Lexicon Shift Alert: global warming gets another name change

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