The Fallacy of "Climate Change"

By Hawkeye®

"Climate Change" seems to be the new buzzword these days among environmentalists and politicians who were formerly the proponents of "Global-Warming". Unfortunately, the term "climate change" is a meaningless phrase. The climate is always changing, about as often as the weather in fact. Some years are warm, while others are cool. Some years are dry, while others are wet. There are El Niños, and there are La Niñas. There have been ice ages and warm periods throughout Earth's history. And the term "Global Climate Change" is not much better. That simply tells us that the climate is changing everywhere in the world. Yeah, and so...?

The term "climate change" is in many ways akin to the term "seasonal variation". It tells us that something is happening, but it doesn't tell us how or why. Of course we know that the weather changes with the seasons, but what does it mean when the term "seasonal variation" is applied to such subjects as 'sporting goods sales' or 'manufacturing labor positions'. HOW do sporting goods sales vary with the season? WHY do manufacturing labor positions vary with the season? The term "seasonal variation" by itself is meaningless.

Liekwise, the term "climate change" by itself is meaningless. HOW is the climate changing? And WHY is it changing? Well, the proponents of "climate change" would have us believe that the global climate is getting warmer (that's the HOW), and that this is being caused by the man-made emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere (that's the WHY).

So what's the deal with this phrase "climate change" then? Why not just use the phrase "Man-Made (or 'Anthropogenic') Global Warming"? Why are we now starting to hear greater use of the term "climate change", which is vague and unspecific, while the term "Man-Made Global-Warming" is so much more informative?

First and foremost, it is because many use the term "climate change" in an effort to obfuscate. Most proponents of "climate change" do in fact believe in man-made global-warming, but it's pretty hard to talk about "global-warming" when global temperatures have not increased for a decade. Or, when 2007 witnessed the single fastest decrease in global temperature ever recorded. Or, when NOAA says that the winter of 2007-2008 was the coldest for the planet in seven years. Or, when thousands of people died and millions of livestock were lost to this winter's freezing temperatures. Or, when snow cover in the northern hemisphere set an all time record in January, followed by above-average snow cover in February.

And all of this while man-made CO2 emissions continue unabated and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been steadily rising. Therefore, when it makes no sense to talk about global-cooling being the logical result of global-warming, it's time to start changing the vocabulary. When faced with global-cooling, it's time to start talking about how global-warming is "erratic" and "not continuous". Of course, none of this "erratic" and "non-continuous" behavior has ever been incorporated into the computer models used by the alarmists who predict our doom. Since one cannot predict the unpredictable or the erratic, it's better not to talk about them lest they diminish the respectability of one's gloomy forecasting methods.

Second, the term "climate change" conveys a feeling of dread without conveying any other information. "Climate Change?... Ohh, that's BAD!... Must be stopped at all costs!" And by not conveying any further information about the nature or the cause of "climate change" (ie, man-made, CO2-induced, global-warming), this also leaves the door open for future discussions about climate change which might not be related to one or more of the current range of culprits (ie, "man-made", "CO2-induced", or "global-warming"). It is a weasel-way of dodging the facts while at the same time leaving one's options open.

If you believe in global-warming... fine. If you believe that global-warming is man-made... fine. If you believe that CO2 drives global-warming... fine. Then just SAY that. And then PROVE it. And then take your lumps if the facts don't support your beliefs. But if things aren't going your way, don't try to change the argument, or the vocabulary, or the facts. That's not what scientists do. Scientists establish facts. Media outlets produce hype. And politicians create "spin". We need to hear more from the scientists and less from the media and the politicians.