Decades ago we were first introduced to the threat of “global warming” that would soon have our ice caps melting and flooding our cities with rising oceans. The problem? Well, the globe hasn’t really been warming all that much.
So the environmentalists switched tactics. You see, global warming was never just about warming. Global warming is about climate change, you see. This allowed them to claim that any long-term change in weather patterns was the result of human pollution.
Except, “climate change” hasn’t exactly been a winner either. So now Obama’s “science czar” John Holdren wants another branding change. This time the term is “climate disruption” which will no doubt have the environmentalists claiming that any odd weather at all is caused, at least in part, by your SUV:
Since Mother Nature hasn’t cooperated with their global warming predictions, and “climate change” is not exactly getting the traction in the media they desire, they’ve come up with a scary new term to explain changes in the weather, Goreham writes:
“Last month, John Holdren, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, urged everyone to start using the term “global climate disruption.” Holdren claimed that the term “global warming” is a “dangerous misnomer” for a complicated problem.
The problem is that Mother Nature refuses to cooperate and run a fever, as Al Gore would say. The beauty of “global climate disruption” is that it’s so generic and ambiguous, cap-and-traders can cite virtually any unpredicted weather pattern as “proof” that humans are causing catastrophic changes to the Earth’s atmosphere.
It’s all about lowering the bar.
It makes me thinking of the way we’ve defined environmental disasters down to the point where “disasters” happen every single year. Those of us who live in agriculture states know how this works. If we have a rainy year, or a dry year, or a dry and rainy year or any sort of out-of-the-norm weather (if you could even define what “normal” is to begin with) the politicians declare a “natural disaster” has occurred and everyone gets in line for government relief.
They’ve defined “disaster” down to something politically convenient so that it can reliably be used to assure big government payoffs. The enviro-activists are doing the same thing. They’re defining “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever you want to call it down to the point where everything is “climate change” and thus everything is support for their way of thinking.