Why is climate science failing to convince anyone?

Hello Mike, for a moment back there I thought we were going to have a dialogue. You make a lot of assertions, but when it comes time to add some supporting arguments nothing.
… Can’t help it, I’m really curious how people like you justify playing mind-benders like:

We need to find a figure to use as of how long at the top of the cycle is critical before we change direction. I use the historical resurrection of the sun that has been passed down to us. That is 3 days. Transfer that to the Milankovitch cycle and we have 1,095,000 days or 3,000 years at the top of the cycle.
Yet, you seem to glibly dismiss the fact that burning carbon based fuels injects definitely known greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Or how you manage to ignore the profound changes in the way Earth systems are operating that we are witnessing.
For that matter, that dismissiveness towards the fact of many thousands of serious successful scientists really know way more than folks like you or me can imagine. That’s why they are called experts…
Do you ever think about our impacts on the planet that sustains us?
Ever think about stuff like the power of cumulative compounding interest? And how that has relevance in our biosphere?
It’s been a week, you implied somewhere else that you found those Potholer54 climate video’s informative and that you would have more to say on this topic
Well, what can you share about your impressions?

Hello Citizen, been busy, still reviewing some data.
So far, yes carbon is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. Going over and over that is like a broken record that is use to defray from answering the question on the table. Which is, ‘how much does the carbon warm the earth’?
We could take a poll and ask thousands of serious successful scientists if burning my trash outside contributes to global warming. And they will all say yes. Now all I have to do is stop burning my trash and I have solved global warming. And I have the proof back by the best scientist in the world.
Point being, the right questions have to be asked and answered before solving anything.
What you got off of U-tube was great. The guy was pointing out that the first models were not that good. I agree.
Then he was pointing out that we don’t have to wait for the models to be finished to come to the conclusions that carbon is a major cause and that we should start working on the fix now. Which might work in a perfect world.
Point being, we do not live in a perfect world.
When I was younger, the scientists agreed we were headed into the next Ice Age. And to expect colder and colder winters. The Hudson Bay would ice up and the Ice Sheet would start to cover Canada. It was on TV and in all the magazines at the time. They controlled the science and nobody could disagree with them.
Point being, that scientists have not always been right.
Question. Why is Pothole54 bringing all this up on U-Tube? Why the top scientists aren’t doing this instead of Pothole54?
Point being, we are still living in the Age of Deities where superstitions controls the actions of more people that science. Scientists have trouble dealing with superstitious people, especially if they control the budget.
Scientists are have great success in dealing with younger college generation, but having a terrible time with the business world.
Question. Are the top scientists’ policies to blame for any of the climate change?
Answer. Yes. Of course they are one of the major culprits of climate change. America today is just following the policies of the top scientists.
When America was growing and electrical use was increasing. A direction had to be decided upon for new energy. The choices were coal, geothermal, nuclear. Remember the coal fields of Wyoming had not yet be discovered. I watched on TV as the top scientists in the world testified in front of congress about the direction the United States should go. The choices at that point was between geothermal and nuclear.
The problem with nuclear was the waste. If that could be solved, then nuclear being the cheapest source of energy would win. The scientists convinced congress that nuclear waste could be re-burned into a non-radioactive substance. Nuclear won the battle. Nuclear plants were built across the United States. Congress spent billion on the re-burning facility that never worked.
Had congress waited for the top scientists to prove, the re-burning of nuclear waste makes the waste un-radioactive. Then congress would have invested in geothermal energy, and as America has help build coal burning plants because of the failure of nuclear around the world, they too would have been geothermal plants. Clean, no waste and no adding to the climate change. The nuclear did not turn out to be as cheap as quoted either. Let’s call a horse a horse and realize we are at this point today because of the top scientists.
Point being, today the top scientist want to prove the science by the climate change models. And not make the same mistake the top nuclear scientists made.
Citizen, if you have any information on the lag time that Pothole54 talked about I would like to see it. Remember he said the report showed the 800 year lag time. But the lag time was only part of the report. The lag time was in the South Pole, but the same report showed the North Pole carbon was in front of the temperature rise. First time I have ever heard that. Why is that data not being used?

Well, that’s interesting.
I appreciate you stepping up, and will certainly respond in detail though not tonight.
I’ll admit it’s the sort of exercise I’m looking for.
But, I gotta ask you Mike, are you familiar with the term ‘disingenuous’ ?
So much of what you write is childish knit-picking on irrelevant distraction, while steadfastly sidestepping the obvious important stuff.
Then, you toss in that 70s global cooling - are you f’n joking :ahhh: :vampire:
It’s an indicator that you’ve never actually spent anytime seriously trying to understand what scientists are actually telling us . . .
That gambit exposed one of two things:
A) you know very little of what you are talking about.
B) you are all consumed by your political ideology.

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/08/2mattridley-debate-citizenschallenge.html

Here's some of that missing background: Global Cooling Myth in the 70's http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-cooling Many claim that in the 1970's all scientists believed the earth was cooling. Factual examination of the controversial report reveals that there was a consensus. The consensus was we don't know enough yet. The confirmation of the Milankovitch cycles indicated that we were to begin a cooling phase, the introduction of industrial greenhouse gases indicated we could interrupt the natural cycle. More study was needed. As in all things science and reason, context is required to understand relevance of any data or scope of understanding. In the case of the global cooling myth, let's take a look at the context. This is around the time that the "Milankovitch Cycles' were confirmed by the deep ocean sediment core studies, thus solidifying the understanding that the earths climate system is subject to long term natural cycle influences that significantly alter our climate. Ice age predicted in the 70's? As we show below, not really. We came out of the last ice age 15,000 years ago. Typically we would go back into an ice age as that is the natural cycle. The industrial imposed climate forcing is so large that we can not at this level of forcing, return to an ice age. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ SOURCE FOR ARTICLE & CONTEXT: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html Also see: What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s? 1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer review ed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/08/2mattridley-debate-citizenschallenge.html
Here's some of that missing background: Global Cooling Myth in the 70's http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-cooling Many claim that in the 1970's all scientists believed the earth was cooling. Factual examination of the controversial report reveals that there was a consensus. The consensus was we don't know enough yet. The confirmation of the Milankovitch cycles indicated that we were to begin a cooling phase, the introduction of industrial greenhouse gases indicated we could interrupt the natural cycle. More study was needed. As in all things science and reason, context is required to understand relevance of any data or scope of understanding. In the case of the global cooling myth, let's take a look at the context. This is around the time that the "Milankovitch Cycles' were confirmed by the deep ocean sediment core studies, thus solidifying the understanding that the earths climate system is subject to long term natural cycle influences that significantly alter our climate. Ice age predicted in the 70's? As we show below, not really. We came out of the last ice age 15,000 years ago. Typically we would go back into an ice age as that is the natural cycle. The industrial imposed climate forcing is so large that we can not at this level of forcing, return to an ice age. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ SOURCE FOR ARTICLE & CONTEXT: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html Also see: What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s? 1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer review ed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
Hindsight you are showing is consensus of what the scientists are saying. But what was the public’s understanding as the direction the weather was heading? Saying now it was a myth is hindsight. No one was saying it was a myth back then. And what do you think was front page, the coming Ice Age or the scientists disagreeing with that theory years later?
Well, that's interesting. I appreciate you stepping up, and will certainly respond in detail though not tonight. I'll admit it's the sort of exercise I'm looking for. But, I gotta ask you Mike, are you familiar with the term 'disingenuous' ? So much of what you write is childish knit-picking on irrelevant distraction, while steadfastly sidestepping the obvious important stuff. Then, you toss in that 70s global cooling - are you f'n joking :ahhh: :vampire: It's an indicator that you've never actually spent anytime seriously trying to understand what scientists are actually telling us . . . That gambit exposed one of two things: A) you know very little of what you are talking about. B) you are all consumed by your political ideology.
Understanding the message if it is not to your liking is not a reason to argue or ignore the questions. And I ask you “again", where is the datum line for the natural warming so we can measure the man-made warming. You can call the datum line the “obvious important stuff" if that will help you. The reason for this question is without a datum line it is not real science. It is a hypothesis. Then I give you a couple of examples of theories of the past that were really only hypothesis. One was the Ice Age and the other was how we got into nuclear as the energy source for America. The name of the post is “Why is Climate science failing to convince anyone". Yet you call it a gambit for bringing up political reasons and the history of science hypothesis on the subject of how we got to where we are. Unless you try and understand answers that are outside of what you consider the correct answers, you are going to be spinning your wheels and getting nowhere. And it is not just me. I told you that I am backing the scientists. And the scientists want new data collection systems and the computer models working. I am in total agreement with them. And the answer to the question of the post is that they don’t have enough scientific data to convince people who require more than a hypothesis yet.

Has anybody written about the different dynamics of Global Cooling and Global Warming?
Each cycle must have its specific impact on the eco-sphere.
Other than rising ocean levels, and increasing (larger) forest fires, which is bad enough, what else will happen as a result of a real runaway climate change in the direction of excessive heat and less (unpolluted) water?
Do we have any idea of the domino effect which may affect every living thing on earth, except perhaps for extremophile organisms?
What about ocean life, desert life, arctic life, and forest life? Are there any models of such domino effects, rather than the obvious immediate impacts, which we are now beginning to experience? What comes next?

Well, that's interesting. I appreciate you stepping up, and will certainly respond in detail though not tonight. I'll admit it's the sort of exercise I'm looking for. But, I gotta ask you Mike, are you familiar with the term 'disingenuous' ? So much of what you write is childish knit-picking on irrelevant distraction, while steadfastly sidestepping the obvious important stuff. Then, you toss in that 70s global cooling - are you f'n joking :ahhh: :vampire: It's an indicator that you've never actually spent anytime seriously trying to understand what scientists are actually telling us . . . That gambit exposed one of two things: A) you know very little of what you are talking about. B) you are all consumed by your political ideology.
I'm not sure Mike is actually disingenuous. He is more likely to be truly ignorant of the facts of global warming and climate change. Lois

Well, that’s interesting.
I appreciate you stepping up, and will certainly respond in detail though not tonight.
I’ll admit it’s the sort of exercise I’m looking for.
But, I gotta ask you Mike, are you familiar with the term ‘disingenuous’ ?
So much of what you write is childish knit-picking on irrelevant distraction, while steadfastly sidestepping the obvious important stuff.
Then, you toss in that 70s global cooling - are you f’n joking :ahhh: :vampire:
It’s an indicator that you’ve never actually spent anytime seriously trying to understand what scientists are actually telling us . . .
That gambit exposed one of two things:
A) you know very little of what you are talking about.
B) you are all consumed by your political ideology.

I’m not sure Mike is actually disingenuous. He is more likely to be truly ignorant of the facts of global warming and climate change.
Lois
OK, sorry for being harsh. But, it’s hard to believe that anyone trying to look at the balance of evidence is unaware that
A) The science was reporting on observations - their was a period of cooling.
B) That cooling has been traced to manmade aerosols and volcanic activity.
C) Earth’s climate/temperature is delicately balanced, and had those aerosol continued being pumped into the atmosphere at the increasing rates, there would have been continued cooling.
D) The scientific literature, and many of the popular articles that address this global cooling, included the caveat that society was also pumping great quantities of greenhouse gases that have an opposite forcing on Earth’s temperature - and in fact that many scientists were worried about future warming.

Another thing that makes good-faith civil discussion about this so damned difficult, is the constant raising of dilettantes and reporters to the same level as experts who actually study this stuff full time.

` Anyone here have any thoughts about why the scientific findings and basic facts have been so easily overwhelmed by slick but actually rather superficial PR campaigns?
I don't know how this post got screwed up. Now can I remember what I wrote? The majority of dummies aren't about to be scientific. I understood that planned obsolescence was going on in cars before I graduated from high school. The Laws of Physics do not change style from year to year. But I had a conversation with a man who told me he LOVED cars. I asked him what a cam shaft was. He didn't know. But he carried an AUTOMOBILE magazine around. The climate is way more complicated than cars. Cars are more complicated than skyscrapers. Just lots smaller with different issues. LOL So we will probably have a civilization crash due to climatic havoc and then most people will act like lung cancer patients trying to blame the cigarette industry. psik
Hindsight you are showing is consensus of what the scientists are saying. But what was the public’s understanding as the direction the weather was heading? Saying now it was a myth is hindsight. No one was saying it was a myth back then. And what do you think was front page, the coming Ice Age or the scientists disagreeing with that theory years later?
You insist on calling it "hindsight" because you choose to put more weight in popular (for profit) news articles than what the real scientists were really writing and saying back then. (That's a truly hideous travesty against serious learning.) Why is it OK to be totally (and one-sidedly) skeptical of what scientists are presenting - but then implying it's OK for the public to swallow media stories without an ounce of skepticism or follow up review as time goes by? What does the front page have to do with learning and striving to understand Earth's physical reality? Incidentally, here's some stuff that was not "hindsight" that shows there was more awareness of CO2's danger than you care to acknowledge. One from 1982 another from 1958:
Dr. Michael MacCracken's 1982 Climate Change Presentation http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2014/05/maccracken-1982-climate-change.html
Carbon Dioxide and Climate http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/ An article from our July 1959 issue examined climate change: "A current theory postulates that carbon dioxide regulates the temperature of the earth. This raises an interesting question: How do Man's activities influence the climate of the future?" By Gilbert N. Plass
_______________________________________________________________________ Lois, guess another thing about this I find so irritating is the variable standards of expectation. Worse, the refusal of people absorb new information and instead contenting themselves with ever more contrived rationalization to ignore serious science and constructive learning.
Has anybody written about the different dynamics of Global Cooling and Global Warming? Each cycle must have its specific impact on the eco-sphere. I'm not aware of anything interesting in that regard. Other than rising ocean levels, and increasing (larger) forest fires, which is bad enough, what else will happen as a result of a real runaway climate change in the direction of excessive heat and less (unpolluted) water? Do we have any idea of the domino effect which may affect every living thing on earth, except perhaps for extremophile organisms? A warmer atmosphere absorbs and holds more moisture - increasing the hydrologic cycle, harder droughts broken by torrential rains (keep an eye on California this winter) Many biological interactions like between pollinators and blossoms, depend of synchronicity which is being disrupted. Farmers depend on predicable seasons - Harvest time rains don't make up for too little rain early season, Many pests used to be held in check by harsh winters that killed them back. With milder mountain winters this is no longer happening. (Think bark beetle epidemics occurring through the Northern Hemisphere.) Those are the first one's to come to mind - sadly there's much more: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/01/pictures/130115-climate-change-superstorm-atmosphere-science/ http://ncse.com/climate/climate-change-101/how-climate-change-affects-world-society What about ocean life, desert life, arctic life, and forest life? Are there any models of such domino effects, rather than the obvious immediate impacts, which we are now beginning to experience? don't know What comes next? It's not a pretty place. Where Anthropogenic Global Warming is taking us and our biosphere - check out 59:05 and on... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e44ydPIQGSc&t=1h09m05s "We would go back to a world that is weirdly going to be quite similar to the world back to where it was when the oil formed. In terms of temper ...
OK, sorry for being harsh. But, it's hard to believe that anyone trying to look at the balance of evidence is unaware that A) The science was reporting on observations - their was a period of cooling.
Today that is known as a trend. At the time temperature periods were believed to indicate the direction of future weather.
B) That cooling has been traced to manmade aerosols and volcanic activity.
Aerosols and holes in the atmosphere was unproven theories at the time. And was highly disbelieved by the general public.
C) Earth's climate/temperature is delicately balanced, and had those aerosol continued being pumped into the atmosphere at the increasing rates, there would have been continued cooling.
Again just a theory at the time. Skin cancer was more of a concern than earth cooling at the time.
D) The scientific literature, and many of the popular articles that address this global cooling, included the caveat that society was also pumping great quantities of greenhouse gases that have an opposite forcing on Earth's temperature - and in fact that many scientists were worried about future warming.
Earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados were items of discussion by the public. I don’t ever remember talking about earth warming. The Ice Age talk lasted several years and then went away. I was thinking the Ice Age theory came out about the mid 60’s around the time of the Beatles. Your data is talking about the science reports of the 70’s. You could be right. It was a long time ago. But if it was the mid 60’s then what your data is showing is that the scientific responses took several years to react. The reason for bringing up the Ice Age was to point out to you that at the time the scientists were still riding the nuclear bomb wave of success. And were thought of by the public as brilliant and always correct and beyond questioning. Then the country created the policy for energy, hydro power was being tapped out, and the nuclear we were being told would give us abundant cheap energy. Thus the point was the United States has been following the policies of the top scientists of the time and it is not the policies of the billionaires or the energy giants that has put us where we are today. They are a byproduct of implementing the policies of the top scientists of the time. What you should be asking yourself is. What will we need to do to fix the problem? Implement carbon credit regulations? Or change the energy policy of the country? Regulations or Policy Change? Hillary just came out with a Policy Change in the use of solar energy. Great step in the right direction. Hillary is going to use both carbon credits and policy change. Publicly the climate problem is not seen as big of a problem as the payment of student loans and cheaper college costs by Hillary. With the Republicans. We don’t know yet how they see the problem being fixed.

Are people bombarded with too much stuff that is scientific OR CLAIMS TO BE and they can’t sort it out?
I mostly ignored the Pluto flyby. WOW! They found a frozen planet! Only took 9 years to get there.
Climate stuff is more important but are people who devoted those 9 years going to tell everybody to ignore it?
psik

` Anyone here have any thoughts about why the scientific findings and basic facts have been so easily overwhelmed by slick but actually rather superficial PR campaigns?
I don't know how this post got screwed up. Now can I remember what I wrote? The majority of dummies aren't about to be scientific. I understood that planned obsolescence was going on in cars before I graduated from high school. The Laws of Physics do not change style from year to year. But I had a conversation with a man who told me he LOVED cars. I asked him what a cam shaft was. He didn't know. But he carried an AUTOMOBILE magazine around. The climate is way more complicated than cars. Cars are more complicated than skyscrapers. Just lots smaller with different issues. LOL So we will probably have a civilization crash due to climatic havoc and then most people will act like lung cancer patients trying to blame the cigarette industry. psik Psikeyhackr, What I am doing is hopefully helping some of the scientists who are working on the problem but are limited by work and management policies as to how much voice they are allowed to use. It seems they can write all the white papers they want. But the number of skilled journalist that can interpret the white papers seem to be limited. Plus because of my age, I have been through several policy changes in the past. The United States really blew it when they did not go with geothermal energy. One of the problems at the time was greed. It went all the way to Supreme Court to make the decision that geothermal steam was not a separate mineral, it was just hot water. Seems silly, I know. But it is just that type of stuff that ends up screwing up the right choices some times. I like your camshaft thinking. That is what I have been running into here. The scientist are working on the computer models so they can understand how the engine works. They are, we think, less than five years away from having this information. I ask the questions time and time again that the scientist are getting the answers to. I know the posters cannot find the answers. Because the scientist have not be able to figure out the answers yet. But I hope that by searching for the answer they will realize the complicated problems the scientist are facing. Each time I ask, it is completely ignored. Leading me to the conclusion that the people shouting “Denier, Denier, and Deniers" are not really helping fix the problems at all and are more into a movement of some type. As far as a “civilization crash". We are more at risk of a civilization crash from a super volcano than climate change. The added man-made heat should cause more species to go extinct than normally go extinct at the climate peak as has happened in the past. I would like to know a few of the simple things, like how long is the climate peak. Right now, my understanding is from 300 years to 3,000 years. Then this is where the scientists do not agree. Some say we are not yet at the peak. Other say we are at the top of the peak. And yet others say we are over the peak and now in the cooling cycle and are being hit by the warmth lag.

http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=BDIGeneric&aid=C98EA5B0842DBB9405BBF071E1DA7651077B1B5B&tid=DED2563A8AE142A795D1F8CDBD66ED99&url=http://odishasuntimes.com/2015/08/23/new-method-to-help-decode-rare-fragile-manuscripts/&c=jGJdsSOiNfaG1lK4vLxdXl-Iw63av8zWo5FXGlKBkps&mkt=en-us
“With this research, we now have new insight into the century-scale global sea-surface temperature variations that came before man-made greenhouse gas forcing," lead author Helen McGregor from University of Wollongong in New South Wales, Australia noted.
The scientists combined 57 previously published marine surface temperature reconstructions that cover all of the world’s oceans, from near-polar to tropical regions.
The team compiled the data within 200-year brackets to observe long-term trends, and then compared the findings to land-based reconstructions, which revealed similar cooling trends.
Global warming caused by human activities has halted 1,800 years of steady cooling trend in the oceans of the world, shows new research.
“Today, the Earth is warming about 20 times faster than it cooled during the past 1,800 years," said second author of the study Michael Evans, associate professor at University of Maryland in the US.
“This study truly highlights the profound effects we are having on our climate today," Evans noted.
During the latter half of this cooling period, the trend was most likely driven by large and frequent volcanic eruptions.

Just a point I would like to bring up. There are no rules in this Global Warming. Oops, that could be Climate Change. I guess that all depends on who we are talking to. Let’s look at how they are handling the TRENDS.
Now I get thought. A couple volcanoes got the earth cooling and man’s actions stopped the cooling. Simple.
Point being, this trend is older than the bible. And it has taken 1,800 years to figure this out. Let’s be smart and take 5 more years and get a clear understanding of all the problems involved in climate change. Then take the right steps. Because it is much faster to fix the problem right the first time than doing it four or five times trying to get it right.
You know the first attempt was really screwed up. And in case you can’t figure it out, that was the Global Warming attempt. This second attempt, Climate Change, will move forward a little bit more, but the idiots screaming deniers and pushing for new regulations and taxes will end up pushing us into Global Change, the third attempt.

You know the first attempt was really screwed up. And in case you can’t figure it out, that was the Global Warming attempt. This second attempt, Climate Change, will move forward a little bit more, but the idiots screaming deniers and pushing for new regulations and taxes will end up pushing us into Global Change, the third attempt.
"That Global Warming Attempt" What? "Attempt" :ahhh: Please Mike explain which of these you choose to deny: That greenhouse gases keeps our planet warm… Or the part where humanity has been injecting giga-tons worth of the stuff into the atmosphere month after month, year after year, decade after decade ? Or both???
You know the first attempt was really screwed up. And in case you can’t figure it out, that was the Global Warming attempt. This second attempt, Climate Change, will move forward a little bit more, but the idiots screaming deniers and pushing for new regulations and taxes will end up pushing us into Global Change, the third attempt.
Google is your friend. From Skeptical Science, Global warming vs climate change]. Both terms have been in use for a least 50 years, and most of the scientific literature refers to the phenomenon as climate change.
You know the first attempt was really screwed up. And in case you can’t figure it out, that was the Global Warming attempt. This second attempt, Climate Change, will move forward a little bit more, but the idiots screaming deniers and pushing for new regulations and taxes will end up pushing us into Global Change, the third attempt.
Google is your friend. From Skeptical Science, Global warming vs climate change]. Both terms have been in use for a least 50 years, and most of the scientific literature refers to the phenomenon as climate change. Whatever it's called, global warming is an indicator of volatile climate change. It is a fact. But too many people want to wait until disater is siiting on our doorsteps before they agree it is actually happening. Lois
You know the first attempt was really screwed up. And in case you can’t figure it out, that was the Global Warming attempt. This second attempt, Climate Change, will move forward a little bit more, but the idiots screaming deniers and pushing for new regulations and taxes will end up pushing us into Global Change, the third attempt.
Google is your friend. From Skeptical Science, Global warming vs climate change]. Both terms have been in use for a least 50 years, and most of the scientific literature refers to the phenomenon as climate change. Whatever it's called, global warming is an indicator of volatile climate change. It is a fact. But too many people want to wait until disater is siiting on our doorsteps before they agree it is actually happening. Lois I disagree. The disasters are happening and people still deny there is a problem.