[llambda]

> but the 800-pound gorilla in the room is climate change. Where I live, winters are 4.5 degrees warmer.

The George W. Bush administration (e.g. via Frank Luntz) advocated for the term "climate change" because Republican strategists wanted to leverage perceived uncertainty about global warming as much as possible.[0]

This is a PR effort that seems to have largely succeeded (both in adoption and its goals) and it's unfortunate that when we are literally talking about warming we adopt a term that is less precise; you are talking about global warming here.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.c...

[Spivak]

This is an odd telling of history because the term climate change was also pushed by the scientific community as a more precise alternative because people didn't grasp how global warming could make some places colder with larger temperature swings in both directions.

It's conflating two things, Luntz and Republicans at the time did want to push a narrative of uncertainty surrounding greenhouse gas emissions and they wanted to switch terminology in a pro-environmental move because of the existing connotations surrounding global warming and "environmentalists" made it hard to get any Republican support.

[ryandrake]

You're not going to gain support/understanding for something, from people who have made up their minds, simply by changing the name of the thing. The same people who were sending chain E-mails in the 90s that said "How could it be Global Warming if it's so cold outside! LOL" are now posting Facebook memes that say "Duh, Climate has always been Changing!" Any new name someone gives it will be equally ridiculed, because its opponents don't care what it's called.