re: WSJ: What ever happened to Global Warming?

quote:

---

Oh, when was it?

---

I don't remember the date or anything like that. But I remember there was a debate between "contributors" on Fox News about global warming and the woman who was on kept referring to it as "climate change". The story was about the Earth actually cooling instead of warming.

I remember thinking at the time, "well, now that the Earth is cooling, looks like they will now call it "climate change" to cover all of their bases. That way whether it's cooling or warming, they can blame man for it."

Then from that point on, it was commonly referred to as "climate change".

This was probably a year or two ago.

quote:

---

I don't remember the date or anything like that. But I remember there was a debate between "contributors" on Fox News about global warming and the woman who was on kept referring to it as "climate change". The story was about the Earth actually cooling instead of warming.

I remember thinking at the time, "well, now that the Earth is cooling, looks like they will now call it "climate change" to cover all of their bases. That way whether it's cooling or warming, they can blame man for it."

Then from that point on, it was commonly referred to as "climate change".

This was probably a year or two ago.

---

It's been called "climate change" for a lot longer than that. The first IPCC report was published in 1990. The original NYT article on Hansen's 1988 testimony to Congress (which is where "global warming" first became famous) itself contains two interchangeable uses of "climate change." Ramanathan's papers in the 1980s and Manabe's papers in the 1970s called it "climate change." And you can go even farther back than that...



This whole "they [the ominous they] renamed it climate change to hide the pause" thing is a bullshite story.

Sure, but you can't argue that there has been a shift in how it is referred to in society. There was a point where the story on the news was about global warming. It has shifted to climate change now. Trying to argue the exact date is pretty pointless.

quote:

---

Sure, but you can't argue that there has been a shift in how it is referred to in society. There was a point where the story on the news was about global warming. It has shifted to climate change now. Trying to argue the exact date is pretty pointless.

---

I have never, ever noticed a difference. They have always been used interchangeably.

I have noticed a difference in how people talk about talking about them. During the Bush administration I remember some die-hard greens propounding the theory that referring to it as "climate change" was part of a plot by evil conservatives to put a friendlier face on global warming and thereby stupefy the American people from taking action. It was just as stupid then as it is now.

EDIT: LINK

quote:

---

. There was a point where the story on the news was about global warming. It has shifted to climate change now. Trying to argue the exact date is pretty pointless.

---

This is whats driving me crazy.
Just listen to the radio, poli's, TV, mags and so called experts for yourselfs.

Seldom is it "man made global warming" anymore but "climate change".

Its like the emperor has no clothes syndrome.



But you need a DATE?

quote:

---

TT9

---

Holy shite. Did you just post like the WSJ is some hack rag tabloid?

quote:

---

I don't think the WSJ is a hack rag, but Matt Ridley is a hack. He is one of the most smug, reductionist, cherry-pick happy pop science writers out there, and this was the case long before he had ever started writing about climate change.

---

Is the crux of his story, that the IPCC reduced their forecast of warming within 30 years by 30% incorrect then?

lol at taking anything tt9 ever says seriously

dude literally only posts to start shite

quote:

---

Is the crux of his story, that the IPCC reduced their forecast of warming within 30 years by 30% incorrect then?

---

Well, it's a link to WUWT (and Christopher Monckton) so, in a word: yes.

Firstly, the reduction was between a second draft and a final draft of the same report. The IPCC didn't trumpet some predictions and then quietly walk them back. The second order draft was, as its name implies, a draft. The IPCC specifically states drafts are preliminary and asks authors and reviewers not to circulate them because they haven't been fully vetted and they don't want people thinking draft conclusions are final. Which Monckton, naturally, ignored.

Secondly, the reduction wasn't 30%. The range in the second order draft was .4 - 1.0, while the final range was .3 to .7. It's only 30% if you are looking at the maximum of the range, which would be an especially silly thing to do considering the original second order draft also contained this caveat: "It is more likely than not that actual warming will be closer to the lower bound of 0.4°C than the upper bound of 1.0°C (medium confidence)." This was cut from the final draft.

So the projection was always towards the low side, and when you look at the draft revision in context (something Monckton and Ridley will absolutely not do) it's obvious what happened: they decided to simplify the summary section so that, instead of confusing people with a wide projection followed by a caveat biasing it to the minimum, they simply re-weighted a single projection closer to that minimum. (The actual nitty-gritty AR5 report goes into the incorporation of the methodology from Meehl and Teng 2012 that they incorporated to do this, but who am I kidding, nobody here reads the IPCC.)