Global Warming in July!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Some references claim otherwise:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

Thanks for this link, quite interesting. There is nothing that I disagree with in the Conclusion quoted below.

Actually, it confirms what I said (and you too) that the two phenomena are different.

It also confirms that the "they changed the name!" cry comes from conspiracy theory alarmists.

What i DID find interesting, is that the GW name appears to be still in use officially, at least somewhere. I did not know that. Speaking totally from personal experience, I have just noticed an increase in the term CC, especially from COP17 forward. The graph shows that there IS an increase in Cc vs GW, but not as significant as I had thought.

So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".

Originally posted by CalJust
Can't know WHAT?

You can't know whether or not that was the scandal lemonlime was referring to as he was not forthcoming with any details.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You can't know whether or not that was the scandal lemonlime was referring to as he was not forthcoming with any details.

You have not read my post!

There was only ONE scandal of any significance during the past decade or so, so he could not be referring to any other!

Also, I suggested in my post why he may not have known about the details.

Don't be so pedantic!

😕

Originally posted by CalJust
You have not read my post!

Yes, I did.

There was only ONE scandal of any significance during the past decade or so, so he could not be referring to any other!
You then proceeded to say that it did not have much significance. Maybe he was referring to some other scandal of little significance. The only reference I could get out of him was not referring to that scandal.

Also, I suggested in my post why he may not have known about the details.
I suspect he didn't have a clue what he was talking about - which explains why he got so upset when questioned.