From "A dangerous shift in Obama’s ‘climate change’ rhetoric":
When the president moves away from talking about climate change and talks more generally about energy, as he did in the State of the Union, calling for “an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,” the impact is more than just political.The problem? This clown, not that long ago, would have written the same thing about the term "global warming." But it was his pals who abandoned that expression, in favor of the more nebulous "climate change," in order to better fit realities to the end-of-the-world predictions they had then been making to that point in time. When the globe stopped warming - as it did in 1996 - they made the political decision to start calling the "problem" "climate change." Now he's worried that the term may lose some of its meaning.
Calling climate change by another name creates limits of its own. The way we talk about the problem affects how we deal with it. And though some new wording may deflect political heat, it can’t alter the fact that, “climate change” or not, the climate is changing.
As it was surely to do, genius.
Earth to assistant professor in the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder: When the science lives or dies by the rhetoric that proponents associate with it, you lose.
Find gainful employment, why don't you?