Guest essay by Leo Goldstein
A few days ago the leftstream media ambushed the public with some survey results, insinuating that scores of meteorologists had converted to Climatism. Even some climate realists took the bait, although correctly pointed to the fact that only 67% (rather than the absurd quote of 97%) of the responding meteorologists agreed that “the climate change that has occurred over the past 50 years” was mostly anthropogenic. But the “sensation” stems mostly from semantic confusion. Climate change means different things to the surveyed meteorologists and to the consumers of the LSM. “Mostly anthropogenic” global warming of about 0.5°C is in line with the mainstream skeptical opinion. The LSM, however, presents “climate change” as an apocalyptic event, some combination of hellfire and the Biblical Great Flood.
IPCC should have admitted its scientific defeat in the Third Assessment Report (appropriately abbreviated as TAR). In the 1990s most climate research was real science, performed by honest and competent scientists. Not surprisingly, their research refuted exaggerated claims of anthropogenic impact on the climate, and confirmed the benefits of CO2 release. A number of luminaries, including Richard Lindzen, were among the Lead Authors of the TAR Working Group I. Even the hockey stick, hurriedly procured by IPCC from Michael Mann & Co, could not help the alarmists.
IPCC TAR (2001): redefining climate change from ‘anthropogenic’ to ‘any’
Since it couldn’t win with science, the IPCC resorted to Newspeak. In its First and Second Reports, the IPCC used the definition of climate change equivalent to anthropogenic climate change, as defined the UNFCCC text:
“Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods (UNFCCC, also referred to by IPCC FAR and IPCC SAR).
TAR (2001) pretended to re-define climate change to include natural variability of the climate:
Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use (IPCC TAR, Appendix I Glossary).
The IPCC honestly admitted this change of definition even in the Summary for Policy Makers:
Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods (IPCC TAR SPM, p. 2, footnote).
This trick was performed by the IPCC leadership behind the backs of some scientists who had worked on the report and who used the earlier definition, since parts of the full report obviously referred to the previous definition of climate change as anthropogenic climate change. Of course, ordinary citizens, politicians, journalists, and even many scientists continued to think of climate change as anthropogenic climate change. When the meaning of a technical or scientific term becomes established by usage and understanding by many parties, it cannot be re-defined. Giving such a term a conflicting meaning is incompetence or worse. In other words, the IPCC does not own our language, or any part of it. But it got away with this semantic coup d’état. Then Climatists used the definitions as they pleased, and exploited the resulting confusion as an opportunity to split and humiliate their opponents.
In a stroke of a pen the IPCC turned a defeat into a victory. Far from a miracle, this travesty became possible through a collusion of the transnational environmental clique and Al Gore’s appointees in American scientific institutions. The 9/11 terrorist attack by al Qaeda provided an additional distraction. The post-9/11 aspirations of the George W. Bush administration for unity at home and with the United States’ allies go a long way toward explaining why the new administration left Gore’s intact the anti-scientific, alarmist and enviro-radical network, established by Al Gore in the government and government funded scientific institutions. Focused on the “war on terror”, Republicans allowed this network to consolidate its positions and even accepted its marketing of alarmism as true science.
Words combination Climate Change lost scientific meaning and is used as a label
The IPCC has been using the altered definition of climate change since 2001. That makes many of its conclusions irrelevant to the subject of the influence of anthropogenic CO2 release on the climate, and even to the broader topic of anthropogenic influences on the climate outside of population centers. Notably, by altering the definition of climate change the IPCC has also re-defined itself –the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – and thus expanded its “mission”. I would say the IPCC has done so illegally, but since the IPCC is a UN organization, it is not clear whether the concepts of law and legality are applicable to it at all. The IPCC repeatedly broke even its own rules without repercussions.
Most of public understand climate change as man-made climate change, but most scientists and experts rely on its definition as any climate change. Thus, the public is being deceived. In everyday Climatist usage, the phrase climate change suffers further abuse. For example, it is frequently used as a label. The funny side to this usage is that the alarmists cannot decide how to apply this label. Some of them say they are against climate change (e.g., Campaign Against Climate Change), and some of them are for climate change (e.g., Tuvalu puts up fight for climate change, With a strong community youths can fight for climate change.) I almost sympathize with them – being used to receiving instructions with precise wording, they must feel at a loss. A more sophisticated abuse entails making up an open-ended definition. This is typical of the government agencies. The new “definition” of climate change by the Department of Defense is just one example:
Variations in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer that encompass increases and decreases in temperature, shifts in precipitation, and changing risk of certain types of severe weather events.
I will not criticize this gibberish, including “increases and decreases in temperature” and “shifts in precipitation,” because that would be like taking candy from a baby. But more broadly, scientific definitions are established in order to demarcate boundaries of concepts, rather than to open them up with words like “include” or “encompass.”
The Newspeak of Climatism has developed to allow the alarmists to brand any other position as “anti-science.” But means to the end were opposite of what Orwell dreaded. Orwell predicted that Newspeak words would have a single and narrow utilitarian meaning. The terms of Climatism are exactly opposite to that – vague, slippery, and devoid of any utility.
On proper definitions and semantic tricks
Moving away from outright abuse, giving a proper definition of anything defines a set (a taxon), not a particular object. Sometimes the set can contain only one object, or none at all. This holds true for definitions of climate change as much as for definitions of a cow. Even when a dishonest party does not change the definition outright (like replacing cow with mammal), it can still switch the object (like replacing a brown cow with a red cow). Even if everybody uses the same reasonable definition of climate change, like the one from the UNFCCC text, an infinite range of phenomena fall under that definition. Climate change over the past 50 years is different from climate change over the past 150 years, and both are different from climate change over the period 10,000 – 3,000 years BP. Future climate change is not the same as past climate change. Another dimension is opened up by moving between observed climate change, computed climate change, computed conditional climate change, etc. Further, each region has its own climate, and can have its individual climate change over a given time frame. Even if we replace climate change with the much narrower concept of average global temperature change, having arbitrarily selected the averaging method, and then look only at time periods of equal length and consider only the temperature change from the start to the end of the period, we encounter a number of different phenomena. For example, the temperature change from 1975 to 2000 was substantially different from the temperature change from 1970 to 1995, and very much different from the temperature change from 1950 to 1975. This problem usually does not arise in scientific research because a research study defines a specific context, defining what particular object or objects are investigated. But the climate alarmists are notorious for taking fragments of scientific papers and presenting them in the completely different context of ordinary life, thus deceiving politicians and the public.
Scale and Significance
Beyond these semantic tricks, Climatists use the same ploy that has been the bread and butter of many environmental groups for decades. Modern chemical analyzers can detect miniscule concentrations of chemical elements, and scientific studies find trace amounts of various elements everywhere. Enviros and sensationalist media use such detections to incite fear: Arsenic in your food! Mercury in your water! Ozone in the air! Usually, the concentrations of the trace elements or compounds are too low to cause any harm, and may even be beneficial. But outside of the context of scientific research, arsenic and mercury are mentioned only when their amounts or concentrations are sufficient to cause harm or even death, so the deceived public gets scared and financially rewards fear-mongering activists, journalists, and lawyers.
In the field of climate science, a tiny climate trend, such as global warming of 0.01°C per year, may be measured and researched by scientists. But it cannot be felt by a person (even if this person is a scientist), it has no consequence for an individual or the society, and it is justifiably below the threshold of the interest of the public. Thus, even moving a statement like ‘there is global warming’ from a specific scientific context into the context of general public discourse is already deceitful. In the context of general public discourse, when there is an annual temperature increase of 0.01°C, it is more accurate to say that there is no global warming than to say that there is dangerous or even serious global warming. This is simple math: 0.01 is closer to 0 than to 0.05, which might actually be worthy of concern in the long run.
But there is a difference between the climate alarm and other enviro-alarms. The chemical composition of the things we use or eat can be measured very accurately. In contrast, the supposed climate changes are so small that they can be barely detected or quantified, even by the most advanced devices and methods. As is frequently the case, Climatism has turned this weakness into strength. Referring to measurements of change below the margin of error, Climatists routinely replace the proper term insignificance with “uncertainty”, referring to the unwise language of UNFCCC Article 3, p.3: “The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures …”.
Richard Lindzen has been referring to semantic issues in the climate debate for more than twenty years. For example, he wrote in 1995:
Global warming, as a public issue, is a semantic quagmire. First there is confusion over the use of the expression ‘global warming’ ( Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics, 1995).
Commenting on one tortured statement from the IPCC’s SAR, essentially stating that the IPCC had been unable to quantify the magnitude of natural or anthropogenic global warming, Lindzen remarks:
It has been a remarkable example of semantic distortion that this weak and unsupportable statement has encouraged environmental advocates to claim that this report endorses various catastrophic scenarios (Statement Concerning Global Warming, Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 1997).
Again, in his Senate testimony after the IPCC TAR SPM release:
Some problems with the IPCC would appear to stem from the media and advocacy groups. … The misuse of the IPCC summaries, however, is not entirely accidental. The IPCC does a number of things which encourage misuse. [some bullet points are omitted]
· Use a summary to misrepresent what scientists say.
· Use language which conveys different meaning to laymen and scientists.
· Exaggerate the authority of undistinguished scientists.
(Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 2001)
Finally, consider the title of a 2015 article: A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm.
Climate alarmism had already lost all its scientific ground before 2001. Since then, it has been fighting exclusively in the power structures and in the media, using semantic trickery, lies, bribery, threats and abuse of power.
See my sceptic dictionary
Fantastic article! I was just thinking about how we use the Kelvin Scale when calculating Heat Transfer, not Celsius, and how an average of 287 degrees increasing to 287.5 degrees would be harder to sell as Unprecedented let alone Catastrophic.
We have to recognize that the Earth periodically experiences Temperature variations from the current 287 Kelvin to ~277 Kelvin over the Glacial and Interglacial periods since the beginning of the Pleistocene. It also experiences Sea Levels of 5-10 meters higher than current and 130 meters lower than current over the same cycle.
‘Scientists’ who think the above phenomena are unprecedented, catastrophic, and in general ‘alarming’ are no different than Chicken Little and The Boy who Cried Wolf. They have amassed a great following and are profiting quite nicely from that following, but are going to be in for a rude awakening after their 999th prediction fail. Normal people will begin to ignore them and many will begin to ask for their money back. Those who call themselves ‘climate’ scientists will be regarded as Snake Oil salespeople and generally be shunned.
The ‘Science’ community in general will also suffer because real scientists have done a very poor job of pointing this nonsense out. One cannot blame them for staying silent though as speaking up invites the ugliness like Judith Curry et al have endured.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. If 1/100th of the money wasted on Climate Alarm had been put towards pollution and land usage the planet would actually be better off today and tomorrow.
” Temperature variations from the current 287 Kelvin to ~277 Kelvin”
That tilde looks a lot like a minus sign.
All in all, I very much agree. But the author starts out with this:
“Mostly anthropogenic”, I do not think very many skeptics agree with this. This is the attribution problem, which is a very hotly contested topic.
Second, what really happened in the last 80 to 100 years is another question.
We started out with this:
Note that after cooling for 4 decades from the lat 1930s to the late 1970s, temperatures were right back to where they were around 1900-1910.
We ended up with this:
The mid-century cooling has been obliterated. (note that NOAA and GISS are even worse.)
Given this kind of a mess, I do not think anyone can state with certainty what has gone on in the last 80 years. Many of us are skeptical because it appears to us that the “long term warming” really is just an artifact of the data sets, and most assuredly is not “anthropogenic”, nor “climate change”.
The essay is excellent and so is that comment.
Read the Climate Gate harry_read_me file and you’ll get the feeling that nobody’s got any idea what has happen in the climate, ever.
So the team made it up.
Then protected it by hiding and lying.
Yep. This the word-smithing game. This is Edward Bernays X10! He stopped using the word propaganda and began the use of “public relations” instead.
The “priestcraft” of “climatism” relies on the ambiguity of words. Journalism knows this and if you can inject a notion by the “priest crafty” use of words then you can drive the national dialogue.
“priestcraft” is a new word for me, a la Crispin of Waterloo, another commenter.
Does Winston Smith currently work for NASA GISS? As Orwell noted in the 1940’s, fanatics tend to use language in peculiar ways. Climate change is not AGW, and is certainly not CAGW, but the the zealots act as if the terms are interchangable. Ultimately, a political purge is needed, as the mass movement is political, and tied to the Democratic party. The yahoos will scream anyway, so have several reasons for firing/defunding them .
They started with the “ozone hole”, which it is not really a hole. “Ozone hole” was redefined as portion of stratosphere where ozone levels are below certain threshold. What common people understands as ozone hole is portion of stratosphere with no ozone.
Figures of speech.
They can be used to communicate the sense of your idea accurately or to communicate a deception just short of an outright lie. In other words, to leave the listener with the impression you meant “this” when you actually said “that”.
-“The prevaricator in chief” is that like the guy who said “I never had sexual relations with that woman” It depends on what you mean by SEX and relations.
is not “like the guy who said”
IS “the guy who said”
My apologies to the international audience, who might have seen it as a bit of an “inside joke”.
It was reading IPCC AR4 years ago that first pegged my BS meter and bent the needle. I’ve been in sales and marketing for decades, I know a snow job when I see one.
But it’s different this time ’cause now we have computers and the internet. /sarc
Little wonder that AGW has had to abandon the science, as its dawning on them that they have made the wrong call big time on CO2 importance to climate change.
Studying CO2 is no doubt proving of little value for them in the understanding of the reasons for climate change. l have now learned far more about what caused the extreme cold climate events during the last ice age from studyiny a weeks weather. Then l ever would ever from a lifetime study of CO2. lts time for honest science to stand up and call out this dangerous myth that AGW has become
Climate alarmism had already lost all its scientific ground before 2001. Since then, it has been fighting exclusively in the power structures and in the media, using semantic trickery, lies, bribery, threats and abuse of power.
And in the end :
The jihad corrodes to Lip Service.
Thank you. The term denier is a typical example. In itself, it proves this has been a propaganda war, not a scientific one. The fact that warmists could afford to employ the likes of Fenton Communications shows it has been all about the money. Fenton are notorious for promoting scientific matters that are less than accurate.
Also, the warmists paid for a committee to scour all journals and news items and swamp anyone who disagreed with virulent mail, so much so, that they dropped the argument.
Excellent essay! It portrays the arguments I have been making in my circles for years. I guess that if I said that this is one of the best essays I have read to date it would be fair to say that as it only reinforces my views is the reason for my appreciation of the essay. Great work.
similar / contrary to that stomage revolting McCartney /similar Al Gore :
And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make.
‘disgusting’ ain’t appropriate to true greens.
It was 4 degrees F this morning and next Saturday, the morning temperature is predicted to be only 12 degrees F. This January weather in April is going to destroy budding fruit trees, etc. What is scary is, no one at the top of the political pyramid is talking about this cold, cold spring.
Yes the weather is giving NE America a little taste of the ice age. These are just the sort of weather patterns that were turning up during the ice age. Only back then they were turning up month after month after month. What maybe the cause of this, well maybe the answer lays in the mid Pacific where the forming of high pressure causes kinks in the jet stream. Which allows high pressure to ridge up towards NW America and bringing icy blasts to the NE.
Well, abuse of semantics is a big lawyer’s trick. And since our president – who has mastered these sorts of deception – is a driving force behind the fear-mongering, it’s not surprising that this sort of abuse has become widespread. It really is a perversion of the law (and the language), since it essentially makes words meaningless.
Shuck, jive, and blather at its finest. Slick incremental propaganda cranked out by master deceivers.
It was semantics that started my questioning of CAGW. It is good to know that there are people out there keeping tabs on this aspect of the argument that continues to rage. Thankyou for the article.
Good stuff. There is much more than commented on. Same stuff.
Semantics aside, average global temperature change is explained using natural phenomena.
A conservation of energy equation, employing the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies (as a proxy) and a simple approximation of the net effect of all ocean cycles achieves a 97% match with measured average global temperatures since before 1900. Including the effects of CO2 improves the match by 0.1%. http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com
Great article, Ari – well done. This is one of those important articles/essays that should be splashed all over the MSM. Will it happen? Not in the foreseeable future I doubt. We could all help though, by linking to it in comments wherever possible.
The climate change alarmists seem to think that just calling their opponents anti-science should be more than enough to shut them up, or at least convince others to ignore scientific evidence contrary to their catastrophic warming narrative. However there is an implicit assumption in the “anti-science” epithet: that all sciences produce comparably reliable results. For example, that the science of climatology could be trusted as much as the sciences of aeronautics.
Here’s a hopefully thought-provoking question to ask anyone who accuses others of being anti-science: Would you book a flight on an airplane whose landings were as unreliable as weather forecasts more than 10 days in advance?
“This is typical of the government agencies. The new “definition” of climate change by the Department of Defense is just one example:…
I will not criticize this gibberish, including “increases and decreases in temperature” and “shifts in precipitation,” because that would be like taking candy from a baby. But more broadly, scientific definitions are established in order to demarcate boundaries of concepts, rather than to open them up with words like “include” or “encompass.””
1) This is not a scientific definition, this is a Dept. of Defense definition. In an article about semantics this seems like an immense error on your part. Surely, this is committing precisely the sin of which you accuse the climate scientists and media. Taking a definition from one context and applying it to another.
2) I do not know how you could define “climate” without reference to temperatures and precipitation. One definition from the free dictionary says climate is “The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.” Another has “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years”
Hence “climate change” must surely include reference to changes in the factors that are the climate, including temperature and precipitation. It is to be imagined that the Dept of Defense will focus on those changes expected to affect defense matters, so perhaps that is why they call particular attention to temperatures and precpitation. However, to avoid falsy claiming that these are the only factors they use the words “include” and “encompass” to indicate that there are other climate factors also.
You not only disagree with this definition, but call it gibberish, and claim that the shortfalls are so obvious that pointing them out would be like taking candy from a baby.
However, I do not see a clear definition of climate change in your article. What would be your prefered definition for Dept of Defense use?
#1- The quote you used comes under the heading of “Words combination Climate Change lost scientific meaning and is used as a label” and after the qualifier-“A more sophisticated abuse entails making up an open-ended definition. This is typical of the government agencies.”
He gave us ONE example of how the “scientific meaning” has been lost and is being used as a “label”, by giving it an open-ended definition…something that IS typical of government agencies. YOU are the one guilty of “Taking a definition from one context (scientific) and applying it to another (the author’s example)”
#2-“I do not know how you could define “climate” without reference to temperatures and precipitation.”
Odd, his article wasn’t talking about how we define “climate”. By opening up the definition of “climate change” to include EVERYTHING that defines even all of the changes in WEATHER, it becomes a “label” that can be applied to anything and everything at a whim! Windier today than a year ago? Climate change! More rain this year than last year? Climate change!
Apparently the shortfalls were not obvious to you, so perhaps in your case it would be like taking candy from a hydra. You are the king of semantic arguments!
“He gave us ONE example of how the “scientific meaning” has been lost and is being used as a “label””
Aphan I do not agree. He gave the quote and then said “scientific definitions are established in order to demarcate boundaries of concepts, rather than to open them up with words like “include” or “encompass.””
The “scientific definition” to which he refers must contain the words “include” and “encompass” otherwise this makes no sense. The definition by the Dept. Defense uses these words. He was refering to the definition by the Dept. of Defense as a scientific definition.
“Windier today than a year ago? Climate change! More rain this year than last year? Climate change!” Look at the definition, then look at what you typed. The answer will become obvious. “Variations in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer” (emphasis mine).
Your questions “Windier today than a year ago?” Not climate change! “More rain this year than last year?” Not climate change! If you apply the definition in full.
Average of windiness over last 30 years greater than average of windiness from 60-30 years ago? Climate Change! More rain over the last 30 years than from 60-30 years ago? Climate change!
“Apparently the shortfalls were not obvious to you…”
That is true, they are not. I really don’t see very much wrong with the Dept. Defense definition, and nobody has really said what these problems are, nor provided a better definition.
“You are the king of semantic arguments!”
Well, in this case is in on-topic, as semantics are the subject of the post.
Your agreement isn’t necessary to my point. He prefaced that section as “Word combination Climate Change lost scientific meaning and it used as label.” Then he gave what HE sees as an example of that-the Dept of Defense definition, which YOU recognized was not a “scientific definition” as per your 1).
Then, paragraph change, he calls it “gibberish”…NOT “scientific”, and indicates that he views it as crap. Sea ice, why would he do that if he felt it WAS actually a “scientific definition”????? He then goes on to say that “broadly (speaking)” a real scientific definition is one that outlines specific boundaries…they are the opposite of the “open ended” one he just quoted!
If you read what HE actually said, rather than inserting your own opinion/insinuations about it, it makes perfect sense. It is only when you interpret him falsely as viewing that quote as a “scientific definition” that it messes things up.
I’m glad you brought up their definition again, because I noted some things I missed the first time.(also, I personally don’t have a problem with this definition. I like that it does not include attributions to any specific causes.)
“Variations in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer that encompass increases and decreases in temperature, shifts in precipitation, and changing risk of certain types of severe weather events.”
#1- The word “or” is nowhere to be seen, so by this definition all 5 qualifiers must be found occurring in order to meet the definition.
1-there must be variations in average weather conditions. 2- The variation(s) must persist over decades+, 3-those variations must include temperature increases or decreases, 4- they must include shifts in precipitation, and 5- they must show changing risk of certain types of severe weather events.
Looking at it that way, I would actually disagree with the author as far as it really demarcates a very specific boundary that must be met. Of course, all of those things happen naturally all the time, because Earth’s climate is always changing. A planet warming up naturally after a glacial period WILL show persistent changes over decades, in temps, in precipitation, and changing risks of severe weather events! All without any human influence at all!
I find I might disagree with BOTH of you on this one. This may just be my new favorite “official” definition of climate change to toss at CAGW supporters!
Blaming left wing voters for climate change support is only for the deluded right wing god fearing brain dead fundamentalists. Climate change rhetoric is based on right wing news papers and their editors. So do not blame a political faction for this storm it is your master that is fuelling the fire.
The scientist who lied to you telling you there is a green house gas effect on Venus is a left winger.
The scientist who sued the guy for calling him a liar – lying in the filing saying he won a Nobel Prize he never won, so therefore the man called a Nobel Prize winner a liar – is a left winger.
The scientist who admitted he fabricated every single tenth degree warming to global databases he altered, in his Feb 2010 BBC interview – Phiddling Phil Jones – is a left winger.
The shamed and hiding Keith Briffa is a left winger.
Sky Terror Trenberth who was melting down himself about there being no global warming for years, and not being able to explain it or hide it – is a left winger.
Gratefully departed slimetist Schneider who wrote that he concocted a program in excel that makes it possible to calculate temperature on wind speed alone, thus proving the atmosphere is hot, in the ”The answer is blowing in the wind” paper, was a left winger.
The failed presidential candidate who published their fabrications as real science in his movie about all the dead polar bears found to be alive, well and healthier than ever, Al Gore,
is a left winger.
You seem like maybe you hit the liberal juice a little hard this morning. Throw out that cup and start fresh with coffee only, sans vodka. … just for today.
I agree with Mod. Perhaps if you gave us some idea what you mean by “right” and “left” -wing voters/political factions, folks could refrain from thinking you’ve been raised by wolves or something . .
The name for this logical fallacy is “equivocation”, and climate science depends on it.
I’ve been saying this for years but you said it better.
Typical. Apply a label and the other person must defend themselves. That’s how the left/greenies work. Trump is showing us how to ignore the BS and stay focused on winning. Everybody is giving him advice. You know, the critics, some of whom were also rans and never wons. Those experts!
The original survey of AMS members gave the definition of ‘climate change’ that was to be used by survey takers as the official AMS definition:
” Any systematic change in the long-term statistics of climate elements (such as temperature, pressure, or winds) sustained over several decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural external forcings, such as changes in solar emission or slow changes in the earth’s orbital elements; natural internal processes of the climate system; or anthropogenic forcing.”
So ‘climate change’ means any change in the climate due to any reason. However, in the press release and the preliminary write-up of the survey, the definition was NOT given. This left the press and the public to misinterpret ‘climate change’ to mean anthropogenic climate change alone. Very slick.
“Abusing Semantics is the First and Last Refuge of Climatism”
Once they went pro-choice, it was selective semantics, science, religion/morality all the way down.
Why are there so few replies?
..Too many posts in such a short time frame !!..Anthony’s webpage seems to be getting busier ! I wonder why ?? Thanks Ari for your input !!
My high school geometry class educated me in the need for exacting definitions of terms.it was all about definitions, axioms, formal logic, theorems, and proofs. it was then that I learned that the majority of ‘differences of opinion’ in life can be traced to equivocation: people trying to argue using the same words, but with slightly different definitions for those words.
Until the differences in the definitions are openly clarified, the differences of opinion cannot be resolved.