>>11244027>No shit, it's still referring to the same concept and is practically the same term.Oh hurts when people point out you cant read huh? "Practically" the same is an adorable cope.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=%22climatic+change%22&btnG=They stopped using the phrase in the mid 1990s like I said when they were forming the more cohesive narrative catchphrase of today. Why oh why did they do that if they mean the same thing???
Because climatic/climate meanings are different to them. Ones the gramatically corect natural occurance and one is a catchphrase
>Which phrases?catchphrases you literally just referred to mr Goldfish memory
>Doesn't reference any scientific papersWeak goalpost move. You said scientists saying that and I gave you a site made by scientists saying that.
>Doesnt support your original pointPathetic goalpost move. Now I am giving scientific papers that say that.
And of course it supports my original point. All those papers could seemlessly replace CC with global warming and it would mean the same thing. Its undeniable and would have passed peer review no problem. I'm sorry if youre so dense that they need to spell out "we are substituting our catchphrases" before you cant realize they mean the same thing in the context theye using.
But hold up, are you now implying global warming is NOT a type of climate change??? If u answer no then the term can be used interchangeably just like I said and I'm right. If you say yes then anthropogenic CC isnt happening.... no chance in hell I'll get a straight answer
>Thinking I or anyone cares about your opinion Duh. I was illustrating a point that alarmists would not confront that statement directly because it would illustrate how you interchange the terminology. Bravo, you pretictably did EXACTLY the pawn move I expected. that was the only reason I wrote that out of place sentence.
In reality alarmists cringe at that statement bc they interchanged GW with CC
