Hasbeen,

I believe a certain Mao Zedong had the same idea.

Why am I not surprised that you would endorse it.

(in fact I believe he used your last line verbatim when he first mooted the idea:)

JBowyer,

I'll just knock that little furphy on the head - if you don't mind.

It was yer Republican acolyte and Bush administration strategist, Frank Luntz who came up with reframing "global warming" to "climate change" change because: "...it sounded less severe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

Next.....

I seem to have given you too much "change" in my last post.

Never mind, you can keep it :)

<< It was yer Republican acolyte and Bush administration strategist, Frank Luntz who came up with reframing "global warming" to "climate change" change because: "...it sounded less severe.">>

SUUUUURE! Poirot, all the little lefty news outlets/blogs/posters are going to toe-the-line because GW said so!

Let’s face it “climate change “ is so much easier to sell, since it's so much more nebulous -- climate *changes* all the time.So every time it’s a little too wet or too dry, too warm or too cold – it’s that dastardly climate change again.

YABBY! WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU?
Report back to OLO ASAP!

We desperately need you to keep your fellow WestOzralian in check!

SPQR,

Come off it, mate....

"Skeptics" don't have scientific veracity on their side. the only thing they have is strategy. That, my dear, is ALL they have.

Get a load of the latest bunkum from Lord "expert reviewer" Monckton. This guy, who leads the "skeptic" chorus, appears to be almost completely dotty.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/monckton-accuses-tony-press-uni-tasmania-of-fraud-and-deception/

Get another load of his hanky panky with emulating the House of Lord's seal with his own viscount brand (note the shonky coat of arms at the top of his spoutings)

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/05/monckton-caught-making-things/

He's a joke - and the fact that "skeptics" laud such a "Lord" does nothing for their cause.

Holy mackerel!

Why is it that every time someone points out a flaw in your reasoning pertaining to an AGW issue –and believe me, there are heaps of 'em (flaws that is)--you go off on a tangent and start lashing poor ol’ Monckton –what is it with you and Monckton?

The issue here is: Do most sources refer to it as “climate change” because GW said so –is that credible?

YABBY--front and centre RIGHT NOW!