They might not have had to do this if it wasn’t a) a hyper-partisan political issue and b) an actual scientific discipline dependent on facts and figures and the scientific method (there are a very few who do treat it as a science in practice, but no one wants to listen to them beat down the Cult of Climastrology)
The New Language of Climate Change
Leading climate scientists and meteorologists are banking on a new strategy for talking about climate change: Take the politics out of it.
That means avoiding the phrase “climate change,†so loaded with partisan connotations as it is. Stop talking about who or what is most responsible. And focus instead on what is happening and how unusual it is—and what it is costing communities.
That was a main takeaway at the American Meteorological Society’s annual meeting this month, where top meteorologists and environmental scientists from around the country gathered to hear the latest research on record rainfall and drought, debate new weather prediction models and digest all manner of analysis on climatic mutations.
Too late. They decided that it was mostly/solely caused by Mankind, regardless of not having the scientific proof, and decided to run with it. Hence the change from global warming to climate change, and attempts at things like climate disruption and such. It’s so political now that even if it was truly real, as in the man-caused part, you’d never get the skeptics to believe it, and never get the Warmists to make the big changes in their own lives.
It’s dead. The very fact that they have to discuss this says all the world about it.
Educating the public and policymakers about climate change at a time when elected leaders are doubling down on denying that it is happening at all or that humans are responsible for it demands a new lexicon, conference attendees told me—one that can effectively narrate the overwhelming scientific evidence but not get sucked into the controversy fueled most prominently by President Donald Trump.
Which means it’s political.
