Skeptical Science Forum


2011-01-04 09:45:45	Climate change or Global warming
Paul D chillcast@googlemail... 82.18.130.183	Anyone interested in joining in with this discussion: http://stkarnick.com/culture/2011/01/03/notable-quote-victor-davis-hanson-on-global-warming-versus-climate-change/ I'm posting as Hampy. I don't know anything about Karnick or his blog. The post on the blog is about the conspiracy myth about 'global warming' being changed to 'Climate change'. I can't remember the history and context much.
2011-01-04 22:06:17
Paul D chillcast@googlemail... 82.18.130.183	Ha, just found out that ST Karnick is director of research at The Heartland Institute! Could become quite amusing. It is clear he hasn't a clue about what he is talking about, other than he has a humanities background and probably hasn't liked scientists ever since he was at college. Maybe if someone with a sound scientific view got involved, it would add to the amusement.
2011-01-05 00:36:32
Daniel Bailey Daniel Bailey yooper49855@hotmail... 68.188.192.170	"Maybe if someone with a sound scientific view got involved" That lets me out...
2011-01-05 02:56:50
Paul D chillcast@googlemail... 82.18.130.183	Hmm just replied to his last comment and I didn't get any email confirmation. He might have turned on moderation so he can filter comments?? Or the email confirmation is stuck in a queue some where. Scrub that: just received the email.
2011-01-05 03:53:15	no need
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 38.223.231.252	You don't need much history. The two terms have always been causally related, with 'global warming' meaning the increase in the planet's average temp, and 'climate change' meaning the changes in the climate which happen as a consequence of the warming. If you want a history argument, the IPCC (not the IPGW) was formed in 1988. I also saw somebody make a graph of use of the two terms (in scientific literature, I think), and they were extremely closely correlated (meaning both are used, and one did not replace the other). Plus there's the infamous Frank Luntz memo where he told Republicans they should use the term 'climate change' because it's less scary than 'global warming'. That's the only actual example of somebody replacing GW with CC.
2011-01-05 04:03:54
Paul D chillcast@googlemail... 82.18.130.183	Dana, the graph I think was a Google Ngram. I posted a link to it in one of my comments, although Karnick unsurprisingly ignored the link.
2011-01-05 07:42:42	This needs to be a rebuttal
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 60.231.58.57	Not really about science but the inversion of reality, where it's a skeptic who advocated the replacement, deserves an answer. The argument is in the database so if anyone wants to write a rebuttal, go right ahead.
2011-01-05 07:53:50	what the hey
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 38.223.231.252	I'll take the rebuttal - could probably draft it up in an hour or two. Simple stuff and I've got a few useful links like the Luntz memo.
2011-01-05 11:48:01	Dana, I'm glad you're on our side :-)
John Cook john@skepticalscience... 60.231.58.57	Great rebuttal, btw, and very quickly done!
2011-01-05 16:05:54	thanks
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 71.140.0.111	Thanks John, fortunately this was an easy one to tackle. Actually I was spot-on, it took about an hour and a half. By the way, everyone can go here to comment on the rebuttal.
2011-01-05 17:29:07
Daniel Bailey Daniel Bailey yooper49855@hotmail... 130.36.62.222	Thumbed the wrong post, sorry.
2011-01-06 00:57:08
Paul D chillcast@googlemail... 82.18.130.183	I think you are doing a great job Dana and it is good this issue is being tackled. I have come across comments about the name and there being a conspiracy many times.
2011-01-06 04:40:37	thanks
dana1981 Dana Nuccitelli dana1981@yahoo... 38.223.231.252	Thanks The Ville. I've heard this myth many times too, so it is good to have a rebuttal to reference.
2011-01-06 08:23:09
Rob Painting Rob paintingskeri@vodafone.co... 118.93.203.75	Another pat on the back Dana, great work indeed.
2011-01-06 21:08:05
Paul D chillcast@googlemail... 82.18.130.183	I had another look at Karnicks blog post and noticed his comment number 28 looks like an attempt at a retraction, although he is still playing the political ideology game. He might be getting bored or is busy working on other skeptic plans, eg. the annual skeptic climate science conference that the Heartland Institute organises.