I disagree with Kano, climate change is used so you can point to bad weather and claim it as evidence, while simultaneously stating that it's just weather for those the semi-educated (book smart without any common sense, while realist (skeptics) know those making the statement are being intentionally ambiguous in order to invoke fear in the ignorant and placate the semi-educated.

Just look at Trevor, "The two terms have different meanings but they can often be used interchangeably."

In other words they are equal but not equal. What a bunch of pure crap!.

But that is typical greenie speak. It is so ambiguous that you can never pin them down. They thrive in ambiguity.

Quote by Steven Guilbeault, Canadian environemental journalist and Greenpeace member: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter."

So you can see that these charlatans can never be wrong. If it rains, that is because of Global Warming. If it doesn't rain, that is because of Global Warming. (Just ask Al Gore. He will tell you.) If it gets cold, that is because of Global Warming. (And somehow this makes sense to them.)

In direct answer to your question. There really is no answer, since neither one has been clearly defined in a scientific or a legal method. How do you measure the size of a ghost? How do you measure the cubic feet of a cloud? Those two would be easier to measure than to explain CC or GW.

Take for instance, the IPCC. Their definition of Climate Change in essence is this, "Climate Change is a change in climate." Over a trillion dollars spent on Climate Change and yet this is all we get for definition. But ambiguity always works in favor of a con artist or snake oil salesman.

is one effect of the long term increase in average global temperatures.

Human is responsible for both.No matter Global Climate Change or Global Warming.

It's more accurate. Although the planet is warming overall, the observable changes include more severe weather in all its forms.

The two are basically interchangable. Global climate change is more encompassing; it is easier to understand that more severe flooding, for example, is one effect of the long term increase in average global temperatures.

A still older term is "Greenhouse effect."

It is important to bear in mind the distinction between anthropogenic ("man-made" or "human-caused")

climate change (as in "anthropogenic global warming" or "anthropogenic climate change" or "anthropogenic climate disruption"), and non-anthropogenic climate change.

There is a natural greenhouse effect (the main reason the earth is not like the moon or Mars). And there is natural climate change, such as the ice age cycle, e.g. the ice ages which come and go over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Anthropogenic climate change is happening hundreds of times faster, in matter of a centuries we are changing the climate to an extent that would otherwise happen only in tens of thousands or millions of years.

Deniers of science, duped by or copying fossil fuel industry disinformation (they are all over this site, because there is no penalty here for shoveling deliberately wrong answers or fake misleading questions in the hundreds -many get their jollies with such silliness), will pretend that if there is natural climate change then man-made climate must be impossible. This is of course idiotic, like trying to argue that if lightning sometimes causes forest fires, that arson does not exist.

"Climate Change"(more specifically Man Made Climate Change) is a non falsifiable theory (nothing disproves the theory) intimating that any unusual weather that occurs from now one is attributable to man made CO2.

"Global Warming" is the theory that man made CO2 is the main driver of Earth's temperature and that any increase in atmospheric CO2 will directly lead to increased temperature. This theory claims that increased man made CO2 production will lead to a "tipping point" or a point of no return, that will result in basically the destruction of our planet and species. This tipping point had been set at 350 ppm by alarmists in the past. They will merely set it higher in the future as atmospheric CO2 is now past that and rising steadily.

Climate Change is a better term for alarmists as the climate will always change and they can claim that whatever happens proves climate change is real.

According to surveys global warming is considered more scary than climate change, climate change was the origional name adopted by the IPCC but many used global warming because it is more alarming, however now that the globe is not warming, they are reverting to climate change.

Pegminer I am not making it up, read this http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-sca...

Emily,

The two terms have different meanings but they can often be used interchangeably.

Put simply, global warming is the cause (the world heating up) and climate change is effect (the weather becoming disrupted).

Initially the media tended to use the term ‘global warming’ as a catch-all and people started using it, even when ‘climate change’ was the better term to use.

The affect is not just global warming but also massive weather changes including increased precipitation, increased colder temperatures, increased drought, as well as increased storms.

Because no matter what the weather does, that way they will be right.

it's not

and deniers are most often anti-science creationists