Very good question, and one which people have been grappling with for generations. I say, pick which ever one keeps the money coming in.

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930�s the media peddled a coming ice age.

From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

I prefer climate change... "global warming" is used to describe just an increase in average temperature; while "climate change" can be used to describe an increase or decrease in temperature, a change in the "normal" activity of other climate phenomenon ( highs and lows, storms, etc).

I prefer modern warm period. Has a positive ring to it that says: This is good! This is beneficial to all of mankind! Rejoice and bask in the warmth while it lasts!
I don't really care what the snake oil salesmen call it.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

The only thing in life that is constant is change. So, if in fact I believed at all in this farce/scam, I would give the edge to "Climate Change." Don't get the wrong impression, I am still not falling for it.

DENY DENY DENY THE CLIMATE CHANGE LIE!!!!!

proves that scientsits don't know what to make of it and they keep flip floping and also we know not everyone in NOAA agres on it,they are arguing among themselves too.

Personally, I like climate change. That way all the bases are covered. If it gets colder, it's because of human caused climate change. If it gets warmer, it's because of human caused climate change. If it rains more, it's because of human caused climate change. If it snows more, it's because of human caused climate change. With global warming the advocates have to explain away cold and snow with terms such as "positive feedback", or demonstrate that their models showed a lull in the warming due to something or other. Global warming sounds scarier, but climate change seems to give a more professional air to the debate.

Regards, Elliot

I vote for global climate change due to the uncertainties of how different regions will be affected.

Brett - being a scientist, my preference is the term "climate change" as climatology is concerned with how various factors affect climate (not just temperature and not just warming). The media and others focus on global warming as one of the more obvious components of the current state of climate change, so it is the one most publicized. I would liken this to the public discourse on economics where most attention in the media and politics is focused on things such as mortgage defaults, employment statistics, and market performance rather than a comprehensive analysis of economics. Unfortunately, we want our information in soundbites and few people find the interest or time to sit through a thorough discussion of most issues.

put me down for none of the above or perhaps weather!!

Patrick Henry, your point is well taken, but pulling from a speech by James Inhofe will hardly add credibility to the debate. He sits at the most extreme end of the right on most social, economic and scientific issues of the day, and adds little to any legitimate debate other than partisan noise.

Typical AGW question!!! Ask a question and guide the answer to what you want/need.
"Take your pick, Global Warming or Climate Change?" Both are wings of the same bird! How about "NORMAL" warming! NO, no, no can't say that; it might reduce the alarm. After all, our climate have never changed ( until now ) and never will ( unless we pay all the poor nations billions of normally productive dollars! )
The only reason both descriptions exist is a result of the back peddling by the alarmists when the global warming theory had too many holes in it. Who can argue with "climate change"...... Ironically on second thought, "climate change" should be the terminology supporting "climate realists"!

How about just "Climate" - and we just accept climate is something unstable?

This year because of the Arctic melting, droughts, and fires (regardless of specific causes), "global warming" has become more emotionally charged. "Climate change" has become more of a politically correct term. I use the terms interchangeably depending on the topic and my audience. Someone corrected me recently when I was talking about global warming that everyone is calling it climate change now; there was certainly the push to do that a few years ago, but I think "global warming" is here to stay.

I'd say climate change is the more accurate term. Democrats and the MSM of course use "global warming" because it gets more attention, but that phrase is a misnomer which ignores the dynamics of the climate system.

Call it what you like though; both terms are being used to mean the same thing, so in pubic discourse it essentially makes no difference...depending on your audience, of course!

All weather events are now linked directly to CO2 - hot, cold, stormy, calm, wet, dry, whatever.

It would make more sense to discuss "CO2 change" than climate change, because the conversation no longer has anything to do with climate - or reality in general.

People honestly think if they buy a hybrid car, they are somehow helping polar bears. That was the message at the end of "An Arctic Tail." I hadn't realize that polar bears were that heavily invested in Toyota.

I prefer "global climate change". "Global", because I think it is important to focus on the global, rather than local, picture. Similarly, I prefer "climate change" because the changes won't always show themselves as warming.

Specifically, if an increase in atmospheric heat content causes the typical path of a jetstream to change northward or southward, some areas will experience locally cooler weather, while others will experience locally warmer weather. Warmer air holds more moisture than cooler air, so warming might cause more snowfall in areas where typical snowfall amounts have been limited by the ability of cold air to retain moisture.

My vote is for "Global Climate Change".

Hi Pete,

Perhaps if some of the prominent players weren't so interested in sound bites, then the public wouldn't be either? Hansen and Gore have become masters of sensationalism, science fiction, and sound bites.

Why do you expect the public and press to behave any more intelligently than the AGW scientists and their sponsors who feed them the nonsense?

The use of the term "global" in describing the slight warming that has been observed is wrong. The SH has not warmed and the Antarctic isn't melting away as some would have us believe. So, taking observations from the NH and applying them to the entire planet is incorrect.

Climate change is the preferred term, although one could simply say "climate" because it is, has been, and always will be in a state of change. But how could the activists scare anyone if they described it honestly?

I prefer "Modern Optimum" since the sun has been as active recently as it once was during the Holocene Optimum 8,000 years ago. Technically we have moved beyond the optimum however as the sun has become quieter in terms of sunspot activity. Colder weather is likely on its way due to this "sunspot crash" so the global warming cult will likely shift their terminology to "climate change" but will still blame it on human influence and the EVIL CO2.

Brett - Put me down for "Climate Cycling". From a review of the data, it appears to me that cycling is a perfect term. Earth cycles between warm periods and cold periods.....period.

Climate Change sounds much better.

Using global warming doesn't really fit into it to well since we really don't know what will happen. Im sure other places will cool and others will warm. Ofcourse its not greenhouse gases causing it though, I'm in a toss up between cosmic rays, high latitude blocking phases, and the giant ball of helium and hydrogen in the sky about 93 million miles away.

there is no longer any climate change or global warming (except in russia see latest Gisstemp data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=11&year1=2007&year2=2007&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

My vote goes to "cyclic climate change." By the way, just saw this article today" "Southern Hemisphere Ice Cover Remains Well Above Normal."

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/southern_hemisphere_ice_cover_remains_well_above_normal

Whatever one wants to call it, have the climatological reports for the month of November come out yet?

Reply: give it at least another week or two.

Whats in a name? to quote the bard....

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not Global Warming.
What's Global Warming? it is nor hand, nor foot,Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Global Warming would, were it not Global Warming call'd.Retain that dear perfection which it owes Without that title. It would still be called a scam.

Lets see…
1920-39 earth heating- arctic disappearing
1940-79- Ice Age-we will freeze to death
1980-1998- Hot the end is near!
1999-2007 stable to declining temps but,It's gonna get hot just you wait and see!
Sorry the time line on all these events is too short to call it anything but the current weather.

I vote for Global Warming.
Climate change was a term suggested by the British MET office specifically to allow any and all weather to be blamed on Climate Change in an effort to further push the AGW agenda.

I resent the attempt to missleed is such a fashion.

Marie: I agree completely.
BTW: Do you live in Canada and if so What Part?

Hi Dave,

Rather than characterizing Inhofe by labels, perhaps it would be better to listen to what he is saying.

Then listen to Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Secretary General of the UN - and tell me who is being more thoughtful and rational about this topic. Ban recently flew over the record ice in Antarctica and made a press release about "devastation" and the "floating West Antarctic Ice Sheet."

Inhofe does his research. The rest are just pushing a political agenda, and are unconcerned with the facts.

In 1975, The New York Times said -

Scientists ponder why the world's climate is changing, a major cooling widely considered to be inevitable.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/images/nyt1975.gif

Newsweek called it "climate change" and the view of scientists was "profound cooling."

http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

Of course our neighborhood revisionists will pretend that Newsweek and the NYT could have made all this up, without any scientists noticing, and without having to print a retraction.

Also, note from the Newsweek article that the LIA was well understood before Mann disappeared it with his hockey stick.