18 ms·

It's weird that you bring up responding with a non sequitur when that's exactly what you've just done: - You alleged some vague conspiracy about renaming globa

It's weird that you bring up responding with a non sequitur when that's exactly what you've just done: - You alleged some vague conspiracy about renaming global warming to climate change ("a name change, a rebranding if you will") - I responded with two links that clarify that there was never any such name change. - You ignored that and started talking about how you think the models are wrong. So do you agree that there was never a name changing or rebranding?

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
Please refrain from an aggressive style of argumentation. Climate is not weather, and weather is not climate. I never said there was a sneaky conspiracy. There was definitely a name change, and my organization at the time (one of the leading data producers for what is happening) changed all of our naming at the same time this occured, in both the media, and other places. Our models are wrong. Deeply flawed. We know this. Just like our HCN siting has been deeply wrong too (the data that is the premise for it occuring). We know that in certain cases ASOS data was incorrectly used in the climate record, and also, in the weather record. That is completely inappropriate use of a data set that was never intended for generalized observations. The process of fixing these things, and making changes to improve them, and iterate upon them - we call that science. This is why the legacy HCN now has been updated by the release of the reference network.
- kazoomonger 5y ago
  > There was definitely a name change If you read the second link I posted above, you will see that there was no name change. You have not provided any evidence or links to the contrary.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/4141.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/4141.... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-there-is-no-evidence-that-global-warming-was-rebranded-as-climate-change/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-ther... https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-global-warming-092314/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-g... https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-dont-call-it-global-warming https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-... https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-global-warming/ https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-... https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-climate-change-instead-of-the-previous-term-global-warming https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-cl... https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-guide-change-climate-change https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-gui... https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-renamed-again-now-its-global-climate-disruption-greg-pollowitz/ https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-re...
    - kazoomonger 5y ago
      The crucial aspect you're missing is from the latter half of the skepticalscience.com link I posted above. Here is the particular graph that shows usage of "global warming" vs "climate change": https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/climate-change-v-global-warming-terms.JPG https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/climate-change-v-gl... Both terms were in common usage, with "climate change" existing before "global warming". It's not "rebranding" to realize that of the various terms in common usage, one of them is more accurate. "climate change" started rising relatively in popularity around 1994 after being roughly equal to "global warming", a decade before Watts' conspiracy theories. > https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/4141.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/4141.... > https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-there-is-no-evidence-that-global-warming-was-rebranded-as-climate-change/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-ther... Anthony Watts dances around understanding here, and writes "It is an unequivocal fact that the terms “climate change” and “global warming” have both been in use for a long time." So he agrees with the link I posted above. The PDF doesn't disagree, much as he'd like it to. Saying "climate change might be a better labelling than global warming" isn't saying "therefore we should rebrand it". It's agreeing that "climate change" is better than "global warming", but then detailing why "climate change" doesn't even capture everything going on. > https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-global-warming-092314/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-g... That's honestly just a bad title. The article can be summed up however by the last sentence: "Rebranding a complex issue that most people think has already been rebranded ...". In other words, it disagrees with you: there was no rebranding from "global warming" to "climate change". > https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-dont-call-it-global-warming https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-... > https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-global-warming/ https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-... > https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-renamed-again-now-its-global-climate-disruption-greg-pollowitz/ https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-re... Holdren is saying why "global warming" isn't a great term. He's not arguing for a rebranding, he's pointing out why it stopped being as popular of a term 15 years prior to his speech. He does argue for rebranding to "global climate disruption", but that's irrelevant to your claim about "global warming" vs "climate change". > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-... > https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-guide-change-climate-change https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-gui... This is a rebranding, from "climate change" to "climate crisis". We can argue about whether it's a good change, but it's irrelevant to your claim about "global warming" vs "climate change". > https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-climate-change-instead-of-the-previous-term-global-warming https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-cl... Almost all of the answers there point out that it's a myth, agreeing with the skepticalscience.com link I posted above. The few answers that try to push that myth are diatribes that don't cite any supporting evidence.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

Please refrain from an aggressive style of argumentation. Climate is not weather, and weather is not climate. I never said there was a sneaky conspiracy. There was definitely a name change, and my organization at the time (one of the leading data producers for what is happening) changed all of our naming at the same time this occured, in both the media, and other places. Our models are wrong. Deeply flawed. We know this. Just like our HCN siting has been deeply wrong too (the data that is the premise for it occuring). We know that in certain cases ASOS data was incorrectly used in the climate record, and also, in the weather record. That is completely inappropriate use of a data set that was never intended for generalized observations. The process of fixing these things, and making changes to improve them, and iterate upon them - we call that science. This is why the legacy HCN now has been updated by the release of the reference network.

kazoomonger 5y ago
> There was definitely a name change If you read the second link I posted above, you will see that there was no name change. You have not provided any evidence or links to the contrary.
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/4141.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/4141.... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-there-is-no-evidence-that-global-warming-was-rebranded-as-climate-change/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-ther... https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-global-warming-092314/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-g... https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-dont-call-it-global-warming https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-... https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-global-warming/ https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-... https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-climate-change-instead-of-the-previous-term-global-warming https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-cl... https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-guide-change-climate-change https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-gui... https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-renamed-again-now-its-global-climate-disruption-greg-pollowitz/ https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-re...
  - kazoomonger 5y ago
    The crucial aspect you're missing is from the latter half of the skepticalscience.com link I posted above. Here is the particular graph that shows usage of "global warming" vs "climate change": https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/climate-change-v-global-warming-terms.JPG https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/climate-change-v-gl... Both terms were in common usage, with "climate change" existing before "global warming". It's not "rebranding" to realize that of the various terms in common usage, one of them is more accurate. "climate change" started rising relatively in popularity around 1994 after being roughly equal to "global warming", a decade before Watts' conspiracy theories. > https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/4141.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/4141.... > https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-there-is-no-evidence-that-global-warming-was-rebranded-as-climate-change/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-ther... Anthony Watts dances around understanding here, and writes "It is an unequivocal fact that the terms “climate change” and “global warming” have both been in use for a long time." So he agrees with the link I posted above. The PDF doesn't disagree, much as he'd like it to. Saying "climate change might be a better labelling than global warming" isn't saying "therefore we should rebrand it". It's agreeing that "climate change" is better than "global warming", but then detailing why "climate change" doesn't even capture everything going on. > https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-global-warming-092314/ https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-g... That's honestly just a bad title. The article can be summed up however by the last sentence: "Rebranding a complex issue that most people think has already been rebranded ...". In other words, it disagrees with you: there was no rebranding from "global warming" to "climate change". > https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-dont-call-it-global-warming https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-... > https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-global-warming/ https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-... > https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-renamed-again-now-its-global-climate-disruption-greg-pollowitz/ https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-re... Holdren is saying why "global warming" isn't a great term. He's not arguing for a rebranding, he's pointing out why it stopped being as popular of a term 15 years prior to his speech. He does argue for rebranding to "global climate disruption", but that's irrelevant to your claim about "global warming" vs "climate change". > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-... > https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-guide-change-climate-change https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-gui... This is a rebranding, from "climate change" to "climate crisis". We can argue about whether it's a good change, but it's irrelevant to your claim about "global warming" vs "climate change". > https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-climate-change-instead-of-the-previous-term-global-warming https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-cl... Almost all of the answers there point out that it's a myth, agreeing with the skepticalscience.com link I posted above. The few answers that try to push that myth are diatribes that don't cite any supporting evidence.