The usual scientific term for what I refer to as âclimate chaosâ is âclimate change.â Scientific preference is a strong argument in favor of using the latter term, and climate scientists prefer it to the term âglobal warmingâ because it encompasses changes besides average surface temperature, such as rising sea levels, increased floods and droughts, and stronger storms.
But in my opinion it encompasses too much. After all, denier blather about a new ice age also describes a (discredited) type of climate change. It is rather like referring to cancer as âcell change.â (Cancer certainly is one kind of cell change.) Also a lot of delayers like the term âclimate changeâ because it is emotionally neutral, and it helps them frame the debate they way they want.
What about the term âglobal warmingâ?
As mentioned above, scientists donât like it because it describes only one result of the disaster we are creating. On the plus side, it is a known âbrand,â and most people know it is not a good thing. On the minus side, the flaw that most climate scientists dislike also makes it vulnerable to delayers who use every snowy day as an excuse to exclaim, âha ha! Where is your global warming now?â
What about Amory Lovinsâ term âglobal weirdingâ? Accurate and a good crack, but I think it would be a mistake to make a joke the primary term for a topic of serious discussion. âClimate disruptionâ is better. Itâs both accurate and a description with a negative connotation. But I think it has too many syllables for maximum emotional punch. âClimate chaosâ carries almost the same connotation, but to me comes across as a stronger term.
Obviously this is a very subjective judgment. And while I donât want to obsess about terminology, names do matter. What term (not limited to the choices discussed above) do you prefer, and why?