The Conversation: There is no evidence that ‘global warming’ was rebranded as ‘climate change’

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 Cambridge

Climate 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 Change

In 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.

128 thoughts on “The Conversation: There is no evidence that ‘global warming’ was rebranded as ‘climate change’

    • 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.

  1. 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.

    • 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

    • Almost as overwhelming as the notion that “the conversation” is actually “the lecture”.
      Trash journalism serving as propaganda.

  4. 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.

    • 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.

        • 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Global warmists always have a distant relationship with the truth. Corsi is no different.

  8. 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.

        • “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. :-}

          • 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”

        • 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. Interesting that Bo also turns the Precautionary Principle on its head:

    ..the good old precautionary principle must be guiding our effort.

    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.

  12. Except that is exactly what was done, and that having failed they are trying to change it again.

  13. Although the source of this analysis brands itself as “The Conversation”, it seems more like a climate alarmist echo chamber.

  14. “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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. From the article: “Climate 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.”

    Wrong! I can’t think of any skeptic that has denied the world is currently warming. What skeptics question is where this warmth originates. Alarmists say the warmth comes from CO2. Skeptics say there is no evidence that CO2 is warming the Earth’s atmosphere enough to cause the climate to do anything other than what it always does.

    Skeptics aren’t denying the world is warming, they are denying that the alarmists have the answer for why it is warming. CO2 or Mother Nature? Skeptics say it is Mother Nature until proven otherwise. It was Mother Nature before humans came along, and as far as we can tell, it is still Mother Nature controlling Earth’s atmosphere.

    Alarmists say the Earth’s climate is being changed by CO2 but there is no evidence to support this contention. The onus is on the alarmists to prove their assertions, and they haven’t done so, not even close.

    • That struck me too. The author denies that the warmunists rebranded and then without any evidence states categorically that skeptical arguments are vague and shifting. For the ten years or so that I have been skeptical of AGW, the skeptical arguments have been essentially the same. What I have noticed is an inability of the true believers to hear and/or understand the arguments. Just look at what they call us – “Climate Change Deniers” when in fact we are the ones who insist that climate is constantly changing.

      • BCBill: My thoughts on being called a ‘Climate Denier’ tend towards letting it pass. This is based on 1: They do it to make us defend the position, knowing full well that our logic is fine, but on the assumption that it will drive us barmy to argue it; and 2: They do it to give themselves some kind of cover that what they argue for has a certain (if unfounded) structure in logic.

        The thing is, let them hurl their insults. They have no value in logic, let alone as an insult: far too juvenile (how dare they!); then only if they hit a soft spot. That makes no dent in the argument. And the fact that it comes from a trainee PhD student shows that the trainee is more in need of the education than we are.

        In the end, the alarmists really had to – needed to – move the ‘argument’ from ‘AGW’ to ‘CC’, because they needed to scare the populace (Alinsky 101): AGW can easily be argued as being subjective; CC can be made to be only argued objectively (oh sure) – and can then be extrapolated to, ‘crisis’ and then, ’emergency’. They (think they) know the way to move minds. Why else have they latched on to the formative minds of our young and developed such a propagandist approach to the need to ‘persuade’ them?

        My five-year-old grandson’s teacher has already, in a few short months, managed to get him to pronounce ‘h’ as ‘haitch’ (my teacher – back in the day – instilled in us that a headache required an aspirate – and an aspirin – but an ‘h’ did not). I doubt he (my grandson’s teacher will have much difficulty in making him believe in man-made climate-change. God help him if he does (the teacher, that is) as I shall make him aware of what a ‘denier’ is worth.

        I could go on… but her indoors…. 🙂

    • Tom, I have to raise my hand. I am a skeptic (I prefer climate realist) and I claim there is no abnormal warming. 2019 was the second coldest year on record per NOAA’s TMAX records, and the organic larger trend is down, both over the Holocene and currently since 2012.

  20. A number of years ago when the term global warming was being rebranded, many were thinking of interesting names to call it other than climate change. Somebody on WUWT suggested the term global rambunctiousness. I always thought this was a good term.
    Somebody on WUWT also suggested the theme song for the climate activist movement should be Oh Susanna. This song seems to cover all climate properties these activists could blame on climate change.

  21. From the article: “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.”

    I don’t think I would describe it as a “sophisticated cover-up”, rather it was more like “monkey see, monkey do”.

    The facts are, and I was there and read all these studies and comments down through the years from the Global Cooling fears in the 1970’s, to when it started to fade and Global Warming took its place as the climate started to warm from the 1980’s.

    From the 1980’s most climate scientists referred to the phenomenon as “Global Warming” (leaving out the “Human-caused for the most part, like they do today) and over time more and more of them started referring to it as “Climate Change” until now climate change is the universal usage (still leaving out the Human-caused part which they want to be assumed, as though there can be no doubt about what they are referring to even when they leave out the “human-caused”).

    First it was Global Cooling, then it was predominantly Global Warming and now its almost totally Climate Change. Those are the facts.

    • They are no longer restricting themselves to climate. There is a ” Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences (GCRI) http://www.czechglobe.cz/en/“. For some strange reason, Global Change is not as catchy as Climate Change.

    • Is it not galling, to hear some snot-nosed punk have the gall to call someone who is simply recounting recent well documented and real time events, a ‘theory’?
      The whole thought process of this miseducated child is faulty, rooted in a lifetime of being fed incoherent propaganda in school, and guided by an inane reliance on meme-ology for his pseudo-scientific ideations.
      He has no idea what he is talking about, and neither do many of the commenters on this thread.
      His entire world view is shaped by a filtered and miniscule awareness of reality, and reinforced by the leftist echo chamber he has inhabited his whole life.
      Anything he never heard in a class from a left wing zealot professor, or promulgated by the game news MSM, simply did not happen in his mind…it is a conspiracy theory.
      Only this mind set could conceive of recent conversations, that he knows nothing about, as a “theory”, rather than what they are…recent conversations that he knows nothing about.
      Perhaps most galling is someone getting a PhD by making simplistic generalizations regarding an entire planet full of people he has never met.
      He makes the old style Archie Bunker-type bigots, with their simple-minded prejudicial racist tropes, that were in the process of dying off when I was a kid, seem by comparison like broad-minded philanthropes, with nuanced opinions based on careful analysis by the well read and widely travelled.

  22. There is no evidence that ‘global warming’ was rebranded as ‘climate change’

    Huh? Moot point because “They” have rebranded it as “The Climate Crisis”
    Here’s the source:

    Transforming the media’s coverage of the climate crisis
    Columbia Journalism Review

  23. 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.

    There was a beloved horticulturalist who was on the radio every week. He was prominent at industry events. Any academics who did any industry outreach at all knew the guy on a first name basis. So, if you did horticulture within 200 miles of where I am, you have to know the guy’s name. In spite of that, I met a horticulture professor who had no clue who he was. She was a pure academic who did zero outreach. Her ivory tower had very thick walls.

    So, there’s the chance that the PhD candidate was just oblivious.

    On the other hand, I’m betting he was operating more like a lawyer than an academic. As Dr. Mann has amply demonstrated, the big bucks don’t go to scrupulous academics.

  24. More like a change in emphasis.

    But how is this ever the topic of a PhD study ? !!

    More like junk tabloid journalism.

  25. Perhaps Mr Corsi could do a second PhD on how ‘climate change’ came to be rebranded.
    “Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment
    From now, house style guide recommends terms such as ‘climate crisis’ and ‘global heating’”
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment
    The first thing I would note is that it is amazing what you can now do to get a PhD. If this is an example of what people are now able to do to get a PhD it rather undermines the status of a PhD.
    The second thing I would note is that the oversight of a candidate for a PhD is not exactly the most careful.
    The third thing is that academic standards at the University of Cambridge seem to have plummeted to the same level as the University of Knotty Ash.
    For anyone not familiar with the world-renowed University of Knotty Ash:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8479694.stm

  26. Clear as the nose on your face . . . the reasons that “global warming” WAS rebranded to “climate change”:
    AGW/CAGW alarmists needed the public to panic over the following whenever and wherever they occur
    — hurricanes and tornadoes
    — changes in polar jet steam/polar vortex (needed to account for extreme cold events)
    — floods
    — droughts
    — ocean “acidification”
    — deforestation/desertification (actually just the opposite has happened over the last 40 years)
    — species extinction
    — worldwide hunger
    — disease spread/epidemics/pandemics.

    You see, global warming itself and related global SLR was happening at just too slow of a pace to keep most people on Earth—especially politicians—concerned, and thus funding and publicity for AGW/CAGW alarmists was drying up after some 40 or so years. The alarmists desperately needed things that were much more immediate in order to maintain their funding, societal standing and power.

    AOC and Greta Thunberg are evidence that this rebranding has been successful to an extraordinary degree.

    • Gordon,

      All of these effects are based on the belief that maximum temps are going up and the Earth is going to turn into a cinder – all based on the *average* temperature going up. And an AVERAGE doesn’t tell you if the maximum temps are going up or if the minimum temps are going up. It is an UNFOUNDED assumption by the media, politicians, AGW alarmists, and even many climate scientists that the average going up means the maximum temps are going up.

      Minimum temps going up fit the observables on Earth far better than maximum temps going up – fewer hurricanes/tornadoes, fewer droughts, more green growth, record grain harvests year after year, longer growing seasons, and on and on and on!

      I will maintain my stance that heating/cooling degree-days, based on the integral of the 24 hour day rather than some kind of max and min temperature average, would be a far better subject for climate scientists to study and would provide a far better base for projecting future impacts of climate.

      But this will never happen because the panic spending by governments would quickly dry up!

  27. I notice they’re not discussing the Guardian’s hysterical re-branding of all-things climate-catastrophe.

    Global warming is now ‘global HEATING’. (An outrageous exaggeration for around 1C warming over more than 150 years)

    Climate change is now a ‘climate EMERGENCY, CRISIS or even BREAKDOWN. Give me f****** strength.

    This was all done because neither ‘global warming’ nor ‘climate change’ were gaining enough traction or – more pertinently, scaring enough of the masses or the children. Hence the egregious re-brand.

    This re-brand is on the bottom of the Guardian’s environment home page.

    • I think we need even more rebranding. Global heating? Pah! Try Global roasting! Global scorching!

      Climate “crises” just isn’t strong enough, either. What are you? Some kind of Denier? Look out the window! It’s clear we’re undergoing a Climate Holocaust!

  28. Yes, yes, yes, we’ve heard it a million times before. You’re NOT propagandizing. You’re NOT trying to brainwash us. You’re NOT even editorializing. You are ONLY giving us the exact, objective, unvarnished truth, using science… and computer climate models. AND if we don’t give up fossil fuels right now, all animal and plant life will die, the oceans will turn to acid, dogs and cats will be living together.

    Dumbasses.

  29. Being used together doesn’t mean rebranding didn’t take place. It doesn’t happen overnight. It doesn’t mean one word leaves the lexicon entirely.

    How stupid are these people?

  30. I read the original article and the graphs quite clearly showed the change in terminology around 2005. The only point they supported was that ‘climate change’ was in use beforehand. Not really a big deal – especially now the Guardian has now changed to ‘global heating’.

  31. Naomi Seibt also explains the bogus 97% of scientist survey the best and simplest way possible, and actually understands it. (The John Cook survey).

    I didn’t see a link (anywhere in the article) to this great interview. She gets more and more focused with her common sense and free thinking every new interview I see from her. This is also where she states that climate change rather than global warming is just a marketing & propaganda tool:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmWGunMPayA

    -JPP

    • “…she states that climate change rather than global warming is just a marketing & propaganda tool…”

      Actually, I saw that in one of her other interviews…

      JPP

  32. From the article: “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.”

    Good question. All the author would have to do is read through the Science News publications from 1974 to the present. It documents quite well how the language was used, from Global Cooling to Global Warming to Climate Change and how it changed.

    The use of Climate Change evolved over time and as you point out there was a concerted effort in 2005 to make climate change the official term, because, as you pointed out, the alarmists felt they had a PR problem with using Global Warming all the time, like when there is three feet of snow in Buffalo.

  33. It’s actually fun watching people trying desperately to make the claim the climate has to be static (variable only for seasonal changes) and declaring it’s our fault that it’s changing. Yet they can’t account for the past climate changes in the geological record.

    • When you point out much of the US was under a thick layer of year-round ice, a mere 18 thousand years ago, they’ll “argue” that humans have only been farming for 10. Or if you point out temperatures were far hotter, and CO2 levels far higher, throughout most of the planet’s 4+ billion year history, they’ll bring up the fact that humans have only been around 250,000 years.

      It’s almost impossible to argue with these people. The non-sequitors they come up with are gob-smacking.

  34. “Giulio Corsi, a Cambridge educated PHD candidate text mining expert,”

    A PhD for this highschool research! I’ve noted before, the explosion in PhDs in non scholarly subjects has destroyed formerly prestigious Universities like this one, Cambridge, where Sir Isaac Newton once held the Chair in Mathematics. I fear Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge and others in this bracket may have to be written off during the Great Reckoning after this global dumbing down is over. I believe creating new strong exclusive institutions one or a few at a time is the only way to right the ship of academia. Reforming would be too onerous a task.

  35. Cooling… warming… change. A progressive (e.g. catastrophic) processs. Undeniable. Unfalsifiable.

    Fortunately, the effects are observable, reproducible, and measurable, which mitigates the spread of the sociopolitical contagion.

  36. Perturbations are weather, not climate change, unless it’s a progressive (i.e. monotonic) process, which would be catastrophic.

  37. The “Global Warming” concept and that of “Climate Change” are – basically – two separate concepts; conflating the two has been both a cause of the aggressive debate and much of the confusion. That the concept of “human induced, C02 related warming” is, in essence, a valid argument is supportable, However, “Climate Change” should be considered an entirely different argument.
    Much of the argument for AGW would be valid only if all other factors involved in climate variability were effectively fixed and stable. This is very much not the case. If, as we may be seeing at the moment, the factors involved in “Climate Change” were significantly larger and more influential than atmospheric gasses, then the AGW argument may be leading us down a very dangerous path.
    We have seen the discussion related to the energy budget, and the assumption that lower level temperature rises as a result of AGW concepts while the same factors cause the upper levels cool.
    This assumption would imply that the decline in upper level temperatures would roughly parallel the rise in greenhouse gasses. Study of the Thermosphere Climate Index shows clearly that there is no such relationship. Indeed the graph shows exactly where the TCI variation comes from.
    Discussions in https://howtheatmosphereworks.wordpress.com/about/solar-activity-and-surface-climate/ and https://howtheatmosphereworks.wordpress.com/ap-index-historical-analysis/ are relevant.

  38. The Conversation is all geared up anyway to present this kind of stuff. That’s their “raison d’etre”

  39. And now, can we believe that Coronavirus is not a dress-rehearsal of how to control a world population to see if it can be manipulated when it comes to CC?
    Let logic prevail: If the countries of the world were, on a daily basis, reporting through their major news outlets, reporting on the deaths and contagions of ‘flu, or measles, or chickenpox, we could be worried, very worried. Yet the death-rate from Covid19 is not great, and the symptoms are not that bad, it seems. So why the panic????

    • According to the WHO the death rate is at least 30x higher than a bad seasonal flu, maybe even higher still if ICU beds run out.

    • I don’t know about the rest of the world, but here in the U.S. it is to try and cause the recession/depression they have been hoping for since the day Donald Trump was elected. The left doesn’t care about how many people on the bottom of the economic ladder die (ex: the ‘cure’ for ‘climate change’ would kill more people than ‘climate change would) they just want their world view forced on the rest of us.

    • Because it did not exist a few months ago and no one has any resistance to a new disease.
      No one wants to get the flu, let alone one that kills a few percent who get it, and let alone one that leaves many times more to suffer through weeks of awful pneumonia, hooked up to a breathing machine and struggling for breathe in a hospital room or ICU.
      But much of the panic is based on shelves being stripped bare by hoarders, plunging financial markets, wealth destruction, threat of recession, shortages of necessities, and uncertainty about what it means or where it is going.
      Right here we have had seemingly rational people who have for years rejected alarmism in the case of global warming, engaging in shameless rumor mongering and jackass alarmism themselves.
      The people claiming it is just a cold and nothing to worry about are little better.

  40. “it consisted of a fully fledged denial of any scientific evidence that the world was warming”

    A perfect example of gas lighting.
    Nobody ever denied that the planet has warmed up since the end of the little ice age. What we have been denying is the claim that CO2 was primarily to totally responsible for this warming.

  41. Climate Change(s) yes it does, so?. AGW caused by CO2 huh? where is the scientific proof?

  42. Giulio Corsi PhD Candidate, University of Cambridge is another Warmista trying to deny the facts that are as evident as the nose on your face. Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Crisis, is a clear and deliberate chain of propaganda evolutions as the facts like ‘the ‘Pause’ began biting at their heels.

  43. Climate alarmists do not scare me nearly as much as they scare some people. Their goal of transforming global society into a socialist paradise is unachievable precisely because it is so unrealistic. Bernie’s plan for the Green New Deal, for instance, would require tripling the US federal budget, and is simply impossible.

    My take is that with the end of the Cold War in 1991, they needed a new global existential threat to enflame the public, and global warming fit their needs to a T. Michael Mann’s 1998 hockey stick graph was, pardon the pun, Manna from heaven, and just as Trumpistas have latched on to the miraculous defeat of Hillary, so have the Statist control freaks latched on to Mann and his ilk.

    The problem they have made for themselves is that while the threat of nuclear winter was always potential, the climate is real and measurable, and they have been wrong for 20 years. When their models can’t even predict that previous 20 years, the public can mostly see right through them, and all they really get, aside from the scaredy-cats who need safe spaces with puppies and coloring books, is the long time Sierra Club crowd and gullible people who think chemistry is dangerous and sign petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Unfortunately, because climate is real and measurable, it won’t be more than a few years before they’ve worn out their adoring public and have to find a new global existential threat. Maybe it will be global cooling, maybe it will be ET signals, maybe it will be asteroids whizzing by. But it won’t be global warming, and if it is global cooling, they will have too much egg on their faces to be credible, besides which, the solution is a lot cheaper than anything they want.

    Yes, they can do some damage politically. But they are not the e

    • Felix, I agree that the recent cooldown is tearing their project apart. They are getting desperate, and going for emotional blackmail.

      It is likely the cooling will bottom out in about fifteen years, and temps will upswing again, all normal parts of the 35-year rocking motion. Hopefully, thirty-five years of cooldown, measured (as you pointed out), will have wrecked their chance to reignite Alarmism.

      Goodness knows what the next gambit will be.

  44. This is a good news article.
    The 19 year old has them rattled.(Anti Greta).
    It is time for a rebranding anyway.
    Climate Change is so milquetoast.
    A meaningless expression.
    As intelligent as stating “Water wet” as a profundity.
    Climate Change?
    Of course it does..and?

    Let us use Calamitous Climate.
    As in The Cult of Calamitous Climate.
    As this perfectly expresses the hysteria of the “concerned Ones”.
    Who are so concerned that they willfully ignore all known history and the scientific method.

    “Oh Susanna” is their theme song, but they are too ignorant of our past to even know of this fine ditty.
    And the Emperor’s New Clothes is their instruction manual,but that too is unknown to the marks.

    This stampede into hysteria ,in this case,was fully manufactured by our Bureaus and their media wing.
    But all stampedes must end.
    The Herd is tired.

  45. “Climate change” is such a broad term that it is innocuous. It would be like calling growth in children “height change.” It just doesn’t signify anything unusual or dire, and that’s why Climate Emergency is the new preferred term. But that one ain’t going to work either, because the word “emergency” suggests an event that is sudden, dramatic and harmful, when climate change is happening so slowly that it is imperceptible from decade to decade. Recall what the weather was like where you live in 2000. Now, has it changed in any way that you would notice in the last twenty years? No. If I wasn’t reading accounts of how badly the climate has changed in the last twenty years, I wouldn’t have noticed any changes on my own.

    I love (in a perverse way) those websites that tell good and concerned and wise people how to talk to people who deny climate change. Mostly they say, make it personal. You can’t make it personal in Edmonton, because nobody here has has been personally harmed by climate change so far.

  46. Who was this ‘Nick’ in the opening sentence of the climategate email, the man proposing the relabelling discussed. Well, there are a couple of ‘Nicks’ mentioned in other climategate emails. I would make this one the leading candidate.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Nuttall

    Climategate email 0848679780

  47. Evidence of Revision is a documentary well worth watching. In the fifth episode, the Jonestown Massacre is revealed as a CIA mind control experiment gone horribly wrong. Following that coverage, at 55:00, there is an exploration of mind control over the population in general. About five minutes further, 59:54, Frank Lutz is introduced as the most successful person at “importing the techniques and philosophy of market research into politics.” His clients were some of the most prominent Republican politicians of the time, including the mayoral campaign of Rudolph Giuliani (1993), and his collaboration with Gingrich on the “Contract with America” which ushered in a Republican revolution in Congress. Lutz is shown working with a focus group for a Florida utility company seeking public support for how it is regulated with respect to the environment. The documentary then goes on to show his successes by changing “estate tax” to “death tax”, by admonishing the Republican party to change “tax cuts” to “tax relief”, to replace the “war in Iraq” with the “war on terror”, and to speak of “climate change”, not “global warming.” The Republicans, the documentary explains, then began to use the term “climate change” almost exclusively.
    https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/evidence-of-revision/

Comments are closed.