Where plants do grow better this is offset by where they grow worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Er3iD5PIR00

This ‘name change’ conspiracy theory is so funny. Let’s get a few facts established with a few extensive quotes.

The CBD documentary "The Denial Machine" shows Luntz discussing why the Bush regime changed the language from the scary “Global Warming” to the more ambiguous “Climate Change”. (5 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WiTVL9iT1w

It was always called Climate Science but in the last 40 years mankind’s influence has more specifically been referred to as Global Warming. The terms are nearly interchangeable, but if there is a difference it is that the scientific papers use Climate Change and layman’s articles and reporting use Global Warming.

As the Skeptical Science summary says:
“In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years….
…Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

Climate science is old. Fourier discovered greenhouse gases nearly 200 years ago.

“By the late 1930’s it was common knowledge that the world had been warming up. Grandfathers were saying that the younger generation had it easy: none of those early frosts and daunting blizzards of bygone times. And in fact, as one magazine put it in 1951, “The old-timers are right-winters arent’ what they were.” The evidence was largely anecdotal. Rivers failed to freeze over as formerly, glaciers retreated, and fish were found north of their former haunts. But detailed analysis of temperature statistics also seemed undeniably to show a rise…
Nobody was worried…
…By the early 1960’s much had changed.
Spencer Weart
Physics Today 1997
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/ClimateChangeWhiteboard/Resources/Uncertainty/climatech/weart97PR.pdf

Climate change was becoming mainstream science by 1958 as the Bell Telephone company Science Hour demonstrates. 1958, enjoy the retro animation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY

Peter
The Cato Institute is funded by fossil fuel companies so naturally they will present material that conflicts with climate science.

The Arctic Ocean is showing how climate change is becoming quite serious.
Dr Joe Romm, a Physicist headlines his article with:

“A collapse in Arctic sea ice volume spells disaster for the rest of the planet. Global warming drives a stunning collapse in sea ice volume.”

Quote:
“The sharp decline in Arctic sea ice area in recent decades has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a warming-driven collapse in total sea ice volume; to about one quarter of its 1980 level.”

And:

“Unfortunately, what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic. The accelerated loss of Arctic sea ice drives more extreme weather in North America, while speeding up both Greenland ice sheet melt (which causes faster sea level rise) and the defrosting of carbon-rich permafrost.”

The article provides a graph displaying the breakdown in sea ice volume:

http://thinkprogress.org/watch-the-arctic-death-spiral-in-this-amazing-video-b63486b99383#.udjgqnpmd

Temperature in the Arctic has been increasing since 1971:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvQeFLbVUAEFX4z.jpg:large

So we have decreasing:

Sea ice thickness
Sea ice extent
Sea ice volume
Loss of multi year ice

Included is an increase in temperature; all of these factors developing over decades.
Also, islands off Siberia have permafrost thawing which has created a situation where they are eroding.

The Arctic has an impact on the climate of the Northern Hemisphere and ultimately the Southern Hemisphere.

Ant,

>"Peter
The Cato Institute is funded by fossil fuel companies so naturally they will present material that conflicts with climate science.
"
Your comment warrants just one response:

It is totally irrelevant who published the analysis. Your comments begins with a pathetic the ad hominem fallacy, one of the signs of intellectual dishonesty. From there on nothing you say is worth addressing. If you have significant points to refute in the article, make them. But if they do not show a significant error that changes the main point of the paper, don't waste your time,

I'll add one more response: the economic cost of sea level rise is trivial and GHG mitigation policies would have no effect. For the costs in perspective, see the link I posted in my comment (it is free access to a paper that is also published).

"Richard Tol, one of the foremost authorities on estimating the economic cost of climate change, published Figure 3 here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf "

Also see: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11027-010-9220-7

Peter Lang,
when you quote people who are known to be 'issue driven' you take away not only from your own credibility, but the credibility of anything you've written in favour of nuclear power. You just confirm the cliche paradigm of the far-right being hostile to climate science, but in favour of nuclear power. If the far left are saying "Climate change is a real and present danger, and so we all have to abandon energy intense lifestyles and live with an Amish amount of electricity in a Powerdown world," then the opposite end of the cliche is people like you who say "There is no climate change, and nuclear power is the answer."
His work has been criticised for projecting costs over too short a timescale,
(Markandya)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol#Copenhagen_Consensus

...and for distorting statistics and misleading the public about what the climate science actually concludes in various regards.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?f=climate-contrarians-accidentally-confirm-97-percent-consensus

I don't know why the old, peer-reviewed, demonstrable physics and chemistry of climate science bug you so much Peter, but you seriously detract from your own credibility every time you post like this, and poison the well of all your other papers.

Max Green,

Consider for a long time just how hypocritical is your comment.

You just linked to Skeptical Science. All involved in that site are issue driven, ideologues spreading dogma. You probably have no idea to what extent, because I suspect you are issue driven yourself. The whole climate industry is issue driven.

My response to Ant applies equally to you. Debate the substance the points raised, not who published it.