The deniers deny this, but the science is pretty clear CO2 is a greenhouse gas an human activity has increased the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%, this will result in more of the sun's energy being absorbed by the earth systems. (You can even test this in your kitchen, or you can take the easy way out and accept the myth busters experiment [2])
The alarmist amongst those deniers claim it is all a secret conspiracy [3] by thousands of scientist all around the world in order to get all politicians to increase taxes one every one (including taxes on the scientist)
NASA probably give the best answer to the confusion regarding the terms (when the US congress manages to stops acting like children you can view their website, type 'nasa climate change vs global warming')
As previously mentioned the terminology dates to around the 1970's and global warming was first used to define a measured observation of global surface temperatures. The term climate change was then used in the following year (or two) in reference to the first document and clarified that climate change would be a consequence.
The term climate change has generally been accepted as the correct terms in the majority of the world since the 80's (I learned about climate change in the late 90's) except for in the USA where until recently it was referred to global warming (although they some times implied climate change).
Climate change is more encompassing than global warming. The latter is merely a matter of temperature. However, the heat is what drives the winds, affecting other aspect of the climate, such as rainfall, humidity, and tropical storms.
It's interesting that someone claimed that it was like purple and violet being the same thing. The parallel is good but the relationship is the same; there are more shades of purple than just violet, magenta, for example, or amethyst.
Global warming is the global average figure that is being measured. It results from the additional radiative forcing over the nominal 1750 point in time. It is the temperature increase produced by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. (It's not just sensible heat but also latent heat. But thermometers measure sensible heat, not latent. You need more types of data to track latent heat.)
Climate change is what happens because of global warming. Since global warming changes some of the underlying base upon which weather, the seasons, rainfall, and humidity occurs, the effects are many. (Also ice melting.) Just calling all that "global warming" would not be appropriate, since it causes people ignorant of the more detailed science meanings to incorrectly imagine that temperature is the only consequence. But temperature increase is what is meant by global warming. When you want to discuss the consequences (increased hydrologic cycle and so on) and destabilizations away from equilibrium points then you use the term climate change. Climate change includes the consequences of, not just the fact of, global warming.
They are connected, of course.
EDIT: Now I read bubba and see I duplicated his writing. Oh, well.
The terms, "global warming" and "climate change" are often used interchangably. "Climate change" is a generic term and "global warming" is more specific, as global warming is a form of climate change in which global average temperature shows a general trend of increasing.
AGW is still more specific. It is global warming caused by human activities.
Global warming is what scientist call it when the concentration of greenhouse gases accumulates in the atmosphere because of human activity and the energy in the atmosphere, measured by temperature, increases. Climate change is the result. The energy in the atmosphere is redistributed through weather. Differences in temperatures and pressures, and movement of air masses, etc. causes weather is the result of the energy in the atmosphere. If you increase the amount of energy in the atmosphere, you can alter the weather. Climate is the statistical description of weather. Global warming results in climate change and the additional energy is caused by humans burning fossil duels (mostly).
Global Warming, Climate Change the low information public isn't paying attention anyway, they're just glad Al is going to save them.
Liberals are always searching for words that frighten people because when people are scared they react instead of thinking, they tried to change it a few years back to CCC catastrophic climate change I don't think they expected people to pay attention to the weather.
Climate change is the scientific term, it was dumbed down to global warming specifically for Americans that can't understand science
That they "changed the name" is a denier myth, one, that if they gave it even a moments thought, would tell them how stupid they are being, the IPCC has been called the IPCC since day one (1988), it's as far as I can see deniers playing semantics, because they can't really address the science.
The 'saviours of the earth' miscalculated back in the sixties and claimed there was a pending Ice Age, caused by CO2. Then came the revelation that the earth was warming slightly. So then James Hansen and others started to preach Global Warming, caused by CO2. Well, they decided that maybe the temperature might go down again so they hedged and called it 'Climate Change'. Climate change has never beendefined legally or scientifically, but it one of the most feared and hyped piece of propaganda ever to be upon the face of the earth.
According to the IPCC a, "Climate Change is a change in climate." Now doesn't that really inform you. Try telling your third grade teacher, "Cuba is a country called Cuba." I'm sure you will get an 'A'.
Plus the term expands the confusion of their argument. Temperature is only one dimension of the climate. If they can't argue a change in the temperature they can argue about any number of aspects.
The climate always changes. That's what keeps them safe in their declarations (reports). Global Warming is too specific for those people. They are trying to stay neutral.
Because even semi-educated people know they are two words meaning approximately the same thing. Like purple and violet.
The NY Times is a lefty rag. They are members of the climate change cult.
They call it all sorts of things . One lady callls it Climate
Catastrophe, others Climate disruption Van Jones calls
it Climate emergency . Its all bunk .
there must be a conspiracy in there somewhere
because they need a new line of BS to keep the money flowing
