So, which is it; Global Warming, Climate Disruption or Climate Change?

We had nearly two decades worth of propaganda telling us we were the cause of the planet warming up and unless we stopped emitting carbon, we were all going to burn up in the looming thermogeddon. This scare was branded Global Warming and gradually entered the popular consciousness. People naturally got a bit concerned about this, especially as there were what seemed respectable scientists backing up this assertion but a snag developed. The snag of course was the warming was neither global nor particularly warm and indeed, it had already stopped about a decade ago, just before the turn of the century.

This was a presentation problem and was addressed by the classic propaganda technique of ignoring the facts and keep pushing the message. If you repeat anything enough times, from all media outlets and with government backed authority, people will believe it or act as if they do, especially if you can suppress any dissenting voices. In the old days, when you had complete control of the television, wireless and papers, this always worked. Give informed people false facts and they will come to false conclusions. When there’s apparently no controversy over the facts or their implication, people tend to accept those facts as presented without looking into things for themselves. They are, in effect, trusting in a more informed and authoritative opinion.

People do this not because they are lazy but because they have to. We all have to make trust decisions every day and a lot of them are life or death trust decisions, though we seldom realise this. When we cross a bridge or enter a building, we trust it was designed and built safely. When we board an aeroplane, we trust the crew and air traffic controllers with our life. When you eat a snack you’ve just bought, you’re trusting that you won’t get food poison. Trust is the basis of cooperation and cooperation is the essential behaviour which enables any society to exist, never mind to function. If we all suddenly decided to trust nothing and nobody, civilisation around the world would collapse in a day. Trust is so pervasive, it’s invisible.

We trust most things in our life without even thinking about them and all propaganda relies on the ruthless exploitation of this habit of trust.

The problem alarmist propaganda encountered in the last decade was the emergence of the internet as a commonly accessible information outlet because the content couldn’t be controlled. It became the only platform where the misinformation could be confronted and the contrary facts and conclusions could be presented, not only within a country, but across the entire world. In the context of global warming, a small cottage industry grew up in the blogosphere to confront the misinformation and spin being presented.

I’ve said in a previous piece here that the blogosphere is not a mass opinion former at its current stage of development, so by implication its nascent opposition to global warming could have been ignored by the propaganda machine but it very definitely wasn’t. Why was this?

Environmentalism in my opinion has become a totalitarian and anti-human movement. I used to be an environmentalist and still care about the environment but the political implications and effects of what environmentalism has come to stand for, offend pretty much every one of my democratic and humanitarian principles. The zealots of any totalitarian movement are fanatics who have the characteristic fanatic’s obsession with total acceptance by everyone else of their beliefs. There can be no exceptions and no opposition. None at all. It’s not good enough that seventy or eighty percent of people do as they say, it always has to be one hundred percent. As I said in a previous piece here, they can never stop. It is their greatest strength and their greatest weakness.

Their reaction to the skeptical blogosphere is a stark example of their greatest strength turning into their greatest weakness; they simply had to close down the last bit of opposition, even if it wasn’t significantly influential on the population at large. Despite their best and most vicious efforts, they couldn’t silence or marginalise it and those efforts not only bred a more robust skeptical community but actually helped it grow. They focused so much effort on the blogosphere that they began to change the propaganda memes in response to its criticisms when they really didn’t need to do anything. In the blogosphere, the whole idea of global warming had become a laughable piece of propaganda, defended only by assorted treehuggers and fanatics but it was still a common belief of the general public, who at that stage had not yet become distrustful of them.

They decided to move the goal posts. Since global warming was inconveniently not happening, they quite openly rebranded the scare to Climate Disruption but somehow this name didn’t stick and this was probably because the “disruption” bit of the name implied a disruption of the normal pattern of climate, which might involve proving some sort of disruption was actually occurring, never mind having to define what normality meant in terms of climate.

In response, it was relaunched yet again as Climate Change. This had the great advantage that nothing had to be proved as climate changes all the time, so the thinking was the scare would be pretty bullet proof from the skeptics. The politicians, scientists, advocacy groups, media and the moneymen, smoothly switched over from talking about global warming, to talking about climate change instead. They didn’t miss a beat. 

Another advantage it had from a propaganda viewpoint, was that any extreme weather could be pointed to and declared to be a sign of climate change. When it suits the alarmists, climate and weather have a habit of being subtly interchangeable but only when it suits the message. The last three brutal Winters we’ve had were just dismissed as weather. If, on the other hand, they had been unseasonably warm, then that would have been climate.

The skeptic community should never use the term climate change for a number of reasons but the big one is that the rebranding of Global Warming to Climate Change was a huge mistake by the alarmists and they should be reminded of it at every opportunity.

It was a public admission that there was never anything to the supposed threat of the world warming uncontrollably so, in the absence of it failing to materialise, they had to change the threat. I like to remind them of that every time I write a piece or someone in company takes it upon themselves to lecture me about climate change. That highly enjoyable conversation usually runs along the lines of the following –

When you say climate change, do you actually mean global warming? Well no, erm actually global warming is just part of climate change, you see! So the twenty years of dire warnings about global warming was all wrong then? Well, no, it’s just that scientists understand climate better nowadays. But they thought they understood it for twenty years, what confidence should we have that they understand it any better now? But I want to talk about climate change. Well, as you seem to be admitting global warming was a false alarm, why should I get all concerned about climate change? etc etc.

Socrates would be proud. It’s the sort of conversation you can vary to your heart’s desire, just as long as you don’t let them off the global warming hook. Keep dragging it back to that and they either splutter to a halt or start muttering insults like denier at you. Either of these outcomes is a win for you since the whole conversation is for the benefit of the other people, who will be listening intently to someone who so outrageously, isn’t toeing the popular line. I’ve made more than a few new friends that way and I sometimes think it’s simply because I’m the only one of them who’s not only knocked their local eco bore off their olympian peak of moral superiority but more importantly, managed to shut them up for an evening.

Global warming was a specific threat that failed to materialise, so they moved the threat to something much more vague. Don’t let them get away with it. Every time they try to frame the debate around those words, shift it right back to global warming. When you post or talk with people, use the words global warming rather than climate change. If you don’t, you’re not only an unconscious victim of their propaganda but you’re also failing to exploit a major mistake they made.

So, the answer to the question above is – Global Warming.

©Pointman

Related articles by Pointman :

Some thoughts on fanatics and how to fight them.

I’m not a scientist but …

  

Click for a list of other articles.

Comments
18 Responses to “So, which is it; Global Warming, Climate Disruption or Climate Change?”
  1. mlpinaus says:

    Thank you Pointman for a clear and concise summary of the state of play. Eco-fascism is alive and well in Australia right now with Bob Brown playing a lead role in the war for beliefs. I suspect that right now they are all firing blanks; the charade of the carbon dioxide tax has been undone firstly by the commonsense of the populace and also the poor state of the world economy meaning that people have stopped spending and they will not tolerate another grab at their diminishing pockets.
    Marcus

    • MikeO says:

      Fortunately for us in Australian our government is totally incompetant and sits on a knife edge. They hold power by one seat and generate angst against themselves by the ad hoc way they govern. I have taken to calling them the Ad Hoc goverment run by the Orange Roughie as Blackswan likes to call her. The Roughie is like a dog that actually caught the car and has no idea what to do with it.

      I am in Canberra tomorrow 11 truck convoys are coming here from all over the country to a two day protest and express no confidence in the Goverment. I will be attending.

      • Blackswan says:

        Hello MikeO,

        I pinched the Orange Roughie from Marcus and I’m afraid I’ll have to purloin Ad Hoc Govt from you – it’s a ripper and exactly describes this cobbled-together bunch of liars and thieves-of-democracy and everything they touch.

        Glad you went to the protest, unfortunately it didn’t coincide with my last trip there. The MSM has had a field-day denigrating the entire endeavour. Bet you lurved hearing Brown describe you and your fellow protesters a “pack of whingers” and Labor’s Albanese describe it as the “Convoy of No Consequense”. A more arrogant, belligerent and odious bunch of characters would be hard to imagine.

        When you attended Mike, you were representing me and my family and every other Australian who couldn’t be there but shares your belief in our nation and its future. Thank you.

    • Blackswan says:

      Hi Marcus,

      I don’t think the Gangrenous Brown gives a tinker’s cuss whether people believe the Carbon Scam these days – he’s maneuvered his foot-soldiers into positions of power, he’s wedged the Labor dolts into doing his every bidding, he now controls the Senate and all legislation that passes through it, he is effectively the de facto PM, every State Govt and local Council has incorporated Green policies into every area of their jurisdiction and the Left-wing Teachers’ Union has indoctrinated our children for decades. He would considered the matter “Job Done”.

      I heard a radio interview with him recently wherein he boasted that the Carbon Legislation would be couched in such a way that our economy would hinge on it – if the Opposition think they can repeal the law or rescind the legislation, they would “have another think coming” as to do so would crash the Australian economy and their hands would be tied. He thought that was very funny.

      Boy, would I like to see that sneering smirk wiped off his face.

  2. greg2213 says:

    Love it.🙂 Though I believe “Climate Change” was brought into use long before “Climate Disruption.”

    I completely agree that since “WE’RE ALL GOING TO BURN UP AND DIE!!!” is the meme of the Climate Change crowd that GW is what they mean anyway.

    It hasn’t even been about the science, not really, and apparently aliens care more about our environment than we do.

    Power and money all the way, though I suppose that there might be one or two out there who really believe in the climate catastrophe thing.

  3. MikeO says:

    Pointman thanks for your thoughts and I will not use “climate change” again. I need to burn your line of argument into the brain it is an excellent one. A question here that has spread widely to the point the PM mentioned it as the Bolt question. The question is “If the carbon tax is implemented then how much will it change the temperature”? Most will not answer or say that it is unimportant.

  4. Mack I Avelli says:

    Pointman, Nice work as usual. It’s interesting to note the puzzled looks on peoples faces when they complain about the cold and you come back with the line , ” Just imagine how could it would be if it wasn’t for Global warming!” I now refer to GW as “Irritable Climate Syndrome” when speaking with alarmists, which tends to take the wind from their sails and emits smoke from their ears.

    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome Mack or should that be Prince?

      They don’t “do” humour, GW is too sacred for that sort of thing.

      Pointman

      • Mack I Avelli says:

        Thank you. Mack is fine, I’m an Antipodean Republican. The Church of Climatology’s lack of humour is diminishing as evidenced by Gore’s recent rantings. Hopefully the sign of a terminal decline, even if it is far too slow.
        Mack

  5. Blackswan says:

    Pointman,

    It’s strange how a changed word here or there can completely alter our perception of the world. We are so ready to adopt the latest buzz-word or jargon usually thought up by a Madison Avenue copywriter or a bureaucratic spin-merchant or political ideologue.

    For example; we no longer have a Police Force, it’s a Police Service who don’t catch thieves, murderers or rapists – they are ‘offenders’. If found guilty they are not ‘convicts’ who are locked up in prison, they are ‘incarcerated’ in ‘correctional facilities’. Adjectives become nouns and homosexuals are ‘gays’. Recipients of taxpayer largess are no longer ‘on Welfare’ or ‘the dole’ – they are ‘clients’ who are ‘entitled to Benefits’.

    Not only should we constantly be challenging the Gaia Groupies with Global Warming, it should be Catastrophic-Man-made-Global-Warming because it is the very urgency of the catastrophe they claim is imminent that gives impetus to their Carbon Tax or Climate Act or Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme or the myriad other fanciful means they have to conduct the greatest socialist transfer of wealth that the world has ever seen.

    You’re right Pointman. The Climate Hysterics should not be let off the hook with a none-too-subtle change of language – we should constantly challenge them by going the whole hog and use the full title of the greatest scam in history – Catastrophic-Man-made-Global-Warming. With a little practice it just rolls right off the tongue and should be a constant indictment of their stupidity or chicanery, whichever applies to individuals who perpetuate this Fraud.

    • MikeO says:

      Beats me what goes on with language in these times. I noted recently that a policeman seemed to have forgotten the word he. So the policeman said “The gentleman was found face down in a pool of blood”. Using the word gentleman adds unverifiable information and obfuscates the statement. Why not say he? Could the policeman have been trained to talk that way? A statement that is hidden away in all this language verbiage about global warming is that by reducing the GHG emissions by a tiny bit the climate will change! Put more simply mankind can control the weather! Yes pigs really do fly.

  6. MikeO says:

    I hope you notice this Pointman, I put it here because it does belong here. Your point is very valid about the change to CC instead of GW but it presents me with a problem. I can not say I do not believe in GW since most likely in the 20th century the global average temperature increased by at least .5 of a degree. How much of that is anthropogenic is uncertain and how much of it can be attributed to GHG is also uncertain. So if I am asked what I believe then I left with “I do not believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”. Do you think that is what one should say?

  7. MikeO says:

    OOPS
    So if I am asked what I believe then I AM left with “I do not believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”.

    • Pointman says:

      Hi Mike. I suppose when people talk of “global warming”, the man-made prefix is assumed and therefore unspoken. The world has been warming since the end of the little ice age. On balance, I would modify your words from “I do not believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” to “I do not believe in man-made global warming”.

      Pointman

      • MikeO says:

        Thanks but some is likely to be man made so it gets bogged down like much of this. I thought anthropogenic meant man-made? One thing is indisputable though, in geological history we are looking at the last little bit of time. 100 years is nothing when we consider the last billion. We are at a point in time where the earth is cooler and the CO2 level lower than it has been for a very long time. The last time it was like this according to geologists was at the end of the carboniferous 290 million years ago. So I might say it is likely the world is much colder than it has been for a very long time. An increase in temperature and CO2 is likely a very good thing!

  8. There is no save distance for wind Turbines, NOT GREEN , NOT CHEAP , NOT RELIABLE , and come with a very BAD side EFFECT to People and the ENVIRONMENT. there is Nothing GREEN about TURBINES. SAY NO TO WIND TURBINES .

  9. Carbon500 says:

    I never let them off the hook.
    I always use the phrase ‘dangerous man made global warming’, which nails it perfectly.

  10. I agree completely. We should never let those who lust for power define the debate by using their words. I wrote a similar article here. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/03/the_progressives_are_really_op_1.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: