Global Warming Totally Wasn’t Rebranded As Climate Change Or Something

And all you people making this claim are crazy and wrong

There is no evidence that ‘global warming’ was rebranded as ‘climate change’

Climate change denial is a moving target. In the past, it consisted of a fully fledged denial of any scientific evidence that the world was warming. More recently, it has evolved into a creative mix of strategies. Deniers today often contradict part of the scientific basis for climate change, while pinning the blame for the rest – anything completely undeniable, even to them – on developing countries, particularly India and China.

Interestingly, the people who Believe in anthropogenic climate change are utter hypocrites and refuse to modify their own lives. What does that say about them?

Over the past few weeks, a new figure has emerged: Naomi Seibt. Seibt, the so-called anti-Greta Thunberg, a 19-year-old from Münster in Germany, rapidly gained media attention for her call for “climate realism”, claiming that climate change science really is not science at all, and for this reason, there is no need to panic. The young activist immediately caught the eye of the lively US denier scene and was – just months after publishing her first YouTube video – invited to speak at the high-profile Conservative Political Action Conference 2020 (CPAC) and made a member of the Heartland Institute, a thinktank known for its ties to the fossil-fuel industry.

What was perhaps most interesting, was her use of a recurrent argument on the supposed “historical rebranding” of climate change. The theory goes as follows: in the past, everyone used the term global warming to describe this phenomenon, but seeing that the planet was, in fact, not heating, global warming was “rebranded” to climate change in a sophisticated cover-up.

Clearly, this hypothesis is flawed, as the Earth is unequivocally warming. Despite this, the idea appears to be widely held in the denialist scene – to take one prominent example, Donald Trump tweeted it more than 20 times in the two years before he became president.

Except, they did use to primarily call it global warming, as in anthropogenic global warming, where the initials AGW came from.

To find out whether there is some truth underlying the “rebranding theory”, I analysed 30 years (1990-2019) of data containing the terms global warming and climate change from five sources: the academic literature repositories Scopus and Web of Science, the British newspapers The Times and The Guardian, and the articles published by the Heartland Institute itself.

This conveniently leaves out the scaremongering of the late 1980’s, but, check out his charts: they clearly show a marked increase in the use of climate change in the early 2000’s, at a point where the Great Pause was occurring, and people had been tuning out to global warming. The use of climate change allowed the Cult of Climastrology to blame everything on carbon pollution and Mankind.

Climate change deniers are known to often misrepresent innocuous facts and use them to their advantage, and this case was no exception: a simple evolution in language was transformed into an unfounded conspiracy theory. While the latter was easy to debunk by looking at the data, these sorts of arguments are dangerous smokescreens, designed to shift the focus of the debate away from the need for decisive measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Whatever we decide to call it, climate change is happening, and it calls for urgent action.

Oh, this totally convinces me! I need to give up my freedom and money in order to stop carbon pollution created earthquakes and volcanoes.

Oh, hey, you know what’s missing as usual? Any proof that the minor climatic changes are caused mostly/solely by Mankind.