> 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.
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.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-ther...
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-g...
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-...
https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-cl...
https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-gui...
https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-re...
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.... > 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-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-... > https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-... > 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-... > 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-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.
Of course, Watts is talking as an insider. He is not Everyman Joe listening to broadcast news. He has been exposed to all the terms.
The public branding has changed, and also, so has it too for the industry that is the key data producers. The producers of the data have moved terms also. And, I think that is interesting.
Just because you say something is a myth, and a partisan fact checker say it is, does not make it so.
If something gets posted to Quora, or another question site, it is likely that something is an open question. I am not the only one to ask this.
Good science is about asking questions, hypotheses, predictions, falsification, data gathering, theory development, observations, and iteration repeatedly. Data crunching comes in particularly handy for this. Data is not inherently partisan, nor is asking tough questions. That is science as a process.
I noticed you are not responding to any of the comments I have made regarding the actual observing systems (HCN, ASOS, etc). So, to bring up things likes discrepancies between things like HCN data and remote observing system data would be overkill.
I think you want to have a political/ideological debate and I am not on HN to do that.
I'm here because I saw a comment repeating a falsehood, and wanted to call it out. I dislike seeing blatantly wrong things such as this:
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/201...
HN is not the place for ideologies.
Your original comment had factually incorrect information, as demonstrated. Please don't try and hide that behind name calling or distractions.
> Before there was Climate Change, there was Global Warming.
> Why was there a name change, a rebranding if you will? In some cases, there is conflation, but they mean very different things.
> When it comes to Climate, scientists say that climate is in 30 year intervals. Day to day that is just weather.
So, stay on topic.
> Before there was Climate Change, there was Global Warming.
> Why was there a name change, a rebranding if you will?
That quote contains factually incorrect information, as discussed above.