The name game

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
William Shakespeare

Perhaps those who do not believe in global warming/climate change/climate disruption have been going at it wrong. When these heretics are exposed, they are called “deniers.”

What is it a denier denies? Do they deny global warming? Not really. The temperature has fluctuated up and down since the Earth settled into an orbit around the sun; both cooling and warming, but warming cannot be denied. For exactly the same reason, deniers do not deny climate change; but climate disruption is a different animal. No one knows exactly what it means. The definition of disruption is an unwanted break, a suspension, or a state of disorder. An unwanted break, suspension or state of disorder, in a chaotic system like climate, would be . . . order. Has anyone seen any order in the climate? Disruption is the normal state of chaos, so climate disruption would be an oxymoron. Deniers have not addressed climate disruption, but they could probably deny it as a description of anything climate related.

So what is it a denier denies? Deniers deny the existence of any proof that manmade CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming.

By contrast, those who believe such proof exists are called “warmers/believers.” It would seem that “warmer and believer” are milder identifiers than “denier,” but “denier” is quiet accurate for those who deny the existence of proof of manmade CO2’s catastrophic influence. Perhaps the mistake is in the identifiers: warmer and believer.

If the warmers and believers can change the name of their perceived problem from global warming, to climate change, to climate disruption, why can’t the deniers change the name of the warmers/believers to “no-proofers,” or “no-debaters?”

At present, the warmers say that proof exists, but they cling to a consensus argument rather than produce any proof. As no-proofers or no-debaters, the consensus argument would fall flat. The only way to overcome the no-proofer or no-debater name would be to produce proof of manmade CO2’s impact, or openly debate the merits of their case. To date, no proof, other than failed computer models, has been forthcoming, and their extremely rare debates have ended in disaster.

Published in: on October 2, 2010 at 1:39 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: