What do you believe, Global Warming Vs Climate Change

[Michael Hardner]

Like anything that becomes a political issue winning a losing the debate will be based on the perception of the general public, no the data and the sourcing. I myself have now become very suspect of the scientist, before I did not agree with the conclusions reach by the scientists, based on the research so far. But since climategate and litany of other mistakes that have been found in the IPCC report, the lack of sourcing, the re-defining of "peer" review articals. I have simply lost any trust in even the data collected, since cherry picking has even happen. This is not reserved solely to the one side of the argument either.

I understand that that is your position, and I think that it is the scientists' fault for not attempting to put together some kind of public relations arm to communicate the state of the science to the public. They have relied on the press to convey their findings, which has been a disaster.

Climategate, to me, is typical of this. I suspect the emails were hacked by organized opponents of the AGW theory, who wanted to make it look bad. As such, a few badly worded emails leaked: some emails showing the frustration of the scientists dealing with skeptic bloggers and the subsequent sniping.

But there was nothing like a smoking gun that one would expect to find if it were truly a coordinated conspiracy. Furthermore, there are large numbers of researchers not involved in this who still have confirmed the findings of AGW.

You have chosen to see this poll like Waldo about whether or not the cause is human. Others will see the poll based on the minor difference in terms.

Actually, my position is that Global Warming and Climate Change are two ways of describing the same phenomenon. Picking one way or the other way to say it doesn't say whether humans are causing it or not. So the question is, as they say, moot.

[Michael Hardner]

Just take Phil Jones' word for it - no statistically significant warming for the past 15 years.

Ok, if that's what you mean then fine. But from your post, it seemed to me that you expect temperature to go up every year, which simply will not happen even if AGW is exactly correct and the models are spot on.

If there is warming, you will still have cold years happening, but they will be contrasted by much warmer years in a general warming trend. Keep in mind we're talking about rises of a few degrees over time. I just wanted to point that out.

[GostHacked]

Climate Change and Global Warming are two different things no?

Climate change the way I see it, is changing local climate over time. It does not matter if it up or down, climate changes and that is very apparent.

Global Warming the way I see it is that the earth is going to be hotter in the coming years than it is now. But recall in the 70s they were talking about Global Cooling and the possibility of a new ice age coming. If temps start to drop anually, then Global Cooling will become the threat replacing Global Warming, that is until it starts to warm up and called Global Warming again.

Reduce pollution of all kinds, and plant more trees. This is my simplified plan.

[Michael Hardner]

Climate Change and Global Warming are two different things no?

Climate change the way I see it, is changing local climate over time. It does not matter if it up or down, climate changes and that is very apparent.

Global Warming the way I see it is that the earth is going to be hotter in the coming years than it is now. But recall in the 70s they were talking about Global Cooling and the possibility of a new ice age coming. If temps start to drop anually, then Global Cooling will become the threat replacing Global Warming, that is until it starts to warm up and called Global Warming again.

Reduce pollution of all kinds, and plant more trees. This is my simplified plan.

Firstly, the 1970s 'ice age' idea never progressed to the point where it was accepted by a significant number of climate scientists. It was a magazine-cover thing that fit in well with the disaster movies of that era.

Secondly, yes your description is right - they're two different things, but really aspects of the same phenomenon examined at different measures of closeness, I guess you could say.

[Oleg Bach]

Forty years ago I would look south toward Toronto and wonder how long it would take to envelope my pristine habitat..looking south in those days the sky in summer was an actual sky blue- now the sky is green in summer..don't care about gloabal warming or cooling. The issue should be global cleanliness.

[Oleg Bach]

The world is like a house with the doors and windows closed. The house is dirty at present..the floors need sweeping and washing- the laundry is dirty and all we do instead of cleaning our clothes is continue to buy new clothes because it is more convenient than doing the laundry---mean while the smelly sheets and socks mount up in the corner and are growing mold. We have a society world wide that is simply fixated on consumerism and is to lazy to do the house work and now we perish in our own filth..that is the real issue---actually having the will to do the damned dishes.

[Bonam]

Forty years ago I would look south toward Toronto and wonder how long it would take to envelope my pristine habitat..looking south in those days the sky in summer was an actual sky blue- now the sky is green in summer..don't care about gloabal warming or cooling. The issue should be global cleanliness.

For once you said something that makes sense. I certainly agree, pollution and environmental damage is a more important and more immediate issue than global warming.

[GostHacked]

For once you said something that makes sense. I certainly agree, pollution and environmental damage is a more important and more immediate issue than global warming.

This is the view I hold as well. Garbage is immediate and a huge problem. More emphasis on recycling and using recycled materials for new items. Using more green technology to cut emissions, not because of global warming, but because it is pollution. Pollution and the toxicity of everything is happening now. Global warming, is something that people THINK is happening. But if you really want to control Global Warming, we should start with not polluting as much. In all areas of our lives.

When you talk about Global Warming, no one really thinks about pollution and how toxic it is. We hear about the oceans rising flooding areas and making a damn mess of everything. However, we have a more immediate threat with pollution and garbage.

A report from CNN today about a town with several (actually 14) chemical production plants in the city.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2010/02/26/gupta.toxic.towns.cnn?hpt=C2

If that is having that much affect on humans, imagine what this does to the land surrounding the area. Any farming around Mossville? That would be affected as well.

Toxic Oceans.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/great-pacific-garbage-patch-trash-vortex.php

http://www.ecopirates.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/3486391918_b38a159a82_o.jpg

We need to clean this place up first.

[Oleg Bach]

For once you said something that makes sense. I certainly agree, pollution and environmental damage is a more important and more immediate issue than global warming.

'For once' eh!

YES you are totally correct- whether you are poor or a fantastically rich industrialist- you must clean up your own mess and the rest will take care of itself.

Make sure that all is in order and dilgently clean and the global atmosphere will stablize. BUT we have a prolem - the poor are extremely messy and the super rich are so entitled that they don't believe they have to clean up after themselves after generating wealth..the solution is simple- clean up your room kid..and no sweeping the dirt under the carpet saying you are creating jobs.

[Wild Bill]

For once you said something that makes sense. I certainly agree, pollution and environmental damage is a more important and more immediate issue than global warming.

You sparked a memory, Mr. B. Back in the 70's young folks used to campaign to clean up the planet. They would have weekend drives where groups of kids would clean out creek beds or parks of garbage. They would have demonstrations to get factories to reduce smog emissions.

Such things seemed to have totally disappeared these days. All we seem to see is today's young people calling for Uncle Sam, Canada and Britain to give huge amounts of money to third world countries, with no auditing to make sure they spend it on emission controls instead of bullets.

It's unfortunate.

[Oleg Bach]

You sparked a memory, Mr. B. Back in the 70's young folks used to campaign to clean up the planet. They would have weekend drives where groups of kids would clean out creek beds or parks of garbage. They would have demonstrations to get factories to reduce smog emissions.

Such things seemed to have totally disappeared these days. All we seem to see is today's young people calling for Uncle Sam, Canada and Britain to give huge amounts of money to third world countries, with no auditing to make sure they spend it on emission controls instead of bullets.

It's unfortunate.

Remeber the down sized car? Suddenly replace by the SUV the now thankfully dying Hummer? REMEMBER - the organization called POLLUTION PROBE.. who if they saw a smoke stack belching irresponible filth had the power to shut the factory down unless they became toilet trained and stopped shitting in the sky? WHO nd how did these things go out of being? Some how the messy people took control of the idealist who were realistic...and having great success..yes and the bullets-- IT appears that violent profit seeking men pushed the realists aside--everyone had their price and now we all pay the price.

[sunsettommy]

I chose Both Global Warming AND Climate change.

But lets get real here.

If I chose Global Warming alone.It is indicative of Climate Change.

If I chose Global Cooling alone.It is still indicative of Climate Change

Since ANY change means there is Climate Change,thus continually saying Climate Change is unnecessary.

Better to just state either Global Warming or Global Cooling.

But that is not really accurate either since there has been NO warming trend for the tropics down south according to the satellite data,since 1979.

Only the Northern Hemisphere show any significant warming.

It get's even less warming when you take the words of Dr.Mann and Dr. Jones as shown at my FORUM.

There they write in released e-mails this quote:

They

have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998 wasn't

the

warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere. With their LIA being

1300-

1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of

synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and

late

20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid

boxes.

Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something - even if this is

just

to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will

use

this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes

unchallenged.

It is warming in small regions.

[Alta4ever]

Its interesting how everyone has there own definition of what each term means and to close this threat it was the point of the thread