Why would we ?combat climate change??

The primary in-house global warming alarmist at TIME, Bryan Walsh, dutifully reports this week:

Despite the positive early signs from the White House, some greens still fret about the future and wonder whether Obama’s preference for cooperation over confrontation means he will back away from the truly radical action needed to combat climate change.

This is a case in which the changing language of this debate raises an interesting point. When Walsh?s ?greens? talked about ?global warming,? it was easier to understand the goal ? at least the stated goal. To ?combat global warming,? we would take steps to reduce or end global warming.

Unfortunately for the alarmists, none of the policies they?ve pursued to reach that stated goal would have any noticeable impact on global warming. That?s an assessment based on their own projections.

Now that they?ve substituted ?climate change? for ?global warming? (perhaps because there?s been no global warming in recent years), it?s harder to pin down the stated goal.

Isn?t the climate always changing? Won?t it change no matter what we do? Why would we combat that change? With what end in mind?

Don?t count on Bryan Walsh to ask those questions.