It was an important clarification which got hijacked. The clarification is that some local climates might not meaningfully warm, they might even cool, but will experience other drastic changes. Even as the global temperature rises.
It’s a trick because nuance is easily exploited by people craven enough to exploit it. But it’s an important distinction for people who don’t understand why they’re having colder or wetter winters in temperate climate regions (example picked out of my locality).
I dislike "climate change" too, because it carries the idea that we can change it back. I think "global warming" was fine, but if i had to pick something, it would be "climate drift" i think.
Not sure why you are getting downvoted. Frank Luntz was the republican PR pollster that advised the Bush administration to replace "global warming" with "climate change" in all White house documents and speeches.
The idea was to make it sound less severe, to please the Oil&Gas lobby. For the most part it worked as you now have environmentalist on the other side of the fence using it too.
I agree with the argument that climate change is maybe not accurate as some regions might cool as well. I would prefer "climate emergency" if I was in charge of the PR.
“Climate drift” sounds like the name of an AI bot, made specifically to create a narrative that underplays the seriousness and gravity of the extremely dangerous and deadly feedback loops that are appearing now in the global climate system.
Drift carry the idea that we cannot change it back.
I don't think it underplay anything. I understand that we must act. But with this name your arguments won't be heard.
The climate denialists of today are those believing that if it gets too much, we will have to do some efforts for a decade and boom, back to 1970 climate. I want to engage that belief, hence 'climate drift'
The implication of “great extinction” is that we’re seeing a mass extinction event which we aren’t. At least not on the level of the major ones usually discussed.
I disagree. Climate always changes. Constantly. Warming is just one part of the climate change. Many other things change too so climate change is a lot broader term for this.
Weather changes. Climate is the accumulated average across years. It’s “yesterday it rained here” vs “we got an average of x litters of water per square meter during this month in the last ten years”. Climate changes, but by its own nature it should change really gradually.
The point is that weather is changing so much that even climate is changing quickly now. Or, in a car metaphor: not only our velocity is increasing, our acceleration is also increasing m.
I think a stronger word like “climate emergency” would have been more appropriate.
Weather changes. Climate is the accumulated average across years. It’s “yesterday it rained here” vs “we got an average of x litters of water per square meter during this month in the last ten years”. Climate changes, but by its own nature it should change really gradually.
The point is that weather is changing so much that even climate is changing quickly now. Or, in a car metaphor: not only our velocity is increasing, our acceleration is also increasing.
I think a stronger word like “climate emergency” would have been more appropriate.
Overall temperature increase is the part that is most directly caused by our activities, and which in turn causes all those other changes, so I think it's fair to emphasize that.
Too subjective. Objectively climate has always been changing and will always be changing. Earth has seen much warmer climate and much colder climate and everything in between since formation. Your definition of issues don’t really make sense unless it’s subjective because objectively climate change is just is, not good not bad, just fact and consequence of complicated system. Even in the past many centuries, if you look at history, plenty of empires fell because of climate change(floods, droughts, etc). We are accelerating the change but it would still be changing even if we didn’t exist.
