realists post concerning how the IPCC was called the IPCC prior to your stated dates is nonsensical and has nothing to do with the argument you or he put forward. And you listing climate realists as unscientific when the vast majority of climatologists and every scientific organization on the planet disagrees with your assertions would be humourous if it 'wasn't so scary' pertaining to our childrens and their childrens futures.

Sagebrush: There have been proposals of flooding the atmosphere with aerosols much as occurred without catalytic converters and scrubbers and such. This one was from 1997

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0...

2001

http://ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr108.pdf

and so on. And you don;t even know what true science is. and I've mentioned this before but it seems to have went over your head as well. Volcanic loading of sulfate aerosols are another problem, this produces natural acid rain which is caused by much the same components.

See this article from 1986

http://www.tellusb.net/coaction/index.php/tellusb/...

You're behind the times.

The global cooling scare in the 1970's was mainly in the media and not in the scientific community. More scientific articles from the 1970's predicted warming than cooling.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-prediction...

But the terms, "global warming" and "climate change" have been used interchangeably for decades. I suspect that 1988 was not your favorite year. Why would I think that? Because it was the year of the founding of the Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Pan...

<You are the same people who would have murdered Galileo>

No, those were the denialists of his age. It is present day denialists who want to treat scientists like they treated Galileo.

<UN IPCC has ZERO credibility>

What does your ad hom have to do with my answer?

So, besides calling yourself Sagebrush and Maxx, you are also calling yourself freedom and liberty. An odd name for someone who wants to set up a police state in which people are jailed for warning about global warming.

perhaps you could learn some basic physics, then comment. No amount of conspiracy theory or rant is going to change reality.

If you can show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and then show greenhouse gases do not affect climate, then you'd have an argument worthy of discussion.

you're probably ok with the FOX mass media. The hysteria is not willing to change. By that thinking you'd still be riding horses.

Ambiguity causes confusion and is harder to prove wrong.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

CR <The global cooling scare in the 1970's was mainly in the media and not in the scientific community. More scientific articles from the 1970's predicted warming than cooling.>

The media was stirred on by the likes of Hansen an Ehrlich and it is all documented. I was an adult in those days and I can remember. You greenies forget, we old timers still can remember. Unlike you we have memories longer than our . .er NOSE. (See, nothing to worry about Y!A censors)

Why are you always trying to rewrite history and trivialize when you are wrong.

Jeff M: <n the 1970s the cooling scare was powered by the media and was due to scientists stating that if continued use of sulfur emitting fossil fuels continued the way it was aerosols would continue growing in the atmosphere which caused cooling. The results of the knowledge at that time was putting scrubbers on power plants and catalytic converters in cars. One way they did this was through use of a a cap and trade system in the EPAs Acid Rain program.> So now you agree if we get runaway GW then all we have to do is get rid of catalytic converters, smokestack scrubbers and we will start to cool down. So it is man made global warming caused by you greenies. Wow! That is a startling revelation.

The Acid Rain was an absolute farce. True science proved that beyond any possible doubt. Listen closely to this. This is how real science works. They took a core sample of the earth in upper New York where all this industry was creating ACID RAIN. Guess what they found. There was acid rain in that area when Christ walked on the earth. Long before you drove your SUV. I know Hansen and Ehrlich tried to blame Pocahontas but Christ even predated that. I know, it was caused by all those Mohicans sending smoke signals.

But you did read like you knew what you were writing about, I'll give you that.

Jeffy, Jeffy, Jeffy. Go to the top of your answer where you claim that, <One way they did this was through use of a a cap and trade system in the EPAs Acid Rain program.> Then you go and say acid rain is caused by volcanoes. How did scrubbers fix the problem if acid rain was caused by volcanoes? And you claim that I don't know about science? You just admitted that you greenies forced through a useless law. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

Because it is such a political subject. Politics comes into play for any plans to do something about it.

They are variable terms based on the coupled, non-linear, and chaotic system (our atmosphere) that they can not predict with all of their climate research and modeling. Long term predictions of future climate states is not possible, but they keep trying.

The IPCC has already concluded this several years ago.

I see "antarcticice" is still up to his demeaning behavior. To admit that man-made CO2's impact on the environment is "possibly" a minimal one would obviously be an insult to his own reasoning about this subject.