“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. . .
UN Chief: ‘I don’t use the term climate change – I think the more accurate term is climate disruption’ http://t.co/whQ891rjBE
— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) September 23, 2014
“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)
The kicker:
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.
Recommended
These tweets sums up the alarmist strategy:
@ClimateDepot Just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks at this point, eh?
— Snake Plisskenish (@_CrotalusAtrox_) September 23, 2014
@ClimateDepot @southsalem Since Climate Change is inevitable they had to come up with some new rhetorical rubbish.
— Steven Oracle (@TheStevenOracle) September 23, 2014
One would think with such a global consensus there wouldn't be this need for constant readjustment of definition.@ClimateDepot
— Brad Slager: aka Wuhan Solo (@MartiniShark) September 23, 2014
You would think there would be a global consensus, but there’s really not.
Related:
‘At this rate’: Bette Midler envisions location of Summer Olympics due to ‘climate change’
‘Not a cult’: Fasting for the ‘climate change crisis’ [pics]
Join the conversation as a VIP Member