Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Grist discussing the rise of “climate change” over “global warming”, because the term “global warming” was too confusing for people experiencing cold weather.
Report: Nobody talks about ‘global warming’ anymore
By Kate Yoder on Mar 4, 2021
Big news: Global warming is over. Just the phrase itself, though.
A new report shows how differently people talk about climate change from how they did 10 years ago. Researchers at BayWa r.e., a German renewable energy company, scoured 1.3 trillion tweets, Reddit posts, news articles, and other publicly available sources, along with Google search data. They found that searches for global warming, once the most common phrase for our overheating planet, are down 73 percent since 2010. The older expression is simply going out of fashion. Climate change began to outpace global warming around 2015, and the newly popular climate crisis might someday catch up if current trends continue. It’s another sign, researchers say, that the public is beginning to grasp the magnitude of the problem.
…
“Global warming can potentially be confusing for people, because while the warming happens at a global level, “there’s obviously local extreme weather dynamics that don’t always correlate with warming,” said Emma Frances Bloomfield, an assistant professor of communication at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She pointed to the freak winter storm in Texas last month: Some scientists say that warming patterns in the Arctic are sending frigid polar air south more often, leading to periods of extreme cold in parts of the United States.
…
Although climate change might not be consuming our conversation as much as it was in 2019, Bloomfield is encouraged by the connections people are making between the pandemic and the planetary crisis. The report found that the most popular news articles about climate change last year linked it with the pandemic — showing how carbon emissions dipped during the lockdowns last year, for instance, or how preserving forests could help stop the next pandemic.
Read more: https://grist.org/climate/report-nobody-talks-about-global-warming-anymore/
Why is it necessary to manage expectations this way? Thanks to vigorous scientific adjustments, temperature series like Hadcrut are warming faster than ever. Global warming should be obvious to everyone, through the lack of snow.
Faux crises everywhere! Panic.
“… Emma Frances Bloomfield, an assistant professor of communication at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She pointed to the freak winter storm in Texas last month …“
A ‘professor of communication’. OK. “Freak winter storm”?? There was nothing ‘freak’ about it, it’s happened before, and it will happen again.
Search “Blue Norther“. Among others, the National Weather Service article on the 1911 storm is well worth reading.
(I no longer use the “G” word as a substitute for “search”.)
My friend Will Happer’s recent lecture.
HOW TO THINK ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE | William Happer Feb 24, 2021
Fair Warning Notice to Warmist Trolls:
Don’t bother arguing with Will Happer’s treatise – he is infinitely more intelligent and better educated than you – you will only harm yourselves.
Also at Hillsdale College last week is Scott Atlas. He describes the reactions to his joining the ‘PANIC ‘ team in Washington – he was forced out a few weeks later because he didn’t get with the program.
An excellent, strong video by Dr Scott Atlas – thank you Fran.
Scott Atlas is correct! The Covid-19 lockdown has done far more harm than the Covid-19 illness, and will continue to do harm for decades.
I published the correct analysis and the proper path forward for Covid-19 on 21&22 March 2020. After one year, it remains the correct call:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/21/to-save-our-economy-roll-out-antibody-testing-alongside-the-active-virus-testing/#comment-2943724
21Mar2020
LET’S CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH:
Isolate people over sixty-five and those with poor immune systems and return to business-as-usual for people under sixty-five.
This will allow “herd immunity” to develop much sooner and older people will thus be more protected AND THE ECONOMY WON’T CRASH.
https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2020/03/21/end-the-american-lockdown/comment-page-1/#comment-12253
22Mar202022Mar2020
This full-lockdown scenario is especially hurting service sector businesses and their minimum-wage employees – young people are telling me they are “financially under the bus”. The young are being destroyed to protect us over-65’s. A far better solution is to get them back to work and let us oldies keep our distance, and get “herd immunity” established ASAP – in months not years. Then we will all be safe again.
“Global warming can potentially be confusing for people, because”, it exists only in the many adjustments to the Climate Record and not at all in reality or in observation.
I wouldn’t mind a bit of that global warming around here. It was minus 60 here last night blah, blah, blah.
Welcome to Agnotology central.
The 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 hottest years in the history of everything have been in the last few… blah blah blah
Welcome to agnotology central.
You certainly are Agnotology central.
You are IGNORANCE PERSONIFIED, loy-dodo
All we get from you is blah, blah, and more blah.
Never anything to do with science
What’s global warming without warming.
A confidence artifice.
A means to deceive others for profit and power.
Loydo is clearly running out of road.
“Global warming can potentially be confusing for people, because while the warming happens at a global level, “there’s obviously local extreme weather dynamics that don’t always correlate with warming,” said Emma Frances Bloomfield, an assistant professor of communication at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She pointed to the freak winter storm in Texas last month
Soryy, all said
The trouble with ‘climate change’ is that (as best as I can tell) it isn’t really changing at any great rate of knots, or if it is, it’s in a good way.
E.g. slight downwards trend in major storms, slightly warmer minimum temperatures, arctic refusing to melt as ordered.
Is there any part of the climate that’s changing in a bad way?
Are changing arctic patterns really sending frigid air southward more often? Those are big claims (arctic patterns are changing, and that frigid air is sent southward more ofren). Are they true? If true, did humans cause the changes?
Acid Rain, The Ozone Hole, Global Warming, Nuclear Winter, Climate Change, The Climate Crisis, Climate Emergency etc. George Orwell got it right:
Besides that, Orwell also used the Wind Mill to illustrate the boondoggles that dictators use the create the illusion of progress.
“Some scientists say that warming patterns in the arctic are sending frigid polar air south more often, leading to periods of extreme cold in parts of the United States.
Pegs the bogosity meter. Extreme cold weather spells in Texas happen every 5 – 15 years and have over all of recorded history. Here’s a summary of the many cold spells that have happened in central Texas going back four decades.
https://www.fox7austin.com/weather/a-look-back-at-the-past-times-the-arctic-came-to-texas
As the Arctic is warming, should we expect to see polar bears and caribou migrating south to stay in the frigid zone? The Snowy Owl has already made the transition it seems:
Snowy owl seen in Central Park after 130 years, a rare spotting of an ‘unpredictable’ Arctic bird
https://sports.yahoo.com/snowy-owl-seen-central-park-100014714.html
And if the Earth keeps heating at the pace predicted by models, we could be facing permafrost in Central Park. (yikes)
Ski trips to Madagascar
Go back further;
https://www.weather.gov/maf/The_Coldest_Night_in_Texas
“This cold air spread throughout the state with reports of a thin layer of ice coating most of Galveston Bay.”
I reckon that all didn’t come from the opposite direction of the Arctic.
why let facts get in the way of a good computer model… ummm, I mean argument… errr, just believe me… I’m a scientist
“Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphereAbstractA method and apparatus for altering at least one selected region which normally exists above the earth’s surface. The region is excited by electron cyclotron resonance heating to thereby increase its charged particle density. In one embodiment, circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation is transmitted upward in a direction substantially parallel to and along a field line which extends through the region of plasma to be altered. The radiation is transmitted at a frequency which excites electron cyclotron resonance to heat and accelerate the charged particles. This increase in energy can cause ionization of neutral particles which are then absorbed as part of the region thereby increasing the charged particle density of the region.”
US4686605A – Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere – Google Patents
they used HAARP to form a plasma spot in the ionosphere some time back, they were pleased n bragging.
so it IS possible to disturb smallish areas dunno about big ones? how much would you need to upset to get a noticeable effect I wonder?
Who ever “believes” AMO exists, let you say by Mann, it doesn’t. 😀
But Judith Curry shows where the hammer is hangig
A rebuttal with quality 😀
Associate professor of communications. Real climate expert, NOT.
The real climate communications failure is that of many now failed past predictions. More hurricanes. Nope. Stronger hurricanes. Nope. Children won’t know snow. Nope. Arctic ice free by (several years, all now in the past, leading to 1million square km of Arctic sea ice being named a Wadham in honor of the UK idiot who madethe since falsified predictions). Grids thrive on more wind—until Texas ERCOT in February 2021. Renewables only needed subsidies to get started. Nope. Polar bears driven to extinction by lack of Wadhams. Nope. Heat wave crop failures. Nope—greening. And on and on.
Changing terminology does not salvage failed predictions if you have a terminology translator called recent history, where the internet is indelible.
Nature has a legacy of throwing curve balls in a very limited frame of reference. Up high, down low, gee your slow.
The climate scammers predicted that many extreme high temperature records would be set. What happened? The 1930s remains as the decade with the most high temperature records, by a huge margin (in the U.S. with the most extensive set of temperature measurements). Not a crisis.
The climate scammers predicted extreme droughts at some places in the U.S., even permanent droughts. What happened? The U.S. drought index has actually IMPROVED in the last 50 years. Some dishonest climate fear mongers would want you to believe that there were no droughts before “Climate Change”. Not true, there were droughts in the past far worse than recent ones. Read “The Worst Hard Time” about the Dust Bowl years in the Southwest and Midwest in the 1930s. Think maybe the book is a recent fabrication? Read John Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” written in 1939. Not a crisis.
The scammers (James Hansen, Al Gore) predicted that Florida and Manhattan would be soon be under water. What happened? The sea level has been rising steadily since 1860 – the start of reliable tidal gauge data. The sea level has risen since 1920 about 6 to 8 inches (in a CENTURY). Since the Manhattan prediction was made in 1988, the ocean has risen less than 3 inches. Only 10 to 50 feet to go. Not a crisis.
The scammers predicted an accelerating global temperature rise. What happened? The global temperature rise is proceeding at the rate that it was from 1920 to 1940. Not a crisis.
The scammers predicted Antarctica would melt. What happened? NASA/GISS determined that most of Antarctica is gaining ice. It’s only the Western Peninsula that is losing ice. Not a crisis.
“The 1930s remains as the decade with the most high temperature records …” Only in the non-homogenized records.
To most of the Intellectual Yet Idiots, they simply have completely bought into the “Settled Science” crap hook, line, and sinker. They have so little real science, maths, or engineering education that they can’t critically evaluate claims made by climate pseudoscientists making politicized science claims.
As such, IYI’s like Ms Bloomfield simply perceive the failure to adequate “climate action” policies as a marketing-style failure, one that “better” communications (more money) can fix. In that view, they think just they need to up their marketing and communications game. Now we’ve got a Climate Czar in the White House in the form of the ignoramus John Kerry who has never been right on any public policy in his entire life
Although some now have completely abandoned the “convince the public” marketing approach on the climate policy scam and have decided to go full-on Marxist totalitarian cram-down using Cancel culture tools now being used across our society on everything from Climate Change to Covid to Dr Suess teaching our children time-tested values for 60 years.
Guess the only way to tell if your propaganda is working is to find a way to measure it. This is how “climate communicators” justify their jobs and salaries.
Don’t forget the “climate refugees” that were supposed to overrun us by now. Like most of their failed predictions, they just repackage them to occur at some decade in the future.
“Climate crisis could displace 1.2 billion people by 2050, report warns”
Good grief.
“Emma Frances Bloomfield, an assistant professor of communication at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas”
It’s all about getting the message across, driven by people who are quite possibly incapable (and definitely unwilling) of understanding that there is valid criticism of the “science” behind the message.
The very existence of a “professor of communication” is highly objectionable. It’s a sign that the 18th century Enlightenment has just about run its course.
Even more objectionable (to those of us who think that the general public should be given the information they need to make up their own minds about anything), is the existence of “professors of climate change communication”. There are apparently only two of these evil monsters out there, and their names are Edward Maibach and Nathan Geiger.
Josef Goebbels did an amazingly effective job of propaganda in his time. How much more effective would he have been with university departments, researchers and professors advising him on techniques to refine and perfect his lies?
To them, Climate Change inaction is merely a marketing failure that can be corrected with more resources dedicated to communications and marketing. Selling the public on a defective product (climate change alarmism) in an artifice is the game at play here by the climate scammers.
Smart Rock, you put it well. I strongly believe we are moving into a second dark age of sorts. With information now being edited, censored, or completely memory-holed, to fit a certain narrative, I can only see us moving into a new dark age. And just like the last dark age, the vast majority of the world will suffer while the oligarchs, dictators, presidents, bureaucrats, and social elites live in decadence.
Be of good cheer. The dark ages didn’t have Guttenberg for printed books or the internet and WUWT. Worked then, not now.
My brother and I stopped at a gas station in Oregon, where attendants must pump the gas, and as we were talking about global warming, the attendant chimed in “sometimes global warming makes it colder”. Wow, I’m guessing he is the CEO of the company by now. Or maybe not.
The dumbing down of middle America with “common core” and public education is well underway.
None of the elites, people we used to call limousine liberals, these are the people who look down and sneer on most of America as “deplorable” and neanderthals, send their kids to public schools.
According to the IPCC Special Report on Extremes (SREX 2018) Table 3.1, there has not been an increase in the frequency of severity of extreme weather. Other sources claim a slight decrease in the total cyclonic energy of hurricanes and a slightly declining trend in the number of F3+ tornadoes in the US since 1950. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf
” Conclusions We have studied phenomena initiated by the action of powerful HF radio waves at Tromsù in the nightside auroral Es region during the magnetospheric substorm on 17 February, 1996. The analysis is based on experimental data from distance-diagnostic HF tools located in St. Petersburg. Doppler measurements of HF diagnostic signals were carried out on the London ± Tromsù ± St. Petersburg path using a ®xed operating frequency of 12095 kHz. Furthermore, multi-instrument data from Tromsù dynasonde, IMAGE magnetometer network, EISCAT incoherent scatter radar, were used.”
Geophysical phenomena during an ionospheric modification experiment at Tromsø, Norway (archives-ouvertes.fr)
A viable theory in the laboratory; but, outside the ensemble of models, Nature is in denial. Their climate statistics are more filling, a veritable color judgment, less content, less principle. A consensus poser in the scientific logical domain.
Scientists say and their numerous studies have shown that humans are doing something or other to the weather because … the modern world. They’re not altogether sure what it is or what to call it but they know it’s bad and likely getting worse. Most of all they know it’s our fault and we must stop doing whatever we’re doing that caused it.
WE ARE HAVING A FULL BLOWN CLIMATE EMERGENCY…..and the Chinese are still Zucking around with viruses in Wuhan…..and Joey Biden sez Neanderthals are not thinking for him. Joey sez open that border and give us your criminals…your diseased…your demrat voters.
The idea that the temperature of the planet can be reduced to a single value is ludicrous.
Totally agree.
The notion of averaging temperatures across climate zones, land / ocean, seasons, daytime / nightime, prevailing weather, irregularly placed recorders, etc etc to come up with one number is arrant nonsense.
What’s even more nonsensical is rendering this number to hundredths of one degree C.
It’s as farcical as this piss-take:
I wonder if anyone not paid to find Climate Change really believes this nonsense anymore.
It is a wonderful
virtuousfraudulent cycle. Models predict warming; homogenisation produces warming trend; models adjusted to cooler past; models produce faster warming and so on it goes. Meanwhile Jane and Joe Average see things much as they were a decade or two ago.I did the attached chart yesterday mainly to highlight the UAH bias. The Nino34 region cannot be warming because we are in La Nina right now. Interestingly the Australian ACCESS1 climate model indicates that there could not have been any El Ninos in the 1980s ad 1990s because they have the Nino34 region permanently in the La Nina region in their hindcast. That is how they eek out a 2.5C/century rise in the region – same old story, cool the past.
The NOAA/NCEP record has the region spot on because it calibrates against the moored buoys; just a very slight cooling trend that would be a function of when the trend commenced.
UAH LTT could always argue that they are not looking at the surface and there is something happening at altitude that does not relate to the surface but I bet it is a calibration bias. Version 7 may fix it. UAH funding would like dry up if they found no warming! RSS did the “virtuous” thing and adjusted upward for V4 – that will help with funding.
UAH and NCEP are both zero trend within any margin of measurement error.
Only the slight bulge through 2015-2017 El Nino is giving UAH a positive trend.
Give it a few months and the current near-zero trend will be back to zero.
UAH is far less variable than NCEP, why aren’t you commenting on that ?
The well recognised major El Nino events are clearly visible in the NCEP data as it is with the buoys in that region. The UAH LTT does not show clear El Nino temperature increases and it has only just gone low enough to indicate La Nina conditions when the La Nina has been present since the middle of 2021.
UAH LTT has little relevance to conditions on the surface.
NCEP provides a good representation of the region – zero trend and peaks coinciding with El Nino events.
Calving = bad. Glacial retreat = bad. Too much snow = climate change – bad. Not enough snow = climate change – bad.
“Global Warming” can be confusing for journalists who insist that you can just look out the window and see the effects on a 100 degree day, with no qualifications about it would have only been 99 if not for a100 ppm rise in CO2 in the past 60 years rather stinking hot days are more common.
Where was the ear bashing of these shills for Big Green?
Every extreme cold event highlights, as it should, that you are hugely dependent on faith in people who
rather than is also evidence of climate change.
WARMING is the theory. Stop changing the name because the theory is a failure.
The conjecture was falsified years ago … so they gave it a promotion to hypothesis, but that too was falsified, so it got another promotion to full “theory” complete with the equivocal term “climate change”, which is nothing but a tautology. However, as you say, it’s still false, whatever names they throw at it. Their whole approach is laughably simplistic and useful only for politics, not science.
Just so I can’t be called a denier … climate change is not a theory; it’s an observable fact. It’s just that there is no evidence that humans are causing any.
Climate Change is synonymous with Burning Fossil Fuels. It has long passed any sensible consideration of climate.
Climate Change will no longer exist when humans stop burning fossil fuels – proving harder to achieve than simply wishing it were so.
Except, humans are unlikely to stop burning fossil fuels any time soon. They’re just far too ‘packed full of goodness’. Anyone who believes “CC” has anything to do with ending their use is simple minded. The intent is merely to push prices up beyond what the free market can manage. There really isn’t any shortage of the stuff.
Notice the first thing that happened to oil prices when O’Biden was installed and his handlers signed the US back on to the Paris Accord. Trump wasn’t playing by the rules and had to be put in his place.
forget denial, where has the climate changed? If anyone can tell me where or how the climate has changed (other than politically) I would believe it
On the short term (like human lifetimes), I doubt anyone has found any change. There has certainly been a change since the little ice age to the present. Viewing the Holocene in toto, the various warm and cold periods indicate change. The default condition of this planet’s numerous climates is change. Most of the metrics used to sell “climate change” to the public are just nonsense and pretend science. This planet has no “climate” and averaging temperatures is pointless,
The purveyors of AGW have convinced their supporters and true believers that they are experiencing “climate change” every time they notice some unusual weather.
A question I’ve posed many times to Warmunists: how would you falsify the hypothesis that increased atmospheric CO2 causes temperatures to rise? So far, I have never had a coherent reply. In fact these people look uncomfortable and shifty because it exposes the vacuity of their beliefs.
I have a simpler question:
Show me ONE study that MEASURES temperature change due to CO2.
There are NONE>
It’s what can be and I’m sure has been called ‘Opium For The Masses‘
A Thing that makes its consumers feel better within themselves. A distraction from otherwise humdrum and meaningless lives.
Very very much like the distractions we already use in huge amounts, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, cannabis and, sending big hugs & kisses to Ancel Keys, Comfort Food.
But especially and as seen on UK TV most early-evenings, the Soap Operas.
Visions of dysfunctional characters going round in perfect circles doing nothing more than bad-mouthing, and generally constantly slagging each other off.
In a Public House more often than not.
Hugely popular. Read= addictive.
Esp with the female of the species
Enter Emma Frances Bloomfield
Quite effectively and absolutely really, a commentator on soap opera
It’s nice that we can afford such things
Problem is, nutrient deficient minds, bodies & brains artificially made ‘hyper’ while stimulated with the above mentioned drugs, are confusing the soaps with reality
Edit:
Oooh, nearly forgot: Video Games = another very potent ‘feel better’ drug…
And all running on ‘Computers’
The more ‘super’ the better.
Sound familiar?
Another reason GW was replaced by CC is that GW is in theory a measurable quantity but CC is dimensionless. CC came into vogue at the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 when the pause in the rate of GW could not be ignored or hidden. So CC has no units that can be measured and so is perfect to describe any change as being dangerous. But how does rising CO2 cause CC if it is not causing GW?
“local weather dynamics don’t always correlate with global warming”
That’s because the warming is not global.
Making a pretty line on a graph with “global average temperature” on the label doesn’t mean “global warming”. It means someone made a meaningless number.
The term ‘Global warming’ can be confusing, yes. Especially when the weather isn’t warming and correlation between CO2 and temperature increase only exists in fraudulent data sets.
No, it’s a sign the watermelons are doing a good job of managing the conversation
#Newspeak #Doublethink
How the hell do they get away with this sh@t?
We are about to fall off a very high economic cliff, and they want me to worry about warmth?
Miss Bloomfield shouldd go back to the drawing board and ask herself why it is that people tend to note what is really happening to them instead of believing what some pundit tells them is happening to them.
In other words:
Worst case global warming is 3° in 100 hundred years.
Usual variation weather is 30° between each year.
As the impact of weather is 10 times greater and hundred times faster we needed to confuse climate and weather.
Otherwise people would just adapt like we always have done and no-one would notice the petty problem we are campaigning on.
Global warming is confusing because it’s globally hot and locally cold ??
I stopped reading when I got to “our overheating planet”.
Marketing 101: “Don’t sell the steak, sell the sizzle”.
In marketing the Climate snakeoil, “the sizzle” is all about emotionalism, and they have a panoply of human emotions from which to choose: Fear, of course is the biggie, Guilt is probably next, then Anger, then Sadness, and so on. The trick is to avoid Climate Burnout, and Hopelessness (“we’re doomed no matter what, so why bother”?). Language is key. For that, they need to continually up the ante, so that we now have “Climate Crisis”. Perhaps they could try “Climate Catastrophe” next, but I think they’ve about reached a pinnacle there. “Climate Armageddon”, or Climate Annihilation” perhaps.
I really think it behooves all of us to try and help them with their marketing campaign, as it doesn’t seem to be working anymore. After all, where would we Skeptics/Climate Realists be without the Believers?
There is no global warming.People should stop inventing scary stories,cause that’s what they are.They are not predictions,but a scary story like in disaster movies.Life is short enough as it is.I don’t understand people wasting their time with “predictions”.They have been wrong time and time again.If you want to live your life in perpetual fear,because of invented scenarios,and what eventually could or might happen.Then you are truly wasting your precious time on this world.
To sum up: If warm air stays south and cold air stays north, the global average temp goes up; and if warm air moves north and cold air moves south, the global average temp goes up. Call it “climate change” so as to not confuse the masses.
Once again, climate communications fills the gaps in climate science.
The reason the term “Global Warming” was adopted in the first place was to differentiate it from completely natural and never-ending climate change.
They’ve gone full circle and can’t quite figure out why their messaging isn’t working.
When you have to continually “reframe” and rename in order to make your position seem legitimate and relevant, you lose credibility with people who expect straight talk and facts.
Especially with old people like me who still remember all the faux crises of the past the left tried to exploit to gather and maintain power over us.
So … because the Arctic is warming it’s driving frigid polar air south?
If the Artic is warming, where’s the frigid air coming from?
Do they believe that this frigid air is perpetual? It is something like an ice cube that never melts? It just gets shoved around by warmer water?