JLF”s Roy Cordato provides an update on the verbal sleight of hand that is being used successfully by Leftist environmentalists.
There is no public policy debate in which the language has been manipulated more than in the case of global warming. In fact, the language has been changed to such an extent that the words being used, when viewed objectively, have little to do with what either the science or the public policy concerns are actually about.
There are three expressions that are now so ingrained as part of the conversation that even skeptics have succumbed to (mis)using them. The use of these terms is part of a propaganda drive meant to mis-educate and distract the public on both the science and policy of global warming. The three terms are climate change, carbon, and emissions.
First and most importantly, the expression used to identify the problem has been subtly changed from the accurate and specific “global warming” to the inaccurate and general “climate change.” From the perspective of the propagandists, this is the most important of the language changes.
The question of whether or not the planet is warming is a factual one that is borne out, or not, by the temperature data. The answer to the global warming question may be yes or no. On the other hand, the answer to the question of whether or not the climate is changing is always yes. The climate has never been unchanging and never will be.
By conflating “global warming” and “climate change,” propagandists like President Obama can refer to people who point to the data to argue that global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 15 years as “flat earthers” and “climate change deniers.” Of course, such accusations would be true if the issue were indeed climate change. But let’s be clear; it is not.
