Climate what?

We were talking recently about the exhausting task of updating terminology in order to stay among the elect in the field of woke.  The Guardian style guide is right there to help us:

The new terms aren't mandatory (yet).  This is just a heads-up to would-be members of the elect, like a warning that the network will be down between 4 and 5 pm for updating.  The true woke don't wait for written orders, anyway.  They are exquisitely sensitive to more vague and preliminary currents than that: a frown, a slight turning away, a decrease in invitations to the right parties, signs that your own head could be next on the chopping block.

I applaud "climate crisis," with its built-in urgency scrubbed of any specifics, and "climate breakdown" is admirably content-free, but what's with "climate heating"?  I thought the whole idea of "climate change" was to avoid the embarrassing lack of evidence for increased Btu's.  Heating is such a stark term, no nuance, no subtlety.  If "change" sounds too cuddly or Obama-like, surely they could try "disruption" or "shock."  We've had a good run with "trauma" and "bombshell" lately.  Climate annihilation?  Climate Ragnarok?  Climate weasels-ripped-my-face?


Grim said...

Ragnarok is supposed to feature ice giants, so that one will work if it turns out we're heading into a mini ice age instead.

E Hines said...

I'm of two minds on this change in lexicon effort. Either the Guardian is branching out into satire--and it did a creditable job on its virginal foray--or the climate hysteria is growing as us stupid plebes start to become aware of the facts and of the nature of the climatistas' hype.

Eric Hines

Texan99 said...

Ice giants, maybe. Once you abandon a causal theory and concentrate on unspecified disruption, the threat is conveniently malleable, adaptable to any data that may arrive in the post. Nothing inconveniently falsifiable, nothing to invalidate funding. Lately the focus is on "extreme" weather rather than any particular kind. There's no credible evidence that the weather is any more extreme than it ever was, but any unusual weather is a little scary and often damaging. No matter where i happens, the chances are good it's been a while since the locals saw anything quite like that. All grist for the mill.

We've had a wet year here. It's not as wet as 2005, when we were trying to build, but people tell me several times a week they're convinced it's the wettest year since some random date, maybe back in the 1970s, maybe some other time. It's pretty much fireside tales, mythmaking.

E Hines said...

Nothing inconveniently falsifiable

And the next assault on the lexicon: "You calling us liars!?"

Eric Hines

Assistant Village Idiot said...

If general warming were shown to decrease weather extremes, does anyone think it would then be embraced? Of course not. The point is to arouse fear so that the populace desires rescue; to punish political opponents or those who might be tempted to support them; to signal righteousness.

The new language does a good job at those.

E Hines said...

If general warming were shown to decrease weather extremes, does anyone think it would then be embraced?

Actually, yes. Any deviation from the perceived norm will be sold as a terrible effect of global warming. That's the nature of the hysteria being manufactured.

Eric Hines

Texan99 said...

If CO2 could be said to decrease weather extremes, we'd be hearing about the loss of climate diversity and the heat-death of the universe.

raven said...

"climate" is the unified field theory of control freaks. It is the biggest umbrella they could find -since all human action , in theory, can affect climate, than there is no regulatory stone that can be left unturned.

I will see you all at the Zappadrome, after the climate weasels rain blood.

douglas said...

Have I mentioned lately that you guys are great? This post and thread have been particularly enjoyable reading. I've nothing clever to add.