It's been called (anthropogenic) climate change because of insipid replies like yours. It's like my daughter saying that's she having social interaction because she's looking at tiktok, "and it's called social media."
The name is based on an early paper from the 50s [0]. Global warming is an Algore rebranding that got lots of public awareness. Once the science took over it was back to climate change again. But yeah you are right. A lot of people just attack the used language and then shout "deception" when people are just talking colloquially because explaining everything from scratch gets very tiring eventually.
The problem with climate change deniers is that they refuse everything so you have to actually explain everything from scratch time and time again. That's part of the strategy. Look for tiny mistakes and then deny the whole thing.
Clarifying that one is talking about anthropogenic climate change instead of just "regular" climate change is a pretty good example. Ultimately the difference is meaningless because non anthropogenic climate change is insignificant on human time scales. Give me 500 years to prepare and I won't care. Give me 50 years and I will always fail.
The worst part is that I don't even see any long term benefits to denying climate change. Even if it was completely fictional I still don't see any reason to not adopt technologies that would ultimately reduce the impact of climate change. Coal is a dying industry because of the economics. Oil is too precious to burn in cars (planes and ships are good use cases though). There is a general lack of investments to put central bank money into.
Oh, did I just say "climate change denier"? I obviously mean "climate change skeptics". (I am awaiting a response that skeptic is also wrong)
The problem with climate change deniers is that they refuse everything so you have to actually explain everything from scratch time and time again. That's part of the strategy. Look for tiny mistakes and then deny the whole thing.
Clarifying that one is talking about anthropogenic climate change instead of just "regular" climate change is a pretty good example. Ultimately the difference is meaningless because non anthropogenic climate change is insignificant on human time scales. Give me 500 years to prepare and I won't care. Give me 50 years and I will always fail.
The worst part is that I don't even see any long term benefits to denying climate change. Even if it was completely fictional I still don't see any reason to not adopt technologies that would ultimately reduce the impact of climate change. Coal is a dying industry because of the economics. Oil is too precious to burn in cars (planes and ships are good use cases though). There is a general lack of investments to put central bank money into.
Oh, did I just say "climate change denier"? I obviously mean "climate change skeptics". (I am awaiting a response that skeptic is also wrong)
[0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490....