Is it climate change or global warming? University of Michigan study shows 'climate change' is preferred term
Do you call it climate change or global warming?
File photo
More people believe in “climate change” than “global warming,” according to a University of Michigan study.
And down party lines, the topic might not be as divisive as TV’s talking heads make it seem - at least, when it’s called climate change.
For the study, researchers asked a national online sample of 2,267 U.S. adults to report on whether global warming or climate change is a serious problem.
Half of the adults were asked about “climate change,” and the other half “global warming” in a question wording experiment. They were also asked to identify their political affiliation.
The question:
"You may have heard about the idea that the world's temperature may have been going up [changing] over the past 100 years, a phenomenon sometimes called 'global warming' ('climate change'). What is your personal opinion regarding whether or not this has been happening?"
When called climate change, 74 percent of those polled thought the problem was real. Sixty-eight percent took the problem seriously when it was called global warming.
Broken down along party lines, 60 percent of Republicans reported climate change was real, while 44 percent believed in global warming. Eighty-six percent of Democrats didn’t seem to care what it was called — they thought the problem was serious by any name.
"The extent of the partisan divide on this issue depends heavily on question wording," Norbert Schwarz, a Michigan psychologist, stated in a press release. "When the issue is framed as global warming, the partisan divide is nearly 42 percentage points. But when the frame is climate change, the partisan divide drops to about 26 percentage points."
But think tanks throw the terms around a little differently, the researchers found.
Michigan researchers analyzed the use of these two terms on the websites of political think tanks. Conservative think tanks more often use the term global warming, while liberal think tanks use climate change.
The study will be published in the upcoming issue of Public Opinion Quarterly.
Jonathon Schuldt, the lead author of the article about the study and a doctoral candidate in the Michigan Department of Psychology, co-authored the study with university psychologists Schwarz and Sara Konrath.
What do you think? Take our poll and leave a comment below.
Juliana Keeping is a health and environment reporter for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at julianakeeping@annarbor.com or 734-623-2528. Follow Juliana Keeping on Twitter
Comments
outdoor6709
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 6:40 p.m.
Wouldn't it make more sense if the AA news laid out the facts on both sides of the arguement instead of asking irrlevent questions about what to call climate change?
Atticus F.
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 4:38 p.m.
We have one group of scientist telling us That we are about to reach 'peak oil', and another group acting as if their is an unlimited supply of oil by which we are going to destroy our planet. Me belief is that we are being fed flawed science by a group of highly paid researchers, and another group of people who want us to live in a cave. Stop scaring chlidren!
Sofia Toti
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 1:49 a.m.
I heard a good term for it just yesterday: "global weirding"
clownfish
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 1:07 a.m.
@STEPHEN ""Global Warming", which is what the "Anthropogenic Climate Changers" used to call this phenomenon had to be dropped as we saw global warming not occurring on schedule and even some cooling going on. When the facts don't fit the preconceived result it is convenient to change the terminology." ------- Again, it was NOT the "Climate Changers" that changed the term, it was a GOP Pollster and those that took his advice on the use of language. I am not lying to you. "'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.' ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge" - Frank Luntz July 2002. What is confusing is that those same people don't hear him when he says this: ""It doesn't matter if there is or isn't climate change, it's still in America's best interest to develop new sources of energy that are clean, reliable, efficient and safe."- Frank Luntz Fri Jan. 22, 2010
clownfish
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 1:11 p.m.
If we wait for "the market" to effect change in energy policy we will lose to our economic competitors that are using their govts to get ahead of the inevitable.
Stephen Landes
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 4:15 a.m.
It only makes sense to proceed into wide use of new energy sources if they make economic sense. So far -- even with all the government spending -- wind and solar do not pass the return on investment test. So if you want to change the terms of the debate from "we have to do something because the sky is falling" to "it makes sense to develop new sources of energy" then you are going to have to do this without government incentives.
Stephen Landes
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 12:51 a.m.
Climate change on earth is real: we have always had it, are having it now, and always will have it. This planetary process happens with and without people on the planet. Whether or not the current climate change is significantly affected by human activity is open to question. However, even if all people magically left planet earth we could not prevent climate change from occurring. "Global Warming", which is what the "Anthropogenic Climate Changers" used to call this phenomenon had to be dropped as we saw global warming not occurring on schedule and even some cooling going on. When the facts don't fit the preconceived result it is convenient to change the terminology. Now whatever happens with the climate they can call it "climate change" and be right!
Ben Connor Barrie
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 11:45 p.m.
Just to be annoyingly nitpicky: the term "ice age" refers to a period when there are summer glaciers on earth. Thus we are currently in an ice age (and have been for the last 2.5 million years). What we commonly refer to as "ice ages" are actually "glaciation periods." On a different note, it is amazing how vocal anti-AGW people are.
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 8:54 p.m.
There's a lot of work on radiation transfer that some of these pro-AGW people like to use to claim the earth's temperature was a lot cooler 1,000 years ago. The problem being how can you reliably simulate an atmosphere in a controlled experiment? I have no doubt it's interesting work and may well lead to important discoveries. But the reliability of using this as an exact model for what happens our massive and open atmosphere is hardly there yet. Radiation transfer is still just a theory. The tree-ring stuff East Anglia turned into a tree-ring circus. We still don't have reliable data there. Without an exact long-term temperature record, all the pro-AGW stuff is simply propaganda. And I have a problem with so many so-called scientists going into a debate with their minds made up. Mine isn't.
Bill Wilson
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 7:35 p.m.
Per Brent: From the theoretical side, it takes knowledge and mathematical skill to understand how the CO2 and other manmade gases absorb and emit longwave radiation, how this is amplified by changes in water vapor (also a greenhouse gas), and how the heating distributes itself throughout the atmosphere and the surface. ---------------------------------------------- It takes a little reading skill to delve a bit deeper: ALL living things, plants, animals, bacteria, emit CO2 (which is only about .04% of the atmosphere)... it is not exclusively "manmade" as you're claiming. How much skill does it take to ignore the factor of the end of an ice age on rising mean temperature readings, Brent?
Allencic
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 1:07 a.m.
OK, one last carbon dioxide natural or un-natural reply. Man-made carbon dioxide can only be "natural"as is all CO2. Suppose coal is mined in KY and burned in a power plant in MI, is that natural? Now suppose that that same lump of coal was never mined, but rather was exposed as a coal seam on a hillside in eastern KY. As the coal is exposed on that hill it will eventually combine with atmospheric oxygen, oxidize and become part of the miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. No doubt it gets into the atmos. much faster when burned in the power plant. So what? Once in the atmos. the plants will use it in exactly same way as plant food for photosynthesis. The notion that if man has anything to do with it it must be bad and not natural is simply nonsense. By the way, if you say carbon when you mean carbon dioxide and leave out the oxygen part, then why don't we leave out the oxygen when it's combined with hydrogen and we can call rain "hydrogen pollution". Sounds like a great new greenie crusade to me.
Allencic
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 11:35 p.m.
Do you have any proof of an "unnatural" carbon cycle? Isn't that a little like going to the grocery store and trying to buy inorganic apples? A bit of grade school general science would help.
Brent Lofgren
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 10:30 p.m.
What I should have said was "not exclusively man-made, but very significantly influenced by human activities, such that the background atmospheric content has risen from about 280 parts per million during pre-industrial times to about 390 ppm at present, increasing by a factor of 1.4. Although 390 ppm, or 0.04%, might seem like a small number when isolated from all other facts, it is important since the main constituents of air--N2, O2, and Ar--allow the thermal radiation produced by the Earth's surface to pass into space unimpeded, but CO2 and other greenhouse gases, including water vapor whose atmospheric concentration has a strong temperature dependence, regulate the amount of radiative heat that escapes the Earth-atmosphere system in order to counterbalance the input of heat from solar radiation." I'll maintain that you are the one who imagined that I said "exclusively," but sorry for the shorthand. I'll reiterate also that my statement quoted above by Bill was in support of my saying that warming caused by human activity is not obvious. It's not that the Little Ice Age did not exist, but due to scientific investigation that went beyond the obvious, starting well before discussion entered the political realm (e.g. Manabe and Wetherald 1967 and Arrhenius 1901), we know mechanisms for climate change that extend beyond the natural realm--we don't know them perfectly, but well beyond the grossest level. Part of that understanding is based on the effects of greenhouse gases as they have naturally occurred for eons. Part of it is based on laboratory manipulation of individual gases for their spectral properties and absorption. And part of it is based on other fundamental laws of physics. Allencic seems to have reversed the shorthand issue, stripping out the important qualifier "natural" from DBlaine's statement about the "natural carbon cycle", and accusing him of being unreasonable.
Allencic
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 9:24 p.m.
DBlaine, How can you possibly say that man made carbon dioxide isn't part of the carbon cycle? A plant can't tell the difference just as a plant can't tell whether nitrogen comes out of a fertilizer bag or a cow pie.
DBlaine
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 9:08 p.m.
Yes, all living things emit CO2. That's not the problem. The problem is the burning of fossil fuels. That's releasing CO2. And while CO2 is a fraction of the atmosphere, the CO2 that is being released by the burning of fossil fuels is not part of the natural carbon cycle.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 7:01 p.m.
Frank Luntz will be on Talk of the Nation today on NPR discussing his new book "how to win with smart messaging". He is a master of the use of language to manipulate public and political dialog. We used to call this "propaganda", now we call it "messaging". All sides use it Frank just happens to be The Mean when it comes to this topic. Note that even though I clearly explained how and when Mr Luntz changed global warming to climate change many here still KNOW that it was the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy that altered the words in public discourse.
leaguebus
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 6:56 p.m.
<a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/" rel='nofollow'>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/</a> @Matrix. The URL above was written using the findings of the ice core Scientists.
Brent Lofgren
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 6:48 p.m.
Again, to go head-on against those who deny human-caused climate change, especially in this forum, is futile. As much as it pains me to do it, I am going to nitpick against bedrog, who stands for the reality of anthropogenic climate change, but has cheapened the debate by calling it obvious. Part of the problem is that there is a lot of subtlety to the warming. From the theoretical side, it takes knowledge and mathematical skill to understand how the CO2 and other manmade gases absorb and emit longwave radiation, how this is amplified by changes in water vapor (also a greenhouse gas), and how the heating distributes itself throughout the atmosphere and the surface. On the observational side, there is the temptation to treat local short-term fluctuations in temperature as incontrovertible evidence for or against human-caused warming, while looking at global trends over decades is much more appropriate. Again, it's subtle, but given enough time, and even though it is hard to understand, it can jump up and bite you hard. See my previous comment about the person who wants to deny gravity and walks over a cliff.
Allencic
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 6:41 p.m.
Here are three simple questions. First, if you really and truly believe in the global warming version of climate change, what would it take for you to change your mind and consider it false? Second, if there was no global warming, what would the climate be like? How would it be different than what we've experienced over the last thirty or so years? Third, if the climate didn't change, if its was truly stable, would we even have the word "climate"? Note: No fair answering with words such as: could, might, maybe, it is possible, etc.
Disco D
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 6:35 p.m.
In response to KJMClark, the assertion in the NY Times quote from a study on scientist consensus there is global warming AND man caused it are two very different assertions. My own view as a conservative is yes, I believe we are in a period of global warming (aside from the evidence indicating the last 10 years have been a cooling period). However, I do not believe man is the primary cause of global warming. There are two 51 year periods measured from 1895 to 2008 in which the period from 1895 to 1946 and the period from 1957-2008 are virtually identical from a time and temperature standpoint. So which is man (gender neutral) and which is mother nature? In response to KJMClark's comment on precipitation worries, the National Climate Data Center records indicate the five year moving average of precipitation from 1900 to present shows no significant trend in increased precipitation. The fact that locally we had 68" of snow this season sounds more like whining than evidence to me. Inferred within man's supposed responsibility with global warming/climate change is CO2 emissions. By any intellectually honest scientific mechanism, CO2 cannot change the climate except via higher temperatures. Therefore, CO2 cannot cause climate change if it does not cause global warming. Sunspots have been unusually active in the last 50 years, and that's the main reason for global warming, not CO2, in my view. Climate change is simply put a re-marketing effort by the left to force their agenda on the rest of us and to pay through the nose for it through cap & trade and the like. So what evidence will convince the global warming/climate change Kool-Aid drinkers?
Allencic
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 6:53 p.m.
Excellent and scientifically sensible answer!
leaguebus
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 6:23 p.m.
Last time I looked at junk science web site, the oil companies said the Earth's warming was caused by water vapor, not CO2 and there was nothing we can do to stop it. The Sun is a new wrinkle to the Science of global warming. At some point in the future, when the sun becomes a red giant and swallows the Earth, the Sun proponents will be right. Hopefully this won't happen in 2012.
Matrix
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 5:35 p.m.
It's the sun that is causing global warming and cooling. Evidence of it was clearly illustrated just last month. There was a massive solar flare on Feb. 15, 2011. Two days later, Ann Arbor temperature, in the middle of February, reach a high of 53.6 degrees. The power of the sun. The sun's output fluctuates and it goes through cycles as it rotates around its orbit. As a result, the earth goes through warming and cooling.
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 8:57 p.m.
If that were the case, then temperature would be far more volatile to immediate changes. The atmosphere prevents that from happening. Ann Arbor's burst of temperature was not felt at the same time all over the world.
Matrix
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 7:41 p.m.
@DBlaine, Global temperature is not going up. It has been going down for the past 8-10 years. That is why the scientists were trying to "hide the decline." Aren't you familiar with the huge scandle surrounding Climategate that broke in November, 2009.
DBlaine
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 6:25 p.m.
That's great except solar activity is on a downward trend. But global average temperature keeps going up.
julieswhimsies
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 5:33 p.m.
Follow the science...not the polls.
bedrog
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 5:31 p.m.
It is ironic and depressing that in the home of the "Harvard of the midwest" there are so many deniers of obvious realities ( be it scoffers about climate change, evolution, overpopulation , who are mostly on the right politically; and about the existential threats of radical islam...mostly from the left and libertarian fringes). Sometimes 'chicken little' ( of ' the sky is falling' ) is more correct than the clueless grasshopper ( of the grasshopper and the ant story).
Bill Wilson
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 5:23 p.m.
``Once again, problem solved!! You're such a smart guy!! Please notify the thousands of scientists of your discovery of this too, will you? I'm certain they don't know this, either. Any other revelations for us? Or is this it for your earth shaking findings? Until then I'll be watching Glenn Beck and his case of Nazi Turrets Syndrome.`` Are you totally oblivious to the motives of some men who have sought fame and wealth throughout history? Trust me, although your view is limited by the trees, there is a forest there.
DBlaine
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.
Bill asks: "Are you totally oblivious to the motives of some men who have sought fame and wealth throughout history?" Yes, that's why I believe the average global temperature output -- which results from thousands of readings from thousands of scientists across the world -- rather than the blowhards on Faux News, oil company-funded shills, and the people who have everything to gain from maintaining the status quo. I think you've hit the nail right on the head.
Matrix
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 5:18 p.m.
What a difference just two years makes. Just two years ago, there would be 80-90% wamers claiming humans are destroying the earth and Al Gore was god. Based on today's posts, about 80% of the posts are against the theory of man-made global warming. People are waking up. If we did not have the Internet to actually research for ourselves, most of us would have bought the global warming hoax hook, line and sinker. Paying huge fees to crooks to have the right to breath. Before, we would have no choice but the rely on the corporate controlled media. NPR is still pushing global warming hoax. Just this morning they had a piece on it.
Bill Wilson
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 5:07 p.m.
``Please contact the thousands of climate scientists and the dozens of scientific organizations who think climate change is real. I'm certain they've never heard of the Little Ice Age and haven't taken it into account. Problem solved. So now the nation can go back to being anesthetized by Faux Noise and by Charlie Sheen's and Lindsay Lohan's latest adventures.`` ------------------------------------------------------------------ Again, back to those nasty books so many wish to ignore: A quick glance at a temperature chart over the last 150 years will reveal a variance of an average of five degrees in "both" directions from the mean, which rose gradually as the Little Ice Age ended. As another poster noted... currently, we're slightly below the mean. As to your mastery of the obvious: of course, climate changes. If it didn't... it wouldn't require much study, eh? Read that line again ghost. You never cease to amuse!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.
"Here's a thought: Maybe before posting, actually cracking open a few books on the subject might help. If you did, you'd see that the planet has been gradually coming out of the Little Ice Age. When an ice age ends, temperatures rise. What's the Steely Dan lyric? 'The things that pass for knowledge I can't understand.'" Wow, such insight!! Who knew that a blogger on A2.com was the only one who knew that the "Little Ice Age" accounts for all of this? Please contact the thousands of climate scientists and the dozens of scientific organizations who think climate change is real. I'm certain they've never heard of the Little Ice Age and haven't taken it into account. Problem solved. So now the nation can go back to being anesthetized by Faux Noise and by Charlie Sheen's and Lindsay Lohan's latest adventures. Good Night and Good Luck
Stupid Hick
Fri, Mar 11, 2011 : 4:04 a.m.
Bob, I don't think "historical" means what you seem to think it does.
Basic Bob
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 5:38 p.m.
"I'm certain they've never heard of the Little Ice Age and haven't taken it into account." Some real scientists believe that the Little Ice Age was caused by depopulation after the Great Death or the spread of disease to the New World. But then, maybe you don't believe in these historical occurrences, either. That would correlate with the recent popular theories on climate change.
braggslaw
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.
It has become a wealth transfer mechanism....
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 11:14 p.m.
Just count up the government grants that include the phrase "global warming" and you will see Billions of dollars sent to universities. Seems like wealth transfer to me.
braggslaw
Thu, Mar 10, 2011 : 1:06 a.m.
The same proof you have of global warming
clownfish
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 7:06 p.m.
Got any proof of that?
Bill Wilson
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 4:21 p.m.
Here's a thought: Maybe before posting, actually cracking open a few books on the subject might help. If you did, you'd see that the planet has been gradually coming out of the Little Ice Age. When an ice age ends, temperatures rise. What's the Steely Dan lyric? "The things that pass for knowledge I can't understand." ;)
Matrix
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 4:05 p.m.
This is exactly how the system (that control our politicians) operates. The Big Lie. Just about everything we are told is a lie. Particularly those issues hyped by the media and politicians. Global warming, swine flu scare, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, 9/11, peak oil, etc., etcl, etc. "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels
Michael K.
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 3:59 p.m.
Just a comment on my own comment. I really didn't mean to sound quite so hostile about this " babble" of opinions. I'll just say this about all of our opinions on such complex subject, as an analogy: I have an MBA. I also have 16 years expensive in the finance industry. I helped start and run multi-billion dollar finance company that we grew to 600+ employees. I don't pretend to fully understand macro economics, or to "know" what the best solution is to these incredibly complex problems that face us. I can ferret out those who have the expertise and well formed opinions, then trust and support their **professional** judgement. I truly trust those folks over the political babble, propaganda, and spin from those with deeply vested economic self interests. Do you think BP is the one go-to source on what happened in the gulf? Or that Exxon-Mobil is the defining word on the environment?
leaguebus
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 4:42 p.m.
You hit the nail right on the head!
leaguebus
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 3:54 p.m.
If you look at who is funding all the junk science behind the anti global warming people, it's the oil companies. Now why would they do that? They take all the Republican given governmental subsidies and hire a large PR machine to discredit over 2500 scientists and get half the American people convinced that they are being lied to in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We need to get off oil before it runs out, so why not start now? At the same time we might be able to slow the effects of global warming. Ten years after Sputnik went up, we were on the moon. Why, because we were scared that a sworn enemy of ours would use space against us and there was nobody funding a group of people telling us we had nothing to worry about. A lot of the same people that believe our Scientists are lying to us are the same people believe that the Earth was created 5000 years ago and that we and dinosaurs existed at the same time. What is wrong with a society that places religious dogma above Science? A study was just released shows that the most vibrant economies in the World are the ones that treat women and men as equals. These societies are putting away the religious dogma about women being inferior to men and allowing women to become more equal partners in society and their economies prove this. This comes from the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, if anyone would like to check.
Michael K.
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 3:43 p.m.
Sure, we will just engineer our way out of these extreme weather events! Look what a great job we did in New Orleans! Look how well we handled that little event - that oil spill - in the gulf! Why, those folks stranded on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago had a nice little overnight party. They hardly noticed that 24" of snow around them. Maybe we can just put a glass dome over our cities? I saw that one on The Simpsons! Seemed to work pretty well. Just keep singing that song to yourself - was it REM? - "I am, I am, i am Superman. I can do anything ..." When all you negative commentators have a degree in this and 20+ years of studying,I'll start listening to you instead of the scientists. Until then it is mostly just noise that most people really know nothing about.
David Frye
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.
Unfortunately, the real world doesn't care about our polls or our politics. Deny reality all you want -- the bottom line is that we'll change our behavior and adapt, or else it's goodbye to us. The world will go on, oblivious.
Bogie
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 3:18 p.m.
How much money, did the University spend on this study? Wasting tax dollars on an unsubstantiated theory.
Brent Lofgren
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.
Rather than go head-on against those who firmly believe what they do, I'll make this comment. The survey in this story asked, "What is your personal opinion...?" This question has little to do with the actual outcome of increased greenhouse gases. If you asked someone, "What is your opinion about the ability of gravity to pull you toward the center of the Earth?", regardless of that person's answer, if they stepped off a cliff, they would plummet toward its base. Their answer might, however, influence their decision on whether or not to step off the edge of a cliff.
leaguebus
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 6:38 p.m.
Brent, this is true of rational people, but the dogmatic may have to try it first! As Kierkegard said, religion is totally irrational and once a person makes the leap of faith, they leave some rationality behind. It's how much that is left behind that's the real question here.
julieswhimsies
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.
Excellent post! Thank you.
DaLast word
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:38 p.m.
I think the Ann Arbor city council should spend 2 weeks debating this and them pass a resolution condemming it.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:30 p.m.
"..., 60 percent of Republicans reported climate change was real..." 60% of republicans are in bed with the UN and want to see the USA fall. See how easy this is?
nemo
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.
I firmly believe we are wrecking the planet in a myriad of ways, but I cannot blame the naysayers too much: 30 years ago the Henny-Penny's were running around flapping their wings and screaming "The glaciers are coming!," now they're saying "The glaciers are melting!" Can't blame folks for being confused.
Carla Heyn
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.
Call it what it is--Observable Weather Pattern Changes. Most people confuse the words climate and weather. Observable changes in environment ( the melting of the polar ice caps), observable changes in the weather patterns over time, and observable changes in long term climate conditions are reality. To politicize those conditions is dangerous.
Gill
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:20 p.m.
Wow, so many self proclaimed earth and atmospheric scientists! Geology is looking at long term trends, not your instantaneous glance. I am amazed what short term memories and no long term planning Americans have. You are screaming your spoon fed Fox news emotional responses into a debate that requires logic. The republican discrepancy between the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming' proves the point that they do not understand, but simply emotionally respond to the later because they are told to. Also, ice cores are not accurate, as the snow melts on the bottom, forms rivers, and refreezes…
Matrix
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:19 p.m.
@clownfish, What most people are not aware of is is that both the Repub. and Dem. leadership want carbon taxes and cap-n-trade. However, to fool the public, Republicans leadership need to give the impression that they are against it. Otherwise people will realize that we have a one-party system pretending to be two separate and opposing parties. The Repub. rank and file are against it and many Republican politicians honestly speak out against it. But, People like George Bush and Nute Gingrich actually support man-made global warming. That is the deception.
snoopdog
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.
Used to be called Global Warming but that didn't work , so now they call it Climate Change. This is the single biggest scam brought upon the American people to by the United Nations to destroy us and end our influence across the globe. Good Day
clownfish
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.
Frank Luntz works for the UN? Did not know that. Can you see the black helicopters? I suggest you take down any street signs you find, in order to keep the New World Order from finding it's way around.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.
Oh, they also told us that hedge funds and mortgage brokers were capable of policing themselves and that regulation of these industries was a bad thing.
DBlaine
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:15 p.m.
To all the deniers: Climate and weather are not the same things. And, the earth's climate HAS changed, but over a scale of MILLIONS of years. Today, scientists have reached a consensus -- yes, that's exactly how science works -- that the earth's climate is warming over a scale of HUNDREDS of years, and emission of greenhouse gases are to blame. At one point in its history, 98 percent of all marine life went extinct. The earth almost became a barren rock. And then life rebounded over a period of millions of years. The earth will be fine, whatever happens with climate change. This is about saving us.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:15 p.m.
Temps are rising - no doubt about that and no one really disagrees with that. I am glad the Ice Age is over. - But CO2 increases do follow temp increases. That is historically shown as well. - For the rest of us - here is a big list of all the things caused by warming - <a href="http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm</a>
clownfish
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
Let us also keep in mind that many of the same people that are telling us climate change is a "hoax" also told us the following: Iraq had wmd's Saddam had connections to Al Qaida Saddam had drone planes capable of reaching Europe, and maybe the US Obama wants "death panels" in order to euthanize Grandma Unions are the reason the country is in debt health care is not rationed now under private insurance, but will be if everybody has private insurance Shirley Sherrod is a bigot "Anchor babies" Obamas trip to India cost the US tax payer $200,000,000 a day! Obama used FEMA to set up concentration camps around the country, including at Camp Grayling.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:03 p.m.
" Kind of wish for a little global warming this past winter. Got awfully cold during December and January." I am sure you know this, but...climate and weather are not the same. ----------- The Communists at U.S. National Association of Insurance Commissioners are in on it too! A March 2009 decision by the U.S. National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) mandates (re)insurer disclosure of financial risks due to climate change and actions taken to mitigate them
Jon Saalberg
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:03 p.m.
I was going to mention that Luntz is the clever GOPer who came up with the politically correct term, but @Clownfish mentioned it already. As to the deniers, I believe the best analogy for those of you who don't believe that we are irreversibly changing and damaging our planet is the proverbial frog in the pot of water - I only hope that the rest of us aren't cooked along with you guys, because we DO realize the pot is going to boil.
Awakened
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:03 p.m.
Looking back over thousands and tens of thousands of years the climate has fluctuated. Sometimes warmer than now, sometimes colder. Our ancestors survived it as will we. The idea that we know why, can choose the best climate, or know how to change it, is simply hubris. You'd better beware anyone looking to your wallet over this issue.
discgolfgeek
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 1:57 p.m.
It is not really possible to show how much of climate change is caused by man. It is a fact that the polar icecaps are melting and if continued at the present pace, will have an effect on all communities that border the ocean. You don't believe the icecaps are melting? Take a look at satellite photos from 50 years ago and today, the difference is very significant. Look at Kilimanjaro, the snow/ice on the peak is almost gone. Man-made or not, we will have to deal with climate change and eventually, maybe sooner than we realize, have to deal with diminished oil reserves.
alterego
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 1:55 p.m.
Do you believe that glaciers once covered much of the northern hemisphere? If so, then you believe in climate change, be it man-made or naturally occurring.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 1:50 p.m.
OR; thousands of scientists around the world, including those at * American Association for the Advancement of Science * American Chemical Society * American Geophysical Union * American Institute of Biological Sciences * American Meteorological Society * American Society of Agronomy * American Society of Plant Biologists * American Statistical Association * Association of Ecosystem Research Centers * Botanical Society of America * Crop Science Society of America * Ecological Society of America * Natural Science Collections * Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations * Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics * Society of Systematic Biologists * Soil Science Society of America * University Corporation for Atmospheric Research are actually scientists and have reached a consensus on the available information. Or they could be Communists that hate America.
clownfish
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 1:49 p.m.
Matrix at 8:13 AM on March 9, 2011---------- The Real Reason "Global Warming" was changed to "climate change" is because of GOP Pollster Frank Luntz. Memo to theGOP, circa 2003 "Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. "Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says. ---- It is truly a funny world we live in when a GOP consultant manipulates language and then "the right" blames the word change on "the left"! So, lets examine the word "fraud". "intentional deception resulting in injury to another person" What injury is being caused? Is it injurious for the worlds population to CONSERVE (root word of conservative) energy for coming generations? How about the word "hoax"- "something intended to deceive or defraud" So, we are to assume that thousands of scientists around the world held some sort of conclave with the UN and decided that they would attempt to get money from the 1st world and transfer it to the third world? Where did this conclave take place? In order to believe this theory we must follow some of the following "logic"; 1: Scientists are trained at universities. 2: Universities are hotbeds of liberalism.3: the scientists have been brainwashed by this liberalism and are out to destroy capitalism.
Mike
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 9:28 p.m.
These scientists are paid quite well to study this "phenomena". What would be their incentive to disprove the theory - unemployment? There have been numerous "studies" in the past which have been proven wrong. If you disagree with the conclusions of the "scientists" you are labeled a quack at whatever institue of higher learning you do your research in. I believe Frank Luntz could come up with something like that though.
grye
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 1:39 p.m.
The Middle East used to be flush with rivers running through the area. The Sahara Desert was once not a desert. Climates change as we evident by the ice ages in the past. Man may have had some impact on weather, but change is consistent and change will continue despite man's involvement. Some limitations need to be placed on man to protect the environment (toxins, deforestation, etc.), but man's direct involvement on "global warming" or "climate change" is minimal. Kind of wish for a little global warming this past winter. Got awfully cold during December and January.
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.
We can say the earth is slowly getting warmer. What we can't say is what the temperature was 1,000 years ago. The tree-ring studies used to make the claims necessary to support the hockey-stick graphs have not been conducted in a scientific manner. Trees were carefully selected to support the premise that the world was colder then. We can also say that the earth has survived many ice ages, and many periods far warmer than today. There is a natural fluctuation. The only pending crisis, even if it does get a little warmer in the next 100 years, is entirely man-made anyway. I have no problem with continued study of this issue. What I take issue with is the use of propaganda to claim that, for certain, the world will be 10 degrees warmer 100 years from now if we don't stop using cars.
Matrix
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 1:29 p.m.
@kJMClark "The results are pretty conclusive. The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the world's active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it." That is not true. It is a blatant lie by the media and bureaucrats to fool the public. This website, The Petition Project, has over 31,000 scientists that deny man-made global warming. It names names. <a href="http://www.petitionproject.org/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.petitionproject.org/</a> Where is the list of handful of scientists the NY Times claims. NY Times is nothing more than propaganda. They were the biggest cheerleader for WMDs in Iraq nonsense that has led to the deaths of over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqies and trillion of dollars spent. For what? to bring democracy?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 4:35 p.m.
@KJM: Don't you know that you don't need facts to be able to "prove" that climate change is a myth? Good Night and Good Luck
KJMClark
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 3:31 p.m.
Well, if you bother to follow the link, you can get to the *study* which points out you don't know what you're talking about. The study looked at the top 908 climate scientists, determined by having at least 20 published papers on climate research. 97-98% of those scientists support the theory that anthropogenic climate change is happening. Geez, I could sign that petition - I have a BS in Computer Science. What's the point of that? Heck, *anyone* can sign that petition, just by claiming they have some science degree. They don't check.
Top Cat
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 1:18 p.m.
Whatever you call it, man made global warming/climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the United Nations' IPCC for the purpose of transferring wealth from Western to third world countries. Despite what the Left says, there are thousands of scientists who have questioned the theory and denounced the junk science behind it. An additional 100 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes global temperatures to rise ? If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
jcj
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 1:15 p.m.
Must need to get hits up for advertising! So you insert a hot button topic that has been beat to death. Well here is my only hit on this topic this time around!
Matrix
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 1:13 p.m.
I don't mean to be rude, but how about a third term, "FRAUD." The reason why the term was changed from "global warming" to "climate change" is because the earth has been cooling for the past 8-10 years and they knew it. They knew they could not hide this fact much longer. This is where the famous phrase, "hide the decline" comes in, exposed as a result of Much of the temperature data was manipulated. Also, the term "climate change" is rediculous. Climate ALWAYS changed. It is never constant. We've had the ice age and periods much warmer than now with much higher CO2 levels. CO2 does not cause global warming. CO2 levels are the result of global temperatures. Not the other way around. Clearly proven by ice core samples. Finally, Al Gore told us NAFTA would be great for America. Look how that turned out.
Theo212
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 1:06 p.m.
NCAA tournament is way more important than this bunk.
cinnabar7071
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 12:42 p.m.
Global Warming Lies and many millions of other people who don't believe global warming is man made have never received money from any oil company.
Mike
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 9:21 p.m.
Are you Charlie Sheen??????????
julieswhimsies
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 5:45 p.m.
What?...
sbbuilder
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.
Huh?
markinro
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 12:37 p.m.
Roy Spencers book - Climate Confusion. The global warming myth is nothing more than a baseless theory. Consensus is not science. Al Gore's hockeystick chart has been shown to be a fake. Here's a question for the global-warming crowd. If co2 is the cause, how much do we need to remove to restore "normal" temperatures? What is "normal"? Who determines what is "normal"? A bunch of bueraucrats(sp?) - no thank you. We have seen our share of what happens when politicians and the UN makes decisions. I'm stocking up on co2 burning light-bulbs. I have no interest in paying 10x for a light that only last 6x longer. The global-warming theorists are scamming everyone.
Elaine F. Owsley
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 12:24 p.m.
How about "local climate changes are caused by global warming"? Of course, those of us who are old enough just see a lot of the Michigan weather as "one more time".
KJMClark
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 12:18 p.m.
Another study published last year looked at the "consensus" among scientists. A link to the study and some discussion at the NYTimes: <a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/" rel='nofollow'>http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/evidence-for-a-consensus-on-climate-change/</a>: "The results are pretty conclusive. The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the world's active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it." We're way past "consensus" in the scientific community. It really is "vast majority". The problem is that global warming is "global", so while we keep setting global high temperature records and near records, local conditions vary. People have to go looking for the global numbers, but their local temps greet them outside their door each day. Besides, the really important aspects of global warming will be the changes in climate. One of the big model results for our area is greater precipitation, particularly in winter. And this winter fits that project. Temperatures have been pretty normal (weatherunderground for KDTW shows 5027 heating degree days since July 1 vs. 5006 normal - <a href="http://classic.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=ICAO:KDTW&almanac=1)" rel='nofollow'>http://classic.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=ICAO:KDTW&almanac=1)</a>. But snowfall is almost double normal (63" vs. 38" normal). I always wonder what will convince doubters, or skeptics ( or deniers, depending on your perspective).
KJMClark
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 3:20 p.m.
"Know a *snow* job when I see one" - you're trying to be punny, right? When I look up "East Anglia Group", I get a model railroad club in England (<a href="http://www.gaugeone.org/east_anglian_group.htm)" rel='nofollow'>http://www.gaugeone.org/east_anglian_group.htm)</a>. Looks like fun, but maybe you had something else in mind?
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 1:27 p.m.
The consensus is defined as people who have been approved by the East Anglia group as being worthy of their attention. There is no consensus on the cause of temperature change. I don't claim to know the truth, but I do know a snow job when I see one.
McGiver
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 11:52 a.m.
A more relevant question might be is it man caused? Poll that one.
DBlaine
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 4:44 p.m.
LOL McGiver. You're brilliant! Let's just use polling to replace science. Hey, do I have cancer? Instead of going to a doctor, I'll just put up an online poll!
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 3:51 p.m.
actually a more relevant question would be "does man contribute? If so to what degree?"
alterego
Wed, Mar 9, 2011 : 2:30 p.m.
Does it matter? It's still happening. Plus, we know that we are engaged in destructive behaviors. There is a finite supply of oil and coal. Once it's gone, it's gone. Why can't we start to figure out how to slow down our and make efficient our use of these wonderful resources? And if by doing so, we happen to decrease the warming climate, then that would be wonderful.