“Global warming” wasn’t good enough because there wasn’t enough actual warming to the planet to get people interested in the issue, so they (the collective they of Al Gore and his disciples) started calling it “climate change.” But climate change isn’t getting the public excited, either. People say, to paraphrase, “the climate is always changing!” What to do. What to do. . .
“Climate disruption.” It’s the “New Coke” of science.
But this re-branding effort isn’t catching on either. We know this because they’ve been trying to get the media and the public to use the phrase to no avail.
For example, here’s ScienceInsider from May writing on Team Obama science adviser, John Holdren, and his effort to get people to start using climate disruption:
Let’s Call It ‘Climate Disruption,’ White House Science Adviser Suggests (Again)
Holdren has made similar calls before, apparently with limited effect on the public’s vocabulary. This time, the remarks came in the context of a brief preview Holdren gave of a new climate report that the Obama administration is scheduled to release next week. The document will, in part, spell out the potential disruptions the United States faces as a result of a changing climate, perhaps giving Holdren’s idea some currency.
But at the end of the day, the theory is still the same, whether they call it global warming, climate change or now, climate disruption. It’s summed up as humans, through their actions, play a larger role than natural variability alone in increasing the speed at which the planet warms.
These tweets sums up the alarmist strategy:
You would think there would be a global consensus, but there’s really not.