The next time a denier says scientists changed AGW to Climate Change

Phil Plait reminds us it was a Republican strategist who coined the term “climate change” because it is less frightening than “global warming.” Now the deniers use the term to disparage scientists and those they label “warmists.”
Link]
As Phil put it, they’ve gone full Orwell on us.

Now if only they could get it through their thick skulls that heating up the Global Heat And Moisture Distribution Engine is going to force disruptive climate changes.

And since we’re on dishonest fabricated PR arguments - there’s the moldy oldy; “those dumb scientists were predicting an ice age in the 70s”

Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck, 2008: The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 Abstract Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling" and an “imminent" ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.
Phil Plait reminds us it was a Republican strategist who coined the term "climate change" because it is less frightening than "global warming." Now the deniers use the term to disparage scientists and those they label "warmists." Link] As Phil put it, they've gone full Orwell on us.
I am so sick of dense Republicans--it seems to be a Republican disease and it's running rampant. Only when global warming starts costing them money will they sit up and take notice. Meanwhile they want to be able to trash the environment for their short-term and short-sighted gains. Then they'll expect the rest of the population to pay for the damage--the Republican way, after all. Lois

Our family took a trip to Glacier National Park a few years ago. I saw first hand the effects of Global Warming.
Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park]

In Glacier National Park (GNP), MT some effects of global climate change are strikingly clear. Glacier recession is underway, and many glaciers have already disappeared. The retreat of these small alpine glaciers reflects changes in recent climate as glaciers respond to altered temperature and precipitation. It has been estimated that there were approximately 150 glaciers present in 1850, and most glaciers were still present in 1910 when the park was established. In 2010, we consider there to be only 25 glaciers larger than 25 acres remaining in GNP.
But hey, that's just evidence.

Is global warming real? Just ask a Californian. They’ve been suffering a four year drought. Soon Floridians will be screaming for Federal aid to save the peninsula from drowning. So, when it finally inundates Manhattan and threatens to drown the brass bull then the oligarchy will pull the Rep. puppet strings and change their tune. Meantime Mitch McConnell is a “friend of coal”.
Cap’t Jack

One thing annoys me regarding deniers of anthropogenic global warming and climate change, is their tendency to turn every cold weather event into “proof” that it’s a hoax:

"It's sowing in January!! See, global warming is a hoax!!!"
Yet, they would never accept a hot day in summer as "proof" that it's real. But the level of "logic" and "proof" in both cases is the same. It should also be noted that many in the environmental movement, do the exact opposite (i.e. latch onto every unusual weather event, as "proof" of anthropogenic global warming and climate change). I always cringe when I hear these comments, as well. Because comments like these, are no more scientific than those of the deniers. And, they play into the hands of the deniers, by giving them an easy target to debunk, instead of having to address real science. All too often, media coverage consists of a "debate" between a denier and an environmentalist, while leaving climatologists out of the discussion. So instead of educating the public on the current state of research (both what is known, and what is still to be determined), the public is treated to uninformed, and misleading, shouting matches.

As we all know, global warming deniers are no different from the people who denied that the earth revolves around the sun. It was not just uneducated peasants who denied it, but many of the most highly educated. The peasants could be forgiven. The Catholic Church, of course, was at the forefront, railing against any suggestion that the earth was not at the center of the universe because that’s what the bible said (or so they thought). They even went so far as to kill people who continued to claim that the sun is the center of the universe.
The right-wingers are just as irrational on the subject of global warming. The idea is so against their world view that god made the earth to be exploited by capitalists and that any suggestion that there is a downside to denial is met with derision and threats. At least there are no religious leaders today killing people for claiming global warming exists and should be dealt with, but I suspect if the deniers had the power the church had they’d happily kill the global “warmists” for blasphemy for daring to suggest that human activiity causes global warming and should be controlled. Global warming denial has become a religion.
Lois

All too often, media coverage consists of a "debate" between a denier and an environmentalist, while leaving climatologists out of the discussion. So instead of educating the public on the current state of research (both what is known, and what is still to be determined), the public is treated to uninformed, and misleading, shouting matches.
Yup, there are plenty of naive environmentalists out there and the media do love their 'debates' and to sell copy - forgetting that this is supposed to be an education campaign. But, as much as I love scientists and do my best to defend them - they are not without blame. For instance, hopping on the "No single storm can be ascribed to global warming" bandwagon. Something that is bull poop from a geophysical standpoint. We have been warming our global heat and moisture distribution - that means we have energized the system and that these days no weather event is free of the finger-print of global warming. But, scientists have been so brow beaten and kowtowed - that they give lip service to the former statement because it sounds more soothing and they don't like up setting people. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Then there's stuff like:
Friday, October 25, 2013 Colorado Floods - statistical certainty vs geophysical realities … … For example, less than two weeks after the flooding, the Western Water Assessment (WWA) together with Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) released a preliminary report during an hour and a half long videoed web news conference. (For more see: wwa.colorado.edu) ... Watching the September 25th (2013) presentation I was reminded what straight-forward conservative lot scientists are. They will say what they know for "sure" and stop. Then they will back-track and share every doubt they have in order to prove that they do indeed understand weaknesses and further questions regarding their area of study. … All this information was explained in wonderful detail. And then, disturbingly, when a reporter asked pointedly about the Jet Stream global warming connection, these geophysical facts suddenly became "speculation" subject to further study. Using a freak, but similar, Colorado event back in September 1938 as justification, Dr. Hoerling rejected making any firm connection to global warming. We need further study. As I understood him, he also felt we needed a more accurate understanding of past extreme weather events. I was left wondering, what good is a time consuming perfect understanding of past events, when that atmosphere's composition was radically different from today's? It's nice to know, but it is background information and not that relevant to our contemporary climate which has been and continues to be supercharged. Beyond that I found it odd Dr. Hoerling used one 1938 freak event to warn against making premature assertions. While not acknowledging the recent drum beat of "Jet Stream blocking pattern" driven extreme events such as the record shattering European killer heat waves of 2003, 2006, 2011 and the Russian heat wave of 2010, and the floods in Russia and Pakistan in 2010, and the recent Calgary floods and the extreme winters on the East Coast three and four years ago. … ... http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/10/colo-floods-statistics-vs-physics.html

And in the meantime, McConnell Declares War on a Livable Climate].
He wrote all 50 governors and encouraged then to not comply with EPA point-source pollution rules.

citizenschallenge.pm Posted: 21 March 2015 07:24 AM But, as much as I love scientists and do my best to defend them - they are not without blame. For instance, hopping on the “No single storm can be ascribed to global warming" bandwagon. Something that is bull poop from a geophysical standpoint.
Actually, no single storm, in and of itself, can be ascribed to global warming. It is important to recognize the distinction between weather and climate. Weather is the conditions (temperature, sunny or cloudy, precipitation, wind speed and direction, etc.) in a given area at a given time. Climate is weather patterns over time. There are so many, basically, random factors affecting day-to-day weather (including storms), that no one storm can prove or disprove global warming. But, if longer term data shows storms becoming more (or less) frequent in given area, or changing in their average intensity, or the times of year that they hit, this collective data can be viewed as evidence of climate change. And if changes in weather patterns are, likewise, found in many places around the world (and these changes persist over time), this can serve as strong evidence for global warming and global climate change. Thus, record snowfall in eastern New England this year doesn't, by itself, prove climate change (it may just been a bad year). But glaciers receding year after year, and California suffering years of drought, and any similar long term trends, certainly can be said to, at least, be strong evidence.
McConnell Declares War on a Livable Climate.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." ― Albert Einstein

There is a faction of deniers who agree that there is global warming but claim that it is part of a natural cycle and not caused by humans, therefore humans can do nothing to ameliorate it. I’m never sure how to respond to this. Any suggestions?
Lois

citizenschallenge.pm Posted: 21 March 2015 07:24 AM But, as much as I love scientists and do my best to defend them - they are not without blame. For instance, hopping on the “No single storm can be ascribed to global warming" bandwagon. Something that is bull poop from a geophysical standpoint.
Actually, no single storm, in and of itself, can be ascribed to global warming. It is important to recognize the distinction between weather and climate. Weather is the conditions (temperature, sunny or cloudy, precipitation, wind speed and direction, etc.) in a given area at a given time. Climate is weather patterns over time. There are so many, basically, random factors affecting day-to-day weather (including storms), that no one storm can prove or disprove global warming - as new scientific studies are showing in every clearer detail.
I'm not talking about one storm proving anything one way or the other. I'm talking about the reality of the system. You're missing the underlying fact of the heat distribution system, that is our climate - it has and continues to warm - nothing within that system is independent of or free of being influenced by that warming. There is no weather event these days that does not have the imprint of Global Warming on it. Admittedly we cannot divine what percent is due to human influence and what is "natural" patterns playing themselves out (within a warming, increasingly disrupted climate machine). Which brings us to another mistake many humans make - The cute assumption that if we can't measure it with absolute accuracy, we can assume it doesn't exist.
I’m never sure how to respond to this. Any suggestions?
There are statistics, but the deniers can usually find some manipulated numbers of their own. I generally just mention what I showed in the quote from the USGS, above. There were 150 glaciers in Glacier National Park in 1850. There were about the same number by 1910 (indicating that number was probably present for quite some time). Over the last 100 years it has been reduced to 25. What do you suppose accelerated this reduction? Nature? The Liberal media? God? It's not much, but it's something.
There is a faction of deniers who agree that there is global warming but claim that it is part of a natural cycle and not caused by humans, therefore humans can do nothing to ameliorate it. I'm never sure how to respond to this. Any suggestions? Lois
We are injecting on the order of 3 gigatonnes a month of GHG into our atmosphere every month. That is the equivalent of a Mega-Volcano, think Yellowstone Caldera, or Tambora happening every year after year after year. For a fascinating visual on how much oil we are burning every year, check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e44ydPIQGSc&t=52m40s Also in that same video "Crude - The Incredible Journey Of Oil" from 59:15 to 1:16:30 you'll find the fascinating story of how the oil was formed in the first place and how we are in all probability sending our planet back to those early oil forming days. What we have done these past couple centuries will play out over hundreds of thousand and millions of years and eventually result in a totally remade planet. At this post you'll find around 60 links to various authoritative sources for more pieces of the puzzle.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 "Denying denial at Science of Doom #1c Flori's comments" only links http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/02/florifulgurator-denial-scienceofdoom-1c.html Consists of nearly sixty links to authoritative sources looking at various aspects of this question.

And for those who argue Antarctic sea ice is expanding.

Sometimes a picture is worth more than 1,000 words.

What a trip to be sitting here watching the unraveling. It’s obvious, the tempo is picking up. And most still pretend it’s not for real.

The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse. Chris Mooney, March 16, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/ A Nasty Surprise in the Greenhouse. New Paper, New Video. Peter Sinclair, March 23, 2015 http://climatecrocks.com/2015/03/23/a-nasty-surprise-in-the-greenhouse-new-paper-new-video/ This one is about Greenland and the ocean circulation current
:down:

Meanwhile on Facebook I’ve been having a discussion with someone who has an MA in Environmental Risk Management, and he defends the Koch Brothers and the Republican Party. I cannot fathom the cognitive dissonance going on inside his head.

Meanwhile on Facebook I've been having a discussion with someone who has an MA in Environmental Risk Management, and he defends the Koch Brothers and the Republican Party. I cannot fathom the cognitive dissonance going on inside his head.
Are you sure he actually has that degree? Do you know what institution awarded it? It could have been Liberty "University" ot Bob Jones "University." That might explain it. Lois