3 ms·

The irony is that the phrase "climate change" was actually pushed initially by a Republican advisor (Frank Luntz) as it was considered less frightening to the p

The irony is that the phrase "climate change" was actually pushed initially by a Republican advisor (Frank Luntz) as it was considered less frightening to the public than "global warming". The other irony is that this phrase was used a lot of few years back when many were claiming there was no warming going on by cherry picking the 1998 El Nino spike as a starting point for temperature graphs. Then the argument was - there is no warming, so the alarmists have stopped using the term "global warming". Of course with recent warming this particular cherry picked argument has fallen apart, but for some reason the meme persists. I don't think the people who use the phrase even think about what they are saying. It is just part of the Gish Gallop that gets thrown out where number of words makes up for lack of solid argument (initial post that used this phrase up above being a perfect example of this)

philipkglass 8y ago
The irony is that the phrase "climate change" was actually pushed initially by a Republican advisor (Frank Luntz) as it was considered less frightening to the public than "global warming". Academic publications were using the phrase "climate change" to discuss the warming effects well before Frank Luntz. He may have been important to putting that phrase in front of the general public, but "climate change" isn't a euphemism invented by PR hacks. The foremost summary assessments are assembled by the IPCC -- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose first report came out in 1990. Here are publications from 1980 and 1970 also using the phrase to discuss warming phenomena. "On the Distribution of Climate Change Resulting From an Increase in CO2 Content of the Atmosphere", Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, January 1980 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281980%29037%3C0099%3AOTDOCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%28198... "Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 1970 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC283289/?page=1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC283289/?page=1
- martinpw 8y ago
  I don't think we are disagreeing. I'm just pointing out that the phrase was deliberately pushed out into the wider public discourse for specific political motivations, and it is ironic that this phrase is now being used by those same political forces to cast aspersions on scientists.
  - philipkglass 8y ago
    It appears that I was trying to correct a misconception you do not actually hold. I've seen apparently well meaning people claim that "global warming" was rebranded "climate change" by Frank Luntz to make it sound less scary, while both terms have been in widespread use among scientists since before the issue became widely known among the public.
    - canhascodez 8y ago
      Yes, but more to the point, they are not synonymous except in very recent history. Theories of climate change were needed to explain evidence of the Ice Age long before anyone thought that warming was a concern, back in the early 19th Century. The evidence that climate could change was also generally distinct from the evidence which established that CO2 could change the climate. Global warming is a subset or result of climate change.

philipkglass 8y ago

The irony is that the phrase "climate change" was actually pushed initially by a Republican advisor (Frank Luntz) as it was considered less frightening to the public than "global warming". Academic publications were using the phrase "climate change" to discuss the warming effects well before Frank Luntz. He may have been important to putting that phrase in front of the general public, but "climate change" isn't a euphemism invented by PR hacks. The foremost summary assessments are assembled by the IPCC -- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose first report came out in 1990. Here are publications from 1980 and 1970 also using the phrase to discuss warming phenomena. "On the Distribution of Climate Change Resulting From an Increase in CO2 Content of the Atmosphere", Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, January 1980 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281980%29037%3C0099%3AOTDOCC%3E2.0.CO%3B2 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%28198... "Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 1970 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC283289/?page=1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC283289/?page=1

martinpw 8y ago
I don't think we are disagreeing. I'm just pointing out that the phrase was deliberately pushed out into the wider public discourse for specific political motivations, and it is ironic that this phrase is now being used by those same political forces to cast aspersions on scientists.
- philipkglass 8y ago
  It appears that I was trying to correct a misconception you do not actually hold. I've seen apparently well meaning people claim that "global warming" was rebranded "climate change" by Frank Luntz to make it sound less scary, while both terms have been in widespread use among scientists since before the issue became widely known among the public.
  - canhascodez 8y ago
    Yes, but more to the point, they are not synonymous except in very recent history. Theories of climate change were needed to explain evidence of the Ice Age long before anyone thought that warming was a concern, back in the early 19th Century. The evidence that climate could change was also generally distinct from the evidence which established that CO2 could change the climate. Global warming is a subset or result of climate change.