Global Warming officially rebranded “Climate Change”

It’s official. The term “global warming” was not working out so well for the environmental movement, so instead the term has officially been rebranded “climate change.”

I wrote about the marketing problem for the religion of the far left in July of 2008. (I think I wrote a post before this, but can’t find it.)

Conservatives will be fighting the global warming myths – now rebranded as climate change – for years. No one is disputing that the temperature of the world has increased a little bit. This change in temperature results in changes around the world. Might have less ice at the poles, water temperatures may be a bit warmer and yes, the sea level may rise a little bit.

But to imply that human activity is causing these changes is the ultimate in vanity. The only thing that is worse is implying that we can reverse the changes that are occurring. So, what is the correct temperature for the world anyway? Who gets to determine that number?

Since last summer, scientists have shown that the earth may have been cooling for the last few years, but the rebranding efforts started more than a year ago.

John Broder in the New York Times writes about the image problem that environmentalists have.

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders. …

… “Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.

That’s right. They certainly would not want to burden the sheeple with facts, science, technology and the economic impact of fighting the natural climate change cycle of the earth.

You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!