Comments on: Global Warming vs. Climate Change

By: julian

julian — Sat, 18 May 2013 02:18:24 +0000

Global warming is a hoax funded by big business in order to give way for the implementation of CO2 capture without resistance from humanity. I recall that CO2 is needed for plant growth. The agenda is to stunt plant growth thus we will be dependent on synthetic foods by big businesses. These synthetic foods will poison our bodies thus we will dependent on their modern medicine. These are facets of Global control.

By: dean

dean — Sun, 12 May 2013 17:44:56 +0000

Using a 4th grade textbook as a tool to base conclusions on scientific discussions? Really David, your argument is that since scientists didn’t refer to this unnamed grade school book they are wrong? Are you capable of reading any scientific or statistical analysis of the topic?

I hang out with Pentecostals; they are my tribe. Yes, we speak in tongues and believe in healing.

Aaaah, I see, you aren’t capable.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 12 May 2013 13:31:15 +0000

David, last time I checked the Wall Street Journal was not a peer reviewed scientific source, and they are known for having commentary and editorial that panders to corporate interests. Or, should I say, “wall street” interests. So the fact that they’ve got climate change wrong is not a surprise.

I clicked on your critique, it was stupid.

By: David Housholder

David Housholder — Sat, 11 May 2013 22:24:38 +0000

Actually, my 4th grade texbook agrees with prominent scientists posting in the Wall Street Journal. And, BTW, “You’re stupid” is a lame rebuttal. If you want to click on and critique my podcast point by point, great. If not, ignore it.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 11 May 2013 14:20:50 +0000

I suggest that basing your conclusions about climate change and CO2 on a 4th grade textbook is a bad idea. Your argument is simple minded and idiotic. That’s what!

By: David Housholder

David Housholder — Fri, 10 May 2013 21:06:33 +0000

But what if, as our 4th grade textbooks said is true: CO2 is good for us? WSJournal and I agree on that: http://wp.me/p2KckS-Is

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 08 May 2013 14:03:01 +0000

That’s not why the term was changed. The term “climate change” was there all along and used in a different context. Then “climate change” started to replace “global warming” but for different reasons for different people. Lots of people have a story about THE reason it changed, but in fact different groups and individuals adopted the terminology for a range of reasons. One of the reasons is that the release of fossil C into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels has a number of effects on climate, with global warming being the big one, but others being important as well.

But yes, this is all part of a larger issue as you say.

By: Amy

Amy — Wed, 08 May 2013 13:05:55 +0000

The term ‘global warming’ was changed to ‘climate change’ simply to worry the public less. For those of us that have 100% faith in the government, this is for you. See how a simple word change can change the thoughts of the mankind. No matter what it is called, ‘climate change’, global warming’ or ‘global change’, it all boils down to the same issue; ENVIRONMENT. When are we all meant to wake up and do something? When the world is ending?

By: Doyle

Doyle — Wed, 01 May 2013 12:45:29 +0000

I actually think this is kind of a lousy video. It is a glaring example of the familiarity backfire effect (at least I think that is the term). It devotes far more time to describing the myth than to refuting it, and the refutation is only revealed at the end. It might be entertaining for those who already already know the facts, but for most of those who don’t, what they will remember is the myth, not refutation. It would be far more effective to have the footage of Luntz at the beginning.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:54:16 +0000

I would say that “climate change” is a larger category and “global warming” is a specific phenomenon.

Although “warming” can happen in a number of ways, the actual term “global warming” when actually used means “anthropogenic global warming caused by human release of fossil carbon bla bla bla” but people also say things like “global warming could be part natural part human”

The “libruls” want to use “climate change” instead of “global warming” in part because climate change includes ocean acidification which is not warming, but rather, an effect of the absorption by the sea of CO2 …. the ocean stores CO2 as acid, inconveniently.