Because I'm commenting article content, not the title. Of course the global warming is the subset of a climate change -- the subset most relevant in the article.

And like I said before, your comment was poor. You said it was the new swine flu when it's been around far longer. It was disingenuous and apparently calling you on it is a no no; so be it.

Yeah I bet you would say it's poor also if I said it differently, "global warming is overhyped" or whatever, probably because you just don't agree with it.

Speaking of poorness of comments, I guess in this matter you can rely on how they are upvoted. No offense, just see for yourself..

I don't agree with it, but that's not the issue. Your comment wasn't worthwhile. You're arguing ad hominem and haven't even backed up your silly point still and it's four or five comments later.

Flipping it over on me doesn't change the fact that your comment was poor. There are also obvious counterarguments to your point that popularity means you're right but I don't need to go into them.

No. I didn't do any ad hominem until now:

Dear Mr Brain Police, I did back up my point in another subthread. You were busy here with proving how silly I am so you haven't noticed.

Again, please digest a feedback you're receiving (votes!) and rethink.

Yes, technically, "global warming" refers to modern, human-induced climate change. But outside of paleontological circles, they are the same thing.

There's certainly no need to be criticizing people for that usage, since there's no possibility of confusion; we're always talking about modern climate change.

How about criticizing them for an inaccurate comparison?

> I always thought that global warming was a subset of climate change.

Not at all. The term "climate change" didn't come into the discussion until the temperature data started to diverge from the predictions. The terminology change was one of many things done to "hide the decline".