The Politics of Language (of Global Warming)

So I'm not going to talk about health-care reform. Everybody else is talking about it, and I'm not very knowledgeable about what's in the bill to begin with.

Instead, I'm going to take you back to a little over a month ago when the East Coast was covered with the white, fluffy stuff - no, not purebred, Persian cats - in the great "Snowpocalypse."

Conservatives were thrilled. Quoth Sean Hannity, "It’s the most severe winter storm in years, which would seem to contradict Al Gore’s hysterical global warming theories." And then there's this:

Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is a funny, funny man.

This flies in the face of both logic AND science. First, it doesn't make sense to draw conclusions about a broad (in space and in time) pattern based on a single event. Second, even if you could reach a larger conclusion based on this event, it is not clear that "global warming is a hoax" would be that conclusion. Because of increased moisture in the air, more severe snowstorms are exactly what you would expect from global warming. (h/t)

But part of the problem lies in the term "global warming" itself. A relatively cool summer may be partly behind the public's decreased belief in global warming. Of course, the average temperature will not monotonically increase year after year; there will be some natural variation. However, someone might infer from the phrase "global warming" that it would, and they'll change their opinion with the weather forecast.

But what is the alternative? "Climate change," the heir apparent, is simultaneously clearer (This is a trend in climate, not weather.) and vaguer. (How is it changing?) This vagueness may be an advantage: an increase in severe snowstorms would be more compatible with "climate change." However, neither imply a sense of danger or urgency. But "climate chaos" or "global weirding" both sound silly, and I doubt either will catch on. "Global warming" or "climate change" is the phrase that we are stuck with.