Back in 2010, I pointed out that White House science adviser John Holdren had made a shift in naming conventions for the twice renamed “global warming”.
It seems that another shift in the lexicon has occurred, again at the White House. Organizing for Action, President Obama’s campaign machine declared Tuesday that there was a new name.
The Washington Times picked up on this shift, and I’ve updated the graphic to reflect the new name. There’s also a poll to choose/predict the next name after this one.
The doomed planet movement has been losing momentum. Inconvenient scientific findings have confirmed the lack of any significant warming of dear old Earth over the past 16 years. It’s hard to scare people into action when nothing bad is happening. That’s why the White House has changed its vocabulary again — first “global warming” was changed to “climate change” — and now the correct name of the scam is “carbon pollution.” It’s a way to paint carbon dioxide as if it were black soot billowing out of industrial smokestacks. Carbon dioxide is actually what humans exhale, and it’s food for plants.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/13/wearing-out-words/#ixzz2c3XmuaV7
Its seems that since global warming has stalled, and scientists are puzzled by it, plus major players in science are poo-pooing the “climate disruption/extreme weather angle, they had no choice but to make a lexicon shift.
Here is the updated graphic to reflect the lexicon shift. Feel free to share far and wide:
What should the next name be? Take the poll, you can also add your own answer. Be sure to post your new answer in comments. (I’ll add some of the best ones manually)
[NOTE: for some reason the poll won’t display other answers from voters in the voting or the results, so I disabled it – A]
h/t to Small Dead Animals for some of the names
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Public Health Issue – the bland rebrand suggested by Time magazine on 8/8/13: http://healthland.time.com/2013/08/08/rebranding-climate-change-as-a-public-health-issue/#ixzz2bPKhuqyL
CCC — Catastrophic Climate Corruption
No matter what you call it, if you can’t settle on a freaking name, you obviously can’t have much of a theory to hang it on. “Dang, that’s not working….let’s see now…”
Anthropogenic sh!t science
I voted for ‘Other’ – Climate Instability Crisis.
I can see it on the evening news now… “The weather today is different from yesterday! We had thunderstorms yesterday and all of a sudden, IT’S SUNNY and WARM!!! It’s worse than we thought! What more PROOF of Climate Instability do you need? We must act now!”
I liked the humor in the poll, but I took a shot at where they really might go with a new term.
Real Name in a Deniers world like mine is Natural Climate Variations.
To real to use in Obama world.
The may like this one
Obamaclimatecare
Climate Cancer. Since they peddle fear, why not go for the gold?
The greatest challenge for civilization:
How can we care for the poor as we do ourselves?
2nd challenge:
Can we generate enough global warming to avoid the impending glaciation?
If this standstill goes on much longer than the current 17 years (or whatever) there must come a point where it is a problem not merely for the warmers but also for the lukewarmers, which probably includes me. This climate is indeed a menace.
Destructive Earth Annihilating Temperature Emergency
I went for Climate Dysfunction. Might get a rise out of Bob Dole.
Screwed up….
Destructive Earth Annihilating Temperature Hellification
The important point that MUST NOT be lost is that the claimed climate symptoms are based on the falsified hypothesis that carbon dioxide retains heat in the atmosphere to such a degree that it increases the rate of the hydrologic cycle and this in turn acts as a runaway positive feedback.
Changing the words for the hypothesis does not alter the fact that it is falsified. It should also not be a game that scientists play. Like consensus, marketing and focus groups to choose effective names for a hypothesis, are NOT the scientific method. Surely, this statement should be repeated “the names are unscientific attempts to hide the falsification of the hypothesis”, and followed with the question – “what has changed in your hypothesis on the effect of increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide?” As ALL the actions being taken are to reduce anthropogenic output of carbon dioxide, it is evident that there is no change in the hypothesis – just yet another marketing led political exercise to obfuscate the hypothesis’ failure as indicated by the cessation of warming in the last fifteen years.
I vote for ICS irritable climate syndrom
The real answer, which I added at the bottom is ……..
“Carbon Cooling”
Search your feelings my young apprentice ……… you know it to be true …… Heh Heh Heh Heh Heh,
Well, I picked Climate Gone Wild, but I also liked Irritable Climate Syndrome and Weather, but now with taxes. One of my co-workers suggested Climatastrophe.
Had to go with Peak Weather, as it captures the fear mongering over both the non-static nature of nature and the economics of energy. Got to admit, though, that Weather, but now with Taxes was pretty high on my personal humor scale.
A mannly rise?
The next name is HillaryClimate, no space.
Normal and natural climate fluctuation
I was doubting between “The Sixth Sensitivity” or “the Father Karras no-return Temperature”… but when I decided on the first, it was disabled. So I voted for “Irritable Climate Syndrome”. Very funny, and also sad ultimately.
“Climate Jihad” doesn’t describe what his happening to the climate.
But it perfectly describes the religious zeal of those want to forbid inexpensive energy.
George Formby had it right. It’s turned out nice again!
Added Lucia’s and Chris NJSnowFan to the choices.
“It is worse than we thought “weather
or
“The unprcedented warming that never came” weather