Who are "they" and when did they "change" it to 'climate change'?

D

Dawei

New member
I could quote a recent question, but this claim is common enough that I don't think I need to. I've asked this before and didn't get an answer so I thought I'd try again.

Can anyone show me a credible source for the claim that "they" recently changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'?

And can those who believe this explain why the IPCC has been known as such since 1988?

And can they explain why they think they are being lied to when they are presented with a simple explanation for what 'climate change' actually means?
campbelp: could you provide a single credible source?
What? No one can cite a single source for this so often cited denier argument? Now why might that be...

Randall? This is one of your favorites.
 
Global warming is basically climate change, so maybe 'they' alternate between the terms so it's not too repetitive. Maybe also some people don't know exactly what global warming is so they use a 'synonym-term' for it, which is climate change.

Well, technically the credible source is myself. This is just my opinion on it, however, my opinion might not be how 'they' think so... yeah :P
 
Anyone casually aware of the subject realizes that it was changed a few years ago. I am sure it wasn't just a coincidence that all the naive followers began correcting people who called it global warming a few years ago when it stopped warming. Climate change is one of the most asinine terms ever invented. It allows any change to be blamed on humans as if change isn't normal. The scare mongering hysteria from radical leftists has always been about catastrophic warming. Trying to add credibility by pretending that fact isn't true is just silly propaganda. It has always been about warming and it doesn't matter what the UN calls it. They are still promoting a fairytale that the evidence supports catastrophic warming.
 
This whole line of debate illustrates how politicized AGW is, when we need to be discussing solutions. I understand the intent of the question it to belittle previous questioners who try to make the claim that the established consensus made up the term climate change, and I think it is important to note as Dana does that the Republican administration embraced "climate change" as a term because it sounded less dangerous (don't dis me for this folk, I'm a Republican. The memo is online. And there is nothing wrong with either side choosing their words!) Mostly, we need to not argue over words. There are more important issues. Waxman-Markey is very expensive law. Regardless of the words, we are faced with major decisions. Personally, I love my unconceived grandchildren and I will slightly reduce my luxuries to protect the abundance of their lifestyle. I care about the masses of people who live in poverty in low-lieing parts of the world. And I believe that when America leads, the world follows. The words don't matter. The question of whether man is causing warming has been asked and answered. The only question now is whether we are so selfish that we will just live our lives without concern for those who follow.
 
Back
Top