Why would they? Because “global warming” causes more fear than “climate change”
(NY Times) Many scientists have come to prefer the term “climate change†over “global warming.†Climate change is a broader term that encompasses not only the warming of the planet in recent years but also the rise of severe storms, droughts and damaging winds. The choice of terms has important implications for polling because Americans give different answers to questions depending on which is used.
According to a report by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication this week, the terms “are often not synonymous — they mean different things to different people, and activate different sets of beliefs, feelings, and behaviors.†While “climate change†makes many people think of general weather patterns — and natural fluctuations in temperature and precipitation — “global warming†tends to produce connotations of extreme weather.
When asked if climate change was a good or a bad thing, 63 percent of Americans said it was a bad thing, while 76 percent perceived global warming as a bad thing, a 13-point difference.
Of course, the big part here is that the study does not make any differentiation between anthropogenic and natural causation. Here’s how the question is position
On a scale for -3 (very bad) to +3 (very good), do you think (global warming/climate change) is a bad thing or a
good thing?
Only 33% found global warming to be very bad (-3), with 23% for climate change. What’s missing is a zero. I would find a flip to a cool period to be a -2. Human society has done much worse during cool periods than warm periods. Human society has done quite well during the Modern Warm Period, and during the Medieval Warm Period, which was warmer than today.
Essentially, this a study for Warmists, telling them to stop calling it “climate change” and go back to global warming. Of course, if they do that, they wouldn’t be able to Blame cold and snow on Mankind. It would significantly reduce their blamestorming abilities.
Unfortunately for Warmists, when it comes to Americans being concerned that either will harm them, most say “nope!”
Teach do you think that the Catholic Bishops that are speaking out about carbon pollution now also deserve to be called “warmists” ?
And have you noticed how the media have shifted to criticizing the deniers the past 6 months or so?
And note how Republicans are suddenly talking about global warming:
House Speaker John Boehner told a group of reporters on Thursday that he would not discuss climate change on the grounds that he, himself, was not a scientist.
“I’m not a scientist,†said Florida Governor Rick Scott last week, when asked if he thought man-made climate change was affecting the weather.
Rather than directly denying global warming, they now avoid offending their base while at the same time not sounding like the ignorati in public. Only the dimmest of bulbs deny the science of global warming, and the Repub pols know it. But they also know that the dimmest of bulbs comprises their base.
Jeff,
Keep the hate going. It is amazing to see you and John make comments and you can not answer one science related question. So keep hating.
I did have a question, if I invented a filter to attach to a coal plant or car and prevent the escape of CO2, would that mean that we could continue to use fossil fuels without resorting to the use of carbon credits and increased taxes?
The IPCC has always called it climate change. They formed in 1988 and IPCC stands for International Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE.
Some folks got scared and shied away from “global warming” when ignorati Brahmins such as the odious jimhoft over to the Gateway Pudenda, Marc Morono (Climate Dumphole) and Senator Inhoft (R-OK) starting mocking climate realists because it snowed in winter. “How can it be global warming if it still snows in December??”
I call it global warming because that’s what it is.
Despite Teach’s misleading graphics, the Earth is rapidly warming because the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased from 280 to 400 ppm, and there have been negligible cooling physical processes (volcanoes, dim Sun, aerosols) to offset it. It’s simple physics.
david,
If you invented a practical CO2 filter or a carbon capture/storage process to reduce carbon dioxide emissions we could indeed keep using coal, oil and gas until we use it up. We would have to figure out the form to store and where and how to store 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds of carbon dioxide each year (right now we store about half in the atmosphere and half in the oceans).
If you effectively find a way to filter or remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere the market will reward you with billions of dollars, the Nobel Committee will be calling and you will become a scientific hero that the world’s school children will read about for centuries.
Ask all the science questions you want and I’ll answer to the best of my ability. Note though that you don’t always accept my answers.
“The earth is rapidly warming..” Here we go again. Rapidly compared to what? J, you’ve been called on this many times yet you continue this “rapidly” BS. You have no comparable data to say it’s rapid or not. Sorry. CO2 increased from 280 to 400ppm.” And as that increased, the failed “predictions” by the astrologers increased also, so there seems to be a greater cause-effect relationship between CO2 and warmists making fools of themselves than CO2 and warming. “There have been negligible cooling processes to offset it.” How very scientific: The warming is from CO2 but the cooling is from natural processes. That”s not simple physics, that’s a hoax.
j,
Yes, simple physics. What can cause the Earth to warm? More heat input and less heat output. The Sun is the primary input and the Sun’s energy increases and decreases cyclically. “Wobbles” in the Earth’s orbit changing the distribution of the Sun’s energy is thought to trigger the shifts between glacial and interglacial periods. Atmospheric aerosols from volcanoes, asteroids smashing into Earth or from man’s activities can block some of the input. Ice reflects some of the Sun’s energy; this is referred to as the Earth’s albedo. The land and oceans absorb some of the Sun’s radiation and re-radiate it back to space. Greenhouse gases, such as water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide trap some of the re-radiated heat, warming the atmosphere, land and oceans.
The net effect of these physical processes is rapid warming, at this time.
Which is the only reason to even add a term to nature. For purely political reasons in order to influence and control people.
Kids,
Political history is replete with examples of using words and phrases to mobilize the masses by appealing to emotion. Whether you call them code words, propaganda, dog-whistle, loaded language – words and phrases such as death tax, death panels, tax scheme, cap and tax, welfare queen, lazy, blood for oil, cut and run, Bush lied – people died, job-killing, patriot, urban youth etc paint a picture in people’s minds that may influence their decisions differently than from an intellectual argument.
At least in this case, the term global warming is MORE precise than the alternative, climate change.
Here’s an interesting article concerning global warming vs. climate change phrases. To no one’s surprise, Frank Luntz is involved. From Mr. Luntz’s 2002 memo:
The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as “conservationist” instead of “environmentalist”, because “most people” think environmentalists are “extremists” who indulge in “some pretty bizarre behaviour… that turns off many voters”.
“A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth,” Mr Luntz notes in the memo.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
Not scary enough. I vote for “Flaming Capitalist Death Horror” or maybe “Choking Children Murder Gurgle.”