Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Conversation suggests there is no evidence climate change was rebranded as climate change. But their flawed effort to refute this argument is evidence the “anti-Greta” Naomi Seibt is having an impact.
There is no evidence that ‘global warming’ was rebranded as ‘climate change’
March 13, 2020 1.14am AEDT
Giulio Corsi
PhD Candidate, University of CambridgeClimate change denial is a moving target. In the past, it consisted of a fully fledged denial of any scientific evidence that the world was warming. More recently, it has evolved into a creative mix of strategies. Deniers today often contradict part of the scientific basis for climate change, while pinning the blame for the rest – anything completely undeniable, even to them – on developing countries, particularly India and China.
Over the past few weeks, a new figure has emerged: Naomi Seibt. Seibt, the so-called anti-Greta Thunberg, a 19-year-old from Münster in Germany, rapidly gained media attention for her call for “climate realism”, claiming that climate change science really is not science at all, and for this reason, there is no need to panic. The young activist immediately caught the eye of the lively US denier scene and was – just months after publishing her first YouTube video – invited to speak at the high-profile Conservative Political Action Conference 2020 (CPAC) and made a member of the Heartland Institute, a thinktank known for its ties to the fossil-fuel industry.
…
What was perhaps most interesting, was her use of a recurrent argument on the supposed “historical rebranding” of climate change. The theory goes as follows: in the past, everyone used the term global warming to describe this phenomenon, but seeing that the planet was, in fact, not heating, global warming was “rebranded” to climate change in a sophisticated cover-up.
…
On the other hand, newspapers behaved somewhat differently. In both The Guardian and The Times, climate change is generally the most common term, but the two are used interchangeably until 2005 when again we see a breaking point. Despite this, climate change was in use long before any possible rebranding.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/there-is-no-evidence-that-global-warming-was-rebranded-as-climate-change-133213
PHD candidate Giulio Corsi identifies a 2005 breaking point during which use of the phrase “climate change” in the media surged, but does not offer an explanation for this breaking point, other than a vague suggestion that the surge in the use of “climate change” occurred because 2005 was a “a watershed year for climate governance”.
The evidence Corsi overlooks or ignores is an intriguing Climategate email from 2004, an email which suggests the surge in use of the term “climate change” post 2004 was an act of deliberate rebranding.
date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:53:26 -0000
from: “Bo Kjellen”
subject: RE: FWD: Abrupt Climate Change
to: “‘Asher Minns'”
Dear Asher, and all, I think this is a real problem, and I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming. But somehow I also feel that one needs to add the dimension of the earth system, and the fact that human beings for the first time ever are able to impact on that system. That is why the IGBP in a recent publication “Global Change and the Earth System” underline that we now live in the anthropocene period. Climate change is one of the central elements of this process, but not the only one: loss of biological diversity, water stress, land degradation with loss of topsoil, etc etc all form part of this – and they are all linked in some way or another. Therefore a central message probably has to be that humans are now interfering with extremely large and heavy global systems, of which we know relatively little: we are in a totally new situation for the human species, and our impact added to all the natural variations that exist risks to unsettle subtle balances and create tensions within the systems which might also lead to “flip-over” effects with short-term consequences that might be very dangerous.And then, the good old precautionary principle must be guiding our effort. During the cold war, enormous resources were put into missiles, airplanes, and other military equipment to check Soviet expansion and make containment policy credible – in the firm hope that all this equipment would never have to be used. And it wasn’t, and nobody complained about the costs. Now, in the face of a different, but clearly distinguishable global threat “more dangerous than terrorism” the cost issue surfaces all the time. Somehow we all need to help in creating an understanding that the threat of global change is real and that we need to develop a new paradigm of looking at the world and the future: this is not just a scientific or technological issue. It involves important philosophical and ethical considerations where some fundamental value systems have to be challenged.
Bo
—–Original Message—–
From: Asher Minns [mailto: redacted] On Behalf Of Asher Minns Sent: 20 February 2004 17:01
To: redacted; redacted
Subject: RE: FWD: Abrupt Climate ChangeIn my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media, which can become public perception. It provides a new story for the old news that is climate change – a story that has been running since 1985/88.
…
Read more: Climategate Email 4141.txt
Prominent journalist Andy Revkin who at the time worked for New York Times, was part of the 4141.txt Climategate email chain, see the full climate gate 4141.txt email for details of his involvement in the discussion.
It is an unequivocal fact that the terms “climate change” and “global warming” have both been in use for a long time. The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was created in 1988. Giulio Corsi’s absurd suggestion that skeptics claim the phrase “climate change” was invented to replace “global warming” is a fallacious strawman.
But the 2004 Climategate email is evidence that there was a public rebranding effort. Prominent scientists, climate communicators and journalists were privately worried the phrase “global warming” was causing PR problems, so they agreed to start using the phrase “climate change” instead. The result, unsurprisingly, was a surge in media use of the phrase “climate change”.
I would love to know how Giulio Corsi, a Cambridge educated PHD candidate text mining expert, managed to overlook historical evidence which contradicts his claims. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for an answer.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And I’ll bet his carbon footprint is much bigger than mine is or has ever been.
Yeah and the recent explosion in the use of the phrase “Climate Crisis ” is also spontaneous.
They attack the anti-Greta for the phraseology she uses, but recall Greta the 16 year old giving speeches about having to fight the “patriarchy”.
Who put those words in her mouth?
All these phrases are clearly itentional and designed to juice the fear factor. As to whether or not a central source is responsible I leave that to others. However, climate activism is religious in tone and practice. Part of the ‘received wisdom’ is to take your newly learned activist knowledge and apply it to transform your job, your government, your family etc.
Exactly how that turns out varies from person to person, group to group, job to job and government to government but it has most insidiously been carried into media.
So now, instead of forest fires we now have ‘WILDFIRES!’ . Instead of
bad weather we have ‘EXTREME!’ rain or wind or …’UNPRECIDENTED!!’, ‘RECORD BREAKING!’ everything.
This techinique of changing the language follows a well worn path used successfully by others. Modern feminist activism created the ‘Ms.’ designation for example.
Here in British Columbia, Greenpeace and others have successfully implanted a rename of large bodies of water. The nearby ‘Strait of Georgia’ now is called the indigenous friendly ‘Salish Sea’.
Local governments, having been infiltrated by enviroactivists have managed to implement wholesale changes under direction of ICLEI such that ‘Sustainable Development’ is now ubiquitous and a powerful tool. The latest rebranding is the spread of declarations of ‘Climate Emergency’ at the level of local government.
One minor quibble. Wildfire was not substituted for forest fire to make forest fires sound more serious. The term Wildfire was introduced to bring under one term all uncontrolled rural vegetation fires. Beside forest fires, it includes brush fires, desert fires, grass fires, and even peat fires.
I always use the term ‘global warming’ in conversation and in writing (usually to newspapers). I also make sure that when people speak about ‘climate change’ that I establish exactly what they mean by the term.
Can we all please remember also that when the warmists/lefties/green-eco-loonies use the term climate change they actually mean global warming. Because their shtick is all about reducing manmade CO2 to prevent a 1.5ºC increase in global temperatures leading to catastrophe.
Never give them an inch. Not. One. Inch.
You’re right to call them on changing Global Warming to Climate Change, John, because for sure when they say “Climate change” they don’t mean it’s getting cooler.
But sometimes they do mean it’s getting cooler. Magical CO2 can make it get hot OR cold. That way, whatever happens, their hypothesis is validated. In such a nonsensical world, panic is the only sensible strategy. They say we must have world government, which somehow will fix everything.
The phrase, “Climate Change,” is simply a “heads-I-win-tails-you-lose” trick.
I burnt out on the whole thing during/after the shift from the Coming Ice Age over to Global Warming. After that, I just snicker when they rebrand their crisis.
There is something terribly wrong with any thing or any entity that needs to change its name every five or ten years.
Since the UNFCCC labelled ‘climate change’ as being caused by humans and then sent the IPCC off to prove it, I have steered clear of using that term and use ‘global warming’ for clarity. Of course, the Earth does have a ‘changing climate’ as a response when denying believing in ‘climate change’.
Your right John and on that exact subject the author repeatedly use the derogative ‘climate denier’.
For someone working towards a PHD you might question his choice of terms, does he specifically use ‘denier’ to advance his standing in the leftard university autocracy?
Climate Change is a more accurate and all-embracing term. If increases in CO2 really do cause global warming, then a cooling period for a few decades would not necessarily prove that wrong. The reason for the cooling could be that the ‘natural’ causes of the cooling would be greater than the claimed anthropomorphic warming effect.
However, the term ‘Climate Change Denier’ is absurd. Anyone who knows anything about climate must understand that climate has always been changing, for whatever reason, throughout the history of the Earth. Climate is never static.
“Vincent March 14, 2020 at 6:30 am
However, the term ‘Climate Change Denier’ is absurd.”
It’s worse than that. Many alarmists leave out the word “change” from that sentence and shorten it to “Climate Denier”. Who denies climate?
“Settled Science” is likewise an absurd phrase.
I find it quite depressing that, in this day and age, so many of the commenters on that article, Killian O’Brien, Robert Davidson and Stephen R Hopkins, show so little evidence of rational thought. It really does reinforce the evidence of climate change alarmism being akin to a religious cult.
The notion that ClimateChange™ is a marketing, rather than a scientific, meme is overwhelming.
Almost as overwhelming as the notion that “the conversation” is actually “the lecture”.
Trash journalism serving as propaganda.
Climate Change is so much easier to defend, point to examples, and harder to pick apart. It embraces anything that is above or below “normal”(usually meaning average) so that everything can be included. It is a fact that an average temperature is rarely observed – the temperature is almost always warmer or cooler than average.
By tying CO2 to “Climate Change”, they now are insulated from periods where there is cold temperatures or lots of snow fall. They get to add floods to there “proof”. It was a masterful stroke of marketing, even if dishonest.
What is so funny about all this is that local or regional climate is always undergoing change somewhere in the world, so they just take a natural process and claim it is caused by CO2, of which mankind is responsible for 3% or 4% of it. In reality, mankind is likely impacting local and regional climate in all sorts of ways like building cities, roads, parking lots, and changing forested land into farms. CO2 *might* have some effect, but so does pollution (particulates, NOx gases, sulfates, aerosols, etc.)
This would lead any reasonable person to wonder “why the emphasis on CO2?”. Obviously, there are hidden agendas (one or more) on why they (activists) emphasize one part of man’s likely impact to local and regional climates and not others – it isn’t hard to discover what the agendas really are.
Mild winters are a good example. Climate Change!
You’re correct that it isn’t difficult to infer the true agenda. They are rarely if ever transparent about it, but no matter what, the solution is always to eliminate affordable energy and to restrict individual freedom. When it was “the ice age cometh“, the solution was to stop burning fossil fuels. Then global warming was the thing, but still the solution was to stop burning fossil fuels. Similarly they railed against nuclear power which if it had not been for their intentionally suffocating and inefficient regulation, could have provided abundant energy “too cheap to meter”. (They then have the chutzpah to ridicule the claim which only failed to materialize due to the onerous red tape and lawfare that they waged).
Who are “they”? The socialists and communists of course. But there are also plenty of non-ideological profiteers in this game. Any “problem”, whether real or imagined, or real but grossly exaggerated, is an opportunity to sell a solution, whether needed and effective or not. It’s actually the profiteers (the Tom Steyers and General Electrics of the world) who are most responsible for the sham not crashing back to earth as it ordinarily would if common sense would rule.
It was not only the Tom Steyers and General Electrics of the world… it is also the oil companies themselves. In their desire to destroy their true competitor, Kind Coal, and their desire to avoid the wrath of the Progressive left they gladly bought into the CAGW scam. They thought (still think) that by calling for Carbon Capture and storage (which results in a 50% increase in fossil fuel for the same amount of delivered energy) and eliminating coal, that would lead to a huge increase in the demand for natural gas and thus a huge increase in profits. Selling more natural gas and at higher prices with no competition looked like a win-win for them. Contrary to popular myth, the oil companies have been completely on board with the CAGW agenda. However, since the real Progressive agenda had nothing at all to do with Climate change but instead elimination of inexpensive, abundant and reliable energy so that the American style of government and the unfairly high living standards of the average middle class American, the Progressives plan on killing-off oil companies as well no matter how hard the oil companies try to please them.
The CO2 endangerment finding must be rescinded or eventually (very soon) the Progressive agenda will be won.
The “trougherati.”
That’s a good one Jorge, “trougherati”. I like to think us ” denialists” are trofferati, shining a light on things!
The fault is with the scientific societies, Rich, which have the standing to bring the AGW claim to a screeching halt, and have instead used their authority to stoke the panic.
There’s blame enough to go around, Pat. Ultimately a system has been created where many independent actors have aligned incentives. Scientists whose careers can be advanced or destroyed by holding the approved view or the heretical view only act rationally when they support the view that keeps them employed. There are rare and heroic exceptions, but usually only after retirement.
When discussing [/s] climate alarmism with an alarmist, I use “abnormal warming” … and then steer the emphasis away from the label to this: The fact is, temperatures were headed up, but over the last ten years they are falling. There is no abnormal warming.
I don’t suppose “The Pause” had anything to do with the need for those promoting “The Cause” to change the narrative?
Yes, Gunga, that’s exactly the reason the left dropped “global warming” about that time. The “pause” made it very difficult to call it “global warming” without getting immediately called out by someone. So they dropped it entirely in favor of “climate change” and it’s variations.
It had everything to do with it. There was an obvious switchover in the media from global warming to climate change when it became clear they couldn’t shake off the pause. Usage of the term climate change has existed since the IPCC’s eponymous incorporation of it, but the media didn’t switch to it until the pause.
Global warmists always have a distant relationship with the truth. Corsi is no different.
I remember being “shocked” by the speed that the term “Global warming” was replaced by “climate change.” Shocked because it suddenly dawn on me that the power and money behind this scam must be monstrous…
The BBC were very quick to adopt the new term, along with rest of the global MSM.
I experienced a similar shock decades ago. I began to hear discussion of environmental trouble in “the rainforest.” What? What kind of forest is that? Doesn’t seem to be for northern growths …
It took awhile for my straight-shooter mentality to catch on … someone had decided that “jungle” was offensive. The rebranding was on, and swiftly rolled through academia and public school textbooks.
Good catch. You’re right, no one says “jungle” any more.
“The Pause.”
This served a purpose, magnificently. However, I suggest a rebranding. It contains within it a tacit stipulation that there “is” abnormal warming. Just temporarily gathering itself. A “pause” implies a “resumption.” This word gives an alarmist a get-out-of-jail-free card. We shouldn’t grant it.
Climate does not pause. It rocks in the bosom of Erda.
http://theearthintime.com
I sometimes say “the return.” A 4F return to the downslope of cooling, which started around 2001, and will likely last for fifteen more years. A resumption of the curve.
So, I presume we should rename “Tarzan of the jungle” to Tarzan of the rainforest. :-}
“a 19-year-old from Münster in Germany” as opposed to a 17 year old munter from Sweden.
Hey! Zemlik, that’s not very nice! Lol(urban dictionary)
I wonder how long the climate heretical comments will last, given the comment policy of the conversation
They allow them?
Whatever it’s called, the attribution is wrong!
Have you seen?
http://phzoe.com/2020/03/11/40-years-of-climate-change/
http://phzoe.com/2020/03/13/geothermal-animated/
Zoe please don’t clickbait you dragon slayer viewpoint on every forum.
Watch out Hans, she’ll accuse you of being sexist.
Provide empirical evidence for your point of view. Assertions alone won’t do.
Then I’ll change my mind.
Off topic zoe
Hello Hans Erren
Long time no see.
Still using your comment that local sea level rise issues should be studied with local data and not with global data.
A brilliant “emperor has no clothes” insight.
” an alternative methodology that bypasses the uncertainty problem in SRTM v4. 1 and MERIT DEM data was suggested in a WUWT comment by Hans Erren as follows: “November 3, 2019 at 4:46 am. A simple solution springs to my mind: use sea level gauges in coastal areas and do not use satellites at all” [LINK] . The Hans Erren insight is that an unnecessary complexity is imposed on the study of high tide floods in a list of specific locations by the climate science reliance on global mean eustatic sea level (GMES). It is true that the study of sea level rise and its overall impacts should be studied in terms of GMES but the study of localized events in terms of global data creates an unnecessary complication that introduces layers of uncertainty that do not exist in local data”
So says the gal who posts nonsense and then insults anyone who doesn’t agree.
Stop lying, Zoe.
You will never change your mind about one single thing, ever, no matter what.
In your little world there is no evidence possible for any idea that has not sprung fully-formed from your own fantasy-land imagination.
We all know you will never stop lying about anything, or ever be persuaded by facts, evidence, or logic.
You are emotionally incapable of intellectual honesty.
Branding is such an interesting effort. There is no conversation at “The Conversation”, no view at “The View”, no skepticism at “Skeptical Science”, and the Democratic party is a kingdom.
Exactly. Orwellian double-speak.
The rebranding of this attack on fossil fuels just keeps getting more EXTREME. And EXTREME weather is the most laughable of all. “Polar Vortex” that was a good one! As Joe Jackson sang
Right now, I think I’m gonna plan a new trend
Because the line on the graph’s getting low and we can’t have that
And you think you’re immune, but I can sell you anything
Anything from a thin safety pin to a pork pie hat
‘Cause I’ve got the trash
And you got the cash
So baby we should get along fine
Why don’t you give me all your money
‘Cause I know you think I’m funny, yeah
Can’t you hear me laughing
Can’t you see me smile
I’m the man
I’m the man … that gave you the hula hoop
I’m the man
I’m the man … that gave you the yo-yo
Preposterous, as if the climate alarmist industry would try to control the brand a names and terminology to be used to create maximum alarm and periodically ramp up the panic!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/16/guardian-language-changes-climate-environment
Interesting that Bo also turns the Precautionary Principle on its head:
As most readers on this blog know, before the IPCC’s Rio Conference the principle meant “look before you leap”, or “if you aren’t certain about the result of an action you are about to take, don’t take it!”
It is NOT “Since the possible gain is so great, let’s not let uncertainty stand in our way!”
The doctrine is alternatively stated as ‘ firstly do no harm’ – not ‘do harm first’ – just about every green policy is demonstrably and immediately damaging/dangerous to the economy/ people/wildlife/environment.
Also application of the Precautionary Principle is supposed to be open/ informed/democratic, involving ALL potentially affected parties, and there must be an examination of the full range of alternatives – including no action.
Climate alarmists want to impose their solution without discussion, taking their word that the harm done will on balance be less long term. That is not the precautionary principle, it’s dictatorship.
The idea is that warming is so obviously dangerous and an existential threat, and their “solutions” are things we ought do anyway just because, that there is every reason to believe the fantasy and no percentage in doubting it.
It is more like a bastardizatiion of Pascal’s Wager.
Fitting, since their beliefs are more akin to a religion than like anything resembling science.
But to sell the idea that had to make their insanity sound like a bargsin, so they invented some malarkey called “the social cost of carbon”, in which they dreamed up a multitude of costs associated with energy, and ignored any and all benefits, then pretended that is was a ledger rather than a lie.
The truth is, the planet is far too cold, warmer is the state of the world in which life thrives, CO2 is in perilously short supply in our air, more CO2 means more of the basic building block of life and hence a more robust biosphere, we are in an actual Ice Age, and ice and cold kills everything graveyard dead.
What they call a principle is actually a mass delusion and a psychosis, built on a foundation of lies and misinformation, and perpetuated by charlatans who actively sow fear and cultivate ignorance.
The real danger we face is a return of full glacial conditions, and a breakdown of the prosperity and industrial civilization that has given us immense resilience to all manner of harms, and empowered is to more fully thrive in the face of capricious natural variability, and to ensure the indifference of the colossal forces which control our environment.
So in fact every course of action promulgated by alarmists is the diametrically opposite of taking precautions, as they invariably seek to dismantle our industrial infrastructures, and thereby force us away from prosperity and towards poverty by, among other things, advocating against any and all sources of energy that are abundant, reliable, and inexpensive, because abundant, reliable, and inexpensive energy is the source of all of our prosperity, strength, and resilience.
The idea is that warming is so obviously dangerous and an existential threat, and their “solutions” are things we ought do anyway just because, that there is every reason to believe the alarmist fantasy and no percentage in doubting it.
It is more like a bastardization of Pascal’s Wager.
Fitting, since their beliefs are more akin to a religion than like anything resembling science.
But to sell the idea that had to make their insanity sound like a bargain, so they invented some malarkey called “the social cost of carbon”, in which they dreamed up a multitude of costs associated with energy, and ignored any and all benefits, then pretended that this is was a ledger rather than a lie.
The truth is, the planet is far too cold, warmer is the state of the world in which life thrives, CO2 is in perilously short supply in our air, more CO2 means more of the basic building block of life and hence a more robust biosphere, we are in an actual Ice Age, and ice and cold kills everything graveyard dead.
What they call a principle is actually a mass delusion and a psychosis, built on a foundation of lies and misinformation, and perpetuated by charlatans who actively sow fear and cultivate ignorance.
The real danger we face is a return of full glacial conditions, and a breakdown of the prosperity and industrial civilization that has given us immense resilience to all manner of harms, and empowered us to more fully thrive in the face of capricious natural variability, and to endure the indifference of the colossal forces which control our environment.
So in fact every course of action promulgated by alarmists is the diametric opposite of being cautious or taking precautions, as they invariably seek to dismantle our industrial infrastructures, and thereby force us away from prosperity and towards poverty by, among other things, advocating against any and all sources of energy that are abundant, reliable, and inexpensive.
And, because abundant, reliable, and inexpensive energy is the source of all of our prosperity, strength, and resiliencee, that is what they really are against.
Except that is exactly what was done, and that having failed they are trying to change it again.
Although the source of this analysis brands itself as “The Conversation”, it seems more like a climate alarmist echo chamber.
Only to a rabid “warmist” Paul!
The Conversation notoriously recently banned any dissent.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/academic-website-the-conversation-bans-climate-change-sceptics-locks-dissenter-accounts/news-story/0190784f1019fc4ba5d962a0cc562c45
“The Monologue”
“Therefore a central message probably has to be that humans are now interfering with extremely large and heavy global systems, of which we know relatively little:”
They ought to listen to themselves sometimes as occasionally they let the truth slip out.
I agree.
Both of these terms have been used at least since 1900
There are a few other things that skeptics say that aren’t really true
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/04/17/abs-temp/
Once again, it’s like trying to tell you that the same people telling us the ice age was coming in the 70’s weren’t the same ones telling us “GLOBAL WARMING!!!” in the 90’s. Maybe not the exact same people, but it was all being blamed on the same things (pollution). When your “crisis” isn’t compelling enough because of the messaging, the real problem is that people don’t believe in your crisis.
I know this source is disliked, but try to avoid confirming bias and check out its references and sources.
In short the terms “Climate Change” and “Global warming” have long been used together ….
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
“The argument “they changed the name” suggests that the term ‘global warming’ was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term ‘climate change’ is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass’ 1956 study ‘The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change’ (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today’s widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply ‘Climate Change’. The journal ‘Climatic Change’ was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the ‘CC’ is ‘climate change’, not ‘global warming’. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term ‘climate change’ many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.”
Also:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=global+warming%2Cclimate+change&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=5&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cglobal%20warming%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cclimate%20change%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cglobal%20warming%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cclimate%20change%3B%2Cc0
And this from Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial 2002 memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121030085144/http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf
“It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.
“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.”
Yes, we know that “climate change” has always been there, because climate has always changed = WARMING AND COOLING.
However, we started getting “global warming” recently. Then it sort of stopped or slowed and we were getting cold outbreaks. So they changed to “climate change” so they could blame the “polar vortex” and any other storms on “climate change”, but they really want to tell us it is warming even when NASA/NOAA are fudging the temperatures:
https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data/
Anthony,
“There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.”
I think that most people, whatever their personal views on the subject, would agree with that quote – but that it was used originally mainly in academic circles. In the wider world which is dominated by the media and their need for eye catching headlines ” global warming” sounded far more definite and positive to the general public and politicians than “climate change” which could cover a range of scenarios, not all including a warming trend .
My impression , as general reader, is that politicians in particular advocated the change from “global warming” to “climate change”, which then caught on in common usage, because it reinforced the idea that their policies re: renewables and taxes on CO2 etc , were fully and sensibly allied to the academic science and not a reaction to the alarmist headlines “global warming!” in the press.
“…In short the terms “Climate Change” and “Global warming” have long been used together…”
In short, rebranding doesn’t happen overnight. I mean it is easy to rebrand yourself from tonyb or toneb to Anthony Banton, but widespread term use takes time.
“…And this from Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial 2002 memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment…”
So a Republican’s advocation of re-branding means it wasn’t re-branded?
Anthony B. Thou protesteth too much:
“1956 study ‘The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change’ (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today’s widely accepted most likely value of 3°C)”
Your statement concerning the study’s climate sensitivity being similar to the accepted value of it today is totally about global warming – only! Yes, you are unwittingly correct.
The 1957 authors used the lesser alarming ‘climatic change’ to mean, nevertheless Global Warming. Global Warming became the ‘brand’ precisely because it was more impactful and we had come into a late 20th Century period of warming that was extrapolated on into the far future.
So, climatic change essentially then and now means global warming – why else spend 60 to 90 trillion, destroy the world economy by shutting down cheap fossil fuels and nuclear(??) and kill off hundreds of millions of people to keep the avg temp from climbing more tnan another half degree by 2100?
No, it was unabashedly touted as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming for 20 years until the Dreaded Pause. The Climateer greats like UEA’s Phil Jones admitted warming had stopped. Trenberth said in the Climategate emails that it was a “travesty” they couldn’t explain the hiatus in global warming. Indeed, with a series of frigid NH winters, frozen sharks rolling onto New England beaches
https://www.livescience.com/61358-frozen-sharks-on-cape-cod.html
and rescue efforts in the Gulf of Mexico for Turtles unconcious from hypothermia:
https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/sea-turtles-hypothermia-saving-gulf/
became a Global Warmists PR nightmare. It was decided to rebrand with the handy Climate Change moniker to explain the unexplainable connection to warming. And you know it! This is not a lying contest you are in.
“There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.” Actually, there is. It’s used to end any discussion of how warming leads to cooling. I insist on using global warming, even when discussing blizzards, because the theory is GLOBAL WARMING–more energy in than out. Yes, the climate change advocate then has to explain how a global phenomena is “local”, which was not supposed to count, and how adding energy causes the uneven and even negative warming.
Anthony Banton,
Pkease, stop wasting your time and ours, with that crap.
Save your gaslighting, strawman arguments, and confused malarkey for people who are gullible rubes and ignorant jackasses.
The informed people that frequent this site are none of those things, and cannot be conned with lies and doubletalk, are not confused or in the dark about the history of global warming alarmism, and are not sitting around waiting for anyone to explain what is what regarding issues we know intimately and have long followed closely.
Skeptical Science and Frank Luntz?
Hahaha…that is so dumb it is funny.
Nobody here gives a crap about your admonitions regarding bias, or cares one tiny rat’s tuchus about John Cook’s site, what they have to say, who they cite as refernces, or about any of the steaming heaps he and his ilk befoul the internet with.
And Luntz is an idiotic jackass, knows nothing of science, and is no conservative whatsoever to begin with.
He is a political strategist, and his audience was not scientists who opposed the then growing cult of global warming alarmism, or any community of skeptics, or even realists.
In fact what we refer to as the “skeptical community” did not exist in present form or number at that time, and neither did organized alarmism as it now exists.
Global warming is a scary idea to fools who can be told what to think even when it makes zero sense, and who stand in piles of manure while believing they know shit from Shinola.
Come to think of it, if I was trying to defend the poor science of AGW, I might try to get you arguing about semantics, instead of my lame theory, too. That’s a lie, I’d give up on the lame theory, first.
The rebranded climate change has been a failure in that it includes everything, but actually explains nothing.
The evidence is clear that it was rebranded from global warming to climate change based on science papers.
Many older science papers used global warming to describe AGW, whereas recent years the word is climate change. You would had thought anybody that reads science papers on climate would had noticed this.
I have generally referred to it as global warming because it’s the only observation that suggests the hypothesis isn’t necessarily 100% false.