I know, right?
My assumption is that the very gradual drift from using "(anthropogenic) global warming" to "climate change" will continue. Then, when icebergs are clogging our harbours and our daily commutes look like an episode of Ice Road Truckers, the MSM will continue gaslighting the public with statements like "We never said it was getting warmer, we said the climate was changing. ...and that it's almost as worrisome as the twelve million killed at Auschwitz."
On the admittedly rare occasions when the topic comes up for me in the real world, I make it a point to stop whomever uses the term in mid sentence to clarify what it is they mean. If they say, "climate change" I ask whether they mean man made climate change, so they can't get away with conflating the two terms. "Climate change" and "anthropogenic climate change" are two entirely different things.
If it turns out the person I've engaged with is a dullard, I try to have them be the ones who initiate the use of the term "man-made", so if I want the quick exit, I can browbeat and scold them for their use of toxic gendered language.
If it turns out the person I've engaged with is a dullard, I try to have them be the ones who initiate the use of the term "man-made", so if I want the quick exit, I can browbeat and scold them for their use of toxic gendered language.
Once I get them to clarify that they mean man-made change, I ask them to show some evidence of heir claim before we discuss it further. I refuse to concede the point at the outset of the conversation.
(post is archived)