Easier and sloppier. I understand it is easier to employ sloppy terminology and reasoning but it really is a tendency that must be fought while purporting to do or report science. This is particularly the case for highly ideologically charged sciences like those that are relevant to climate change. In the context of the previous sentence it makes sense to use the term ‘climate change’. But when we are talking about specific theories, hypotheses and supposed evidence for man-made forcings, and here I’m talking about CO2 induced global warming and its consequences, then it really is sloppy to throw around the term ‘climate change’ just because it’s easier. But, then, I find that ideologues love to use vague and sloppy language to push their agenda. Precision is a handicap here. It’s far easier to throw around vague terms that are given a scary connotation and meant to induce guilt.
I guess I just don’t see what’s so scary about the term “climate change.” I mean, the entire purpose of adopting it was that it wasn’t scary, and it was more precise than the popular term: “global warming.” It’s important to have a single term which refers to the cumulative effect of the phenomenon of interest, which is, essentially, a pattern of changes in the climate of the Earth. The term “climate change” refers to exactly what you would expect it to. Nothing fancy or political is going on. I don’t see why you’re worried about people attaching significance to a term which suggests nothing more than that “the Earth’s climate is expected to chang in a number of ways as a result of human activities.” Are you objecting to the fact that people are concerned about climate change? If they are, it’s because climate change is concerning. There doesn’t always have to be a conspiracy going on. The climate is changing, and people are referring to the changes in the climate as “climate change.” What on Earth is so imprecise about that?
I don’t like the use of the term ‘climate change’. It is a vague and sloppy term that was deliberately put forth by environmentalists as a tool for propaganda. Terms with more precision should be used.
So it came back and bit them you know where. Who exactly originated the use of the term doesn’t change the fact that environmentalists and the media jumped on it and twisted it to their purposes. … It borders on tautology because climate by definition is always changing. It’s practically meaningless, particularly as far as policy is concerned, and can be applied to any environmental phenomenon as a vague scare term.
But, then, I find that ideologues love to use vague and sloppy language to push their agenda. Precision is a handicap here. It’s far easier to throw around vague terms that are given a scary connotation and meant to induce guilt.
I’m sure you can think of something more scientifically precise. If you can’t, then what are you doing presenting yourself as such an expert on climate science? Are you not a climate scientist yourself? But even if you aren’t, surely you are familiar enough with the science and scientific methodology to provide a more precise term. Indeed, someone so concerned with science ought to be more concerned with precision in things like this.
Geoffrey, (i) you’re mistaken about who introduced the more neutral term “climate change” and why (not “environmentalists”, “the media” or “ideologues” to induce guilt, but quite a different set of rent-seekers and handlers to shrug off any implications of responsibility) and (ii) you have no suggestions as for a scientifically more precise term, just (iii) surprising slings at me - for asking you a seriously meant question about improving the debate and for doing some of the heavy lifting on the blog of clarifying what the science is (about which I have never presented myself as anything more than another layman) - and a (iv) generalized whining about the undefined “alarmism” of those whom you apparently disagree with.
No judgments here; just a mirror.
So anyway, to get back to the conversation I was trying to start earlier, I’ve been building on my initial post on my blog, and I think I’m (slowly) making some progress. Here are the link to the running discussion:
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Non-Identity%20Problem
Donny, there’s a blog post up at Andy Revkin’s/NYT’s Dot Earth that touches on this: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/what-does-the-present-owe-the-future/.