Is Global Warming Now Called Climate Change?

Absolutely. Climate change is a much better term to use. That way, when it gets abnormally cold, you can still say there is a problem. If it's just warming, cold spells are embarrassing and might cause government funding sources to dry up. Can't have that.

Absolutely right,

But I wonder how much of our budget problems could be alleviated.

Right-wingers call it climate change. That's how you can tell what they think even before they repeat the same infomration they posted the other day. Youre busted, dude!

Climate change has long been the preferred name among scientists. Political people use the phrase "global warming".

The very good reason to stay away from inflammatory labels like "global warming" is shown in your post where you imply the whole thing is in doubt due to a single unmet expectation. If you had read the rest of the article, you would have noticed that the Norwegian weather folks said it was "not unusual" to see heavy ice up there in July. Had you done a little more digging, you would have found that there are arctic cruises (not much shuffleboard on the deck, I'll wager) that go there in the summer and the cruise line warns about this possibility. It's kind of like finding coals at Newcastle - so?

The whole thing is in doubt not due to any particular piece of empirical evidence, or the lack thereof.

The whole thing is quackery of the highest order because we don't have the science or the computing capability to model global climate. The models have to make so many assumptions and simplifications that they are useless.

The entire endeavor is either arrogance of the highest order, or outright fraud. Take your pick.

For my part, I don't believe these are mutually exclusive choices.

Well, I don't disagree with you when looking at the global picture. But, there are good local (albeit limited) models out there. NOAA runs some decent stuff that covers a couple thousand square miles for a couple days. There's a lot of code that adequately describes oceanfront erosion. And, so on. What we lack is an accurate, big model. The issue of quackery is, I think, a personal opinion.

Really, TVP45? People (governments) are trying to grab enormous power and transfer enormous wealth in the name of something that is based on "computer models" of the entire global climate.

Do you recall that in the run up to Desert Shield and Desert Storm, that scientists led by Carl Sagan warned against retaliating against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, on the grounds that the Iraqis would fire the oil wells and the resulting soot would induce a calamitous year round winter, due to the soot blocking the sun's rays?

Well, the Iraqis did fire the ells, and we're still here, and moaning and whining about global warming, not global winters. What went wrong? Oops, the scientists' models left out one feature of climate - rain. Rain precipitated the soot out of the air.

I get it. "Quackery" is a very polite and understated way of describing it. Maybe I should have said fraud on a global scale.

I liked Carl Sagan. He was a heckuva nice guy. But I would never consider him a climatologist. Why quote him?

Over the years, I've met a lot of scientists, a few of whom were involved in this sort of modeling. Perhaps I'm naive but only two or three struck me as even potentionally being quacks and I think they were all in the energy field. Do you have some specifics? I'd be happy to look at anything which doesn't have a political bias.

I met Carl Sagan as well. Very personable. Doesn't change the fact that these people have God complexes - they tend not to believe in God, but ascribe to themselves the godly traits of omniscience and omnipotence.

If you want to believe that people have the power to accurately predict the global effect of small changes in the gaseous make up of the atmosphere, I won't change your mind. But I have seen way too many models of things infinitely less complex than the climate to believe that it is even remotely possible.

And I firmly believe this is the worst sort of arrogance - not only to claim to be able to predict on the basis of a simplistic model, but to demand on the basis of such predictions that people change their lifestyles.

There are ancient proverbs covering this behavior:

Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make proud - Euripides

The truly wise man is the one who knows how little he knows - Socrates

Well, it's never too late to learn - if you're interested. Here's a link to a modelling project that seems to be working out pretty well. And, of course, there's always basic weather forecasting; that's pretty successful.

www.cefa.fsu.edu/nopp.ppt

All the political he said/she said stuff aside, "climate change" has been used by the National Academy of Sciences since the late 70s. It was then, and continues to be, used to describe any abnormal variation, be it warming, cooling, winds, or sea level,. Only those with political agenda have hijacked the term for their self-interests.

Great answer. I tried to say the same thing in an earlier response. TVP45 is also correct: "Only those with a political agenda..." Absolutely. The political agenda is to amass more political power at the expense of individual freedom and free markets and capitalism. The battle here is between those who despise free markets and individual freedom, and those who regard these as priceless inheritances bought and paid for in blood.

TVP45 seems to feel that the "National Academy of Sciences" conveys some sort of mantra of legitimacy. Any science paid for by gov't funding is corrupted by the source. Funding is only allocated to those organizations which publish according to the party line. I wouldn't expect any less bias from the NAS than I would a cigarette manufacturer doing a study on the effects of smoking and health.

"TVP45 seems to feel that the "National Academy of Sciences" conveys some sort of mantra of legitimacy. "

Guilty as charged, but that was not my point. My point was the date: late 70s. The phrase "climate change" has been around for a long time, possibly longer than the phrase "global warming". In other words, "climate change" is not a recent phrase in the scientific community. It is recent in the popular press, but I mostly only read the funnies and the sports section so I'm not too bothered by their blather.

"Any science paid for by gov't funding is corrupted by the source." Interesting thought and one held by many people, though I'm obviously not one. Would you apply that to NASA?

"Would you apply that to NASA?" Yes, but you be you the judge! Read the writings of Dr. James Hansen, Director of the Goddard Institute, a very well educated man. However, he is an outspoken man and a "true believer" on the subject.

Global warming , Climate change - blah blah

Our real problem is out of control pollution caused by global filling.

http://www.zarkanderson.com/2008/12/moscow-without-snow.html

It might be colder for you but it's warmer for others. The world is a big place, sometimes people select the data to suit their opinions.