5 ms·

Verbal purity? They are two totally different concepts. This isn't about making sure you use the right term, it's making sure you understand the difference be

Verbal purity? They are two totally different concepts. This isn't about making sure you use the right term, it's making sure you understand the difference between the two. And yes it was clear. I think anyone reading the article should come to that conclusion. Your comparison was shallow and silly and I called you on it.

ugh 17y ago
Please tell me about the difference. As far as I know climate change is the more general term while global warming can be used to refer to the current climate change. Both terms are equally valid, even if global warming might fall a bit short in describing all the effects of climate change. (It will get warmer, but there will likely be other effects that are often less well understood.) There is hardly any harm done in using both terms interchangably. (Edited out ocean acidification - I guess that one is strictly speaking neither an effect of climate change nor of gloabal warming. It's rather just caused by the same thing that also causes the current climate change.)
- ErrantX 17y ago
  > There is hardly any harm done in using both terms interchangably. The only caveat is that Global Warming has been intrinsically linked to the word "Man Made" by various people. Rightly or wrongly the phrase has a much more specific connotation than just a subset of climate change.
  - ugh 17y ago
    Sure it has been. At the moment most scientists think that the current crop of climate change is man made. That's just how it is and that's the reason why the term global warming currently usually implies man made. You will not change that by complaining about definitions and how words are used. In the 19th century light implied aether. No change of the dictionary could change that, there had actual scientific work to be done to change that.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      > At the moment most scientists think that the current crop of climate change is man made. This is the part of the issue under debate... However: the world appears to be warming up - that is why the phrase global warming was used. There was no man made connotation either way when it was first used. The linking has been made for various reasons.
      - ugh 17y ago
        Aw, now that sounds so devilish. I don't think so. I would guess that most climate scientists were just fed up with saying "global warming that is caused by humans ..." and shortened that to "global warming". No big deal, and happens all the time. Scientists that don't think so must now say "global warming that is not caused by humans ...", but if they are convincing they surely will be able to shorten their version :) That's not a problem and not a central issue.
TheBranca18 17y ago
I always thought that global warming was a subset of climate change. The fact that the title of the article included climate change made me puzzled as to why global warming was used.
- kunley 17y ago
  Because I'm commenting article content, not the title. Of course the global warming is the subset of a climate change -- the subset most relevant in the article.
  - TheBranca18 17y ago
    And like I said before, your comment was poor. You said it was the new swine flu when it's been around far longer. It was disingenuous and apparently calling you on it is a no no; so be it.
    - kunley 17y ago
      Yeah I bet you would say it's poor also if I said it differently, "global warming is overhyped" or whatever, probably because you just don't agree with it. Speaking of poorness of comments, I guess in this matter you can rely on how they are upvoted. No offense, just see for yourself..
      - TheBranca18 17y ago
        I don't agree with it, but that's not the issue. Your comment wasn't worthwhile. You're arguing ad hominem and haven't even backed up your silly point still and it's four or five comments later. Flipping it over on me doesn't change the fact that your comment was poor. There are also obvious counterarguments to your point that popularity means you're right but I don't need to go into them.
        kunley 17y ago
        No. I didn't do any ad hominem until now: Dear Mr Brain Police, I did back up my point in another subthread. You were busy here with proving how silly I am so you haven't noticed. Again, please digest a feedback you're receiving (votes!) and rethink.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

ugh 17y ago

Please tell me about the difference. As far as I know climate change is the more general term while global warming can be used to refer to the current climate change. Both terms are equally valid, even if global warming might fall a bit short in describing all the effects of climate change. (It will get warmer, but there will likely be other effects that are often less well understood.) There is hardly any harm done in using both terms interchangably. (Edited out ocean acidification - I guess that one is strictly speaking neither an effect of climate change nor of gloabal warming. It's rather just caused by the same thing that also causes the current climate change.)

ErrantX 17y ago
> There is hardly any harm done in using both terms interchangably. The only caveat is that Global Warming has been intrinsically linked to the word "Man Made" by various people. Rightly or wrongly the phrase has a much more specific connotation than just a subset of climate change.
- ugh 17y ago
  Sure it has been. At the moment most scientists think that the current crop of climate change is man made. That's just how it is and that's the reason why the term global warming currently usually implies man made. You will not change that by complaining about definitions and how words are used. In the 19th century light implied aether. No change of the dictionary could change that, there had actual scientific work to be done to change that.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    > At the moment most scientists think that the current crop of climate change is man made. This is the part of the issue under debate... However: the world appears to be warming up - that is why the phrase global warming was used. There was no man made connotation either way when it was first used. The linking has been made for various reasons.
    - ugh 17y ago
      Aw, now that sounds so devilish. I don't think so. I would guess that most climate scientists were just fed up with saying "global warming that is caused by humans ..." and shortened that to "global warming". No big deal, and happens all the time. Scientists that don't think so must now say "global warming that is not caused by humans ...", but if they are convincing they surely will be able to shorten their version :) That's not a problem and not a central issue.

TheBranca18 17y ago

I always thought that global warming was a subset of climate change. The fact that the title of the article included climate change made me puzzled as to why global warming was used.

kunley 17y ago
Because I'm commenting article content, not the title. Of course the global warming is the subset of a climate change -- the subset most relevant in the article.
- TheBranca18 17y ago
  And like I said before, your comment was poor. You said it was the new swine flu when it's been around far longer. It was disingenuous and apparently calling you on it is a no no; so be it.
  - kunley 17y ago
    Yeah I bet you would say it's poor also if I said it differently, "global warming is overhyped" or whatever, probably because you just don't agree with it. Speaking of poorness of comments, I guess in this matter you can rely on how they are upvoted. No offense, just see for yourself..
    - TheBranca18 17y ago
      I don't agree with it, but that's not the issue. Your comment wasn't worthwhile. You're arguing ad hominem and haven't even backed up your silly point still and it's four or five comments later. Flipping it over on me doesn't change the fact that your comment was poor. There are also obvious counterarguments to your point that popularity means you're right but I don't need to go into them.
      - kunley 17y ago
        No. I didn't do any ad hominem until now: Dear Mr Brain Police, I did back up my point in another subthread. You were busy here with proving how silly I am so you haven't noticed. Again, please digest a feedback you're receiving (votes!) and rethink.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]