Here’s positive proof that any well-meaning endeavor and good intention can quickly turn into insincere and downright insulting venture.
Case in point: Global warming as a result of human activity has been debated for decades. We all know and have heard the arguments on both sides. Almost everyone has formed an opinion.
Sir Nicholas Stern advises UK government about the economic threat posed by global warming. According to a recent article in the Guardian, Stern labels climate change deniers as “ridiculous” and akin to “flat-earthers”. → source
In 2007, Ellen Goodman of The Boston Globe wrote an op-ed, stating: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” → source
Seriously? I personally don’t claim to thoroughly understand climate change, and I’m among a minority of people who do not have strong opinions on this issue one way or another. But I’m fairly certain that those who genuinely do not believe in global warming (as a result of human activities) cannot be compared with flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers.
Also, notice the clever heading of the articles. It’s all about ‘climate change’ not ‘global warming’. Everyone knows that earth’s climate has changed by itself due to natural forces for millennia and long before the presence of humans. Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to say millennia. It can’t be any longer than 6,000 years, of course! That was back when humans saddled dinosaurs and rode them like cowboys. If you believe that, please purchase your Creation Museum tickets here.
The point is that the old ‘global warming’ term always carried the implication that the current situation was a direct result of human activity. The new term ‘climate change’ insinuates natural causes; therefore, skepticism suggests mental disability.
Nice try.
RSS Feed This Blog
Logical Complex Infinitive 
In my opinion, people that deny ‘global warming’, and that humans have a direct impact on it, are about as crazy as flat-earthers and those that deny the Holocaust ever happened.
I think calling it ‘climate change’ is a convenient way to avoid arguing—which seems weird since most people smart enough to call it something different for this reason are usually the ones who want to debate! Its semantics, and the real argument takes a back seat.
I believe on a large scale that nobody will ever truly know for sure, and so it turns into a belief argument, and even deeper, who thinks who is smarter than who.
The term climate change is used, because the climate as a whole changes, whether human induced or not. It is much more general and than the term ‘global warming’. This is important for two reasons:
a)
The climate is a system that has more variables than just temperature. Climate scientists and economists expect, for instance, water related stress on humans and other species, to be much higher than temperature related stress (flooding from melting glaciers in the Himalaya, droughts in East Africa etc.).
b)
Global warming as a term refers to a potential mean shift in global mean temperature. Yet, the second order changes in regional variability are generally considered more important: That’s to say, global mean temperature might rise by 4 degrees over the next 100 years (but who is affected by a change in the global mean temperature??), but the temperature over Greenland might be six degrees higher or not higher at all. We have to expect much more frequent and heavier extreme events.
Both points could be subsumed under the heading ‘global warming’, but arguably ‘climate change’ simply does a better job.